An electron is accelerated by a potential difference of U e = 1 mV . It then enters a region with an inhomogeneous magnetic field B ( x , y , z ) generated by a system of coils carrying currents I 1 , I 2 … .
We then perform a similar experiment with a proton. We first reverse the current in all the coils generating the magnetic field. We then accelerate the proton with a potential difference of U p and it enters the region with the magnetic field. What must U p be in Volts so that the trajectory of the proton is the same as that of the electron? Don't forget any sign changes!
Hint: Compute d s d v v , where s is the arc length along the trajectory:
s = ∫ 0 t v ( t ′ ) d t ′ .
Details and assumptions
The proton to electron mass ratio is approximately 6 π 5 .
This section requires Javascript.
You are seeing this because something didn't load right. We suggest you, (a) try
refreshing the page, (b) enabling javascript if it is disabled on your browser and,
finally, (c)
loading the
non-javascript version of this page
. We're sorry about the hassle.
Hi you must have meant d s = ∣ v ∣ 2 d t = ∣ v ∣ d t , that seems obvious even for someone who has learnt only distance = speed*time :P
Log in to reply
Hi Jatin, I'm not sure we disagree. I'm assuming the following things to be true in my notation: v 2 = v ⋅ v = ∣ v ∣ 2 .
How can i use images in my solution?
Hi Josh!
Can you please explain why do we compute d s d v v and state that this should be same for both the charged particles?
Thanks! :)
Log in to reply
Sure. The idea is that if two particles have the same trajectory, and we walk the same distance along each trajectory, then we should be directed through the same set of points in space.
If the paths had the same trajectory at the same points in time, we could insist that d s d v be equal for both particles. However, this would tell us that the proton and the electron need to have the same ratio of charge to mass which isn't possible.
In looking at v v we're looking at the geometry of the particle trajectory in 3-space independent of time. The reason is that v contains information about directional changes as well as information about the timescale over which the directional changes happen. By normalizing it to itself, we're removing the time content and end up with a vector that simply tells us where to point depending on how far we've gone along the trajectory, regardless of how fast we're moving on the trajectory.
Log in to reply
Thanks for the detailed reply Josh! :)
However, I still fail to understand the third paragraph. In the present case, the speed is constant so the velocity vector, v , is ∣ v ∣ i s . The "time content" you talk about is contained in the unit vector, i s , right? But you still have it in your final equation.
I think I miss one more thing, what does "normalizing it to itself" means?
Thanks again!
Log in to reply
@Pranav Arora – i s determines which direction to point the particle in depending on how far along the path it currently is. That has no dependence on how quickly it's going along the path.
We can see that if v is written out using the chain rule:
v = d t d x = d s d x d t d s = i s v
So i s just has spatial information.
@Pranav Arora – A curve r = r ( s ) , parametrised by arc-length, can be described by what are called the Serret-Frenet equations. There are three mutually perpendicular unit vectors to be considered. The first is the unit tangent t = d s d r , the second is the unit normal n , where d s d t = κ n , where κ is the curvature of the curve. Finally there is the unit binormal b = t ∧ n .
These vectors satisfy the Serret-Frenet equations d s d t d s d n d s d b = = = κ n − κ t + τ b − τ n where τ is called the torsion of the curve.
The point of the differential equation in this case is that v 1 v = t is the unit tangent of the trajectory, and so the differential equation tells us that κ n = p q t ∧ B an equation which is totally time-independent. Thus the proton and the electron will have the same trajectory provided that the magnetic field is reversed and they start with the same momentum.
The equation of motion for a particle of mass m and charge e moving in a magnetic field B is m v ˙ = e v ∧ B This implies that v ⋅ v ˙ = 0 , and hence v = ∣ v ∣ is constant. Thus v v ˙ = d t d ( v v ) = d s d ( v v ) × d t d s = v d s d ( v v ) and hence, if we define j = v v then d s d j = v 2 1 v ˙ = m v 2 1 e v ∧ B = m v 1 j ∧ ( e B ) Thus, since e B is unchanged by reversing the currents and changing the sign of the particle, we deduce that the proton and the electron have the same trajectory provided that they have the same initial momentum. Since 2 1 m e v e 2 = ∣ q ∣ U e 2 1 m p v p 2 = q U p where q > 0 is the charge on the proton, m e , m p the masses of the electron and the proton and v e , v p the speeds of the electron and the proton after the initial acceleration, we require that m e U e = − m p U p , and so U p = − 6 π 5 1 0 − 3 = − 5 . 4 5 × 1 0 − 7 V.
In the last paragraph, make that " q < 0 is the charge on the electron".
Good Solution Mark
Feels perfectly fine and efficient to me
First of all, U p will have to be negative to speed up the proton in the same direction as the electron.
Second, the trajectory's geometry will be the same but the kinetics different. So we reduce the problem to geometric quantities only. The important one is the radius of curvature, which is r = q B m v . Since q and B are the same as before (apart from a double change in sign), and we need r to remain the same, we conclude that the proton's momentum p = m v must be the same as the electron's.
This momentum is due to acceleration through a conservative force, so that E p o t = 2 m p 2 ; the potential difference U = E p o t / q is therefore proportional to 1 / m . Thus U p = − U e ⋅ m p / m e 1 = − 1 × 1 0 − 3 V ⋅ 6 π 5 1 = − 5 . 4 5 × 1 0 − 7 V .
The above means,mv^2/r=qvB;means mv should be same for both.means (2mU)^(1/2) same.means mU same.of course minus sign for proton.
Problem Loading...
Note Loading...
Set Loading...
Poor man's way
Though it feels great to calculate the change in the velocity vector relative to its magnitude along the path of the particles, it isn't strictly necessary. If the relation we seek is magical enough to guarantee identical trajectories in a monster field made of any number of coils, each of them pointing any which way, surely it is also good enough to promise the same in a uniform field. Therefore, let's consider an electron going into a region of uniform B -field.
As usual, its trajectory is a circle of radius m e v e q e B = p e q e B . Similarly, we have R p = p p q p B . Since q p = q e and the field has the same magnitude in each instance, the condition for having the same radius is p e = p p .
Now, we assume that all of the energy of the electron comes from accelerating at the potential difference U e . If so, we have 2 m e p e 2 = q e U e → p e = 2 m e q e ∣ U e ∣ and similarly p p = 2 m p q p ∣ U p ∣ which implies m e ∣ U e ∣ = m p ∣ U p ∣ . We have to remember that due to the opposite charge, we must run the proton through a gradient of opposite sign to the one used for an electron. The answer is then: U p = − U e m p m e = − 6 π 5 U e
Feel good way
Briefly, we have
d s = d x 2 + d y 2 = ( d t d x ) 2 + ( d t d y ) 2 d t = v 2 d t
Therefore, d t d s = v .
Now,
d s d v v = v 1 d s d t d t d v = v 2 1 [ m q v × B ( r ) ] = p q v v × B ( r ) = p q i s × B ( r )
Where i s is a vector of unit magnitude that points in the direction as the velocity vector.
Obviously, this quantity will be the same for any two particles that have the same value of p q . As the charge of the proton and the electron are equal in magnitude, the only factor to match is p .
As this directional derivative quantity details the change in the direction of the particle velocity for every point along the path, it fully characterizes the trajectory of a path in space. If it is the same for two trajectories that have the same initial conditions, the trajectories are the same.
So, as before, the two particles have the same trajectory if they have the same momentum after being accelerated across the potential difference, which leads to the same conclusion as argued above.