calculations of energy loss and multiple scattering (elms) in molecular hydrogen w w m allison,...
TRANSCRIPT
Calculations of Energy Loss and Multiple Scattering (ELMS) in
Molecular Hydrogen
W W M Allison, Oxford
Presented at
NuFact02 Meeting, July 2002
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
2
To show that Ionisation Cooling will work we must be able to simulate energy loss and scattering in media. To do this we have a choice
we can use traditional calculations with their uncertainties,we can wait for MUSCAT, orwe can calculate the phenomena afresh from first principles
We need to achieve precise and reliable distributions of PT transfer (scattering) and PL transfer (energy loss) from the muon to the medium, including all non gaussian tails and correlations.
The traditional methods of calculation date from days when data on media were poor, computers were rare and the priority was on quick back-of-the-envelope results using simple parameters, eg radiation length, mean ionisation potential etc. Hydrogen, the medium of most interest for cooling, is most difficult.
So we start again. Today we have good data on media properties, specifically of the low energy photoabsorption cross section, thanks to better calculations and data from synchrotron radiation sources.
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
3
This is a report on some work in progress at Oxford We have derived from first principles the cross section for transfers, PT and PL, between the medium and the muon in terms of the low energy photoabsorption cross section and the kinematics of basic atomic physics.
We have used this cross section to generate distributions in the energy loss and scattering (with their correlations) arising from multiple collisions in finite thicknesses of these materials.
Some preliminary results from this analysis (ELMS) are given, in particular for atomic and molecular Hydrogen at liquid density.
Some reservations, qualifications and need for further work are noted.
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
4
Input data Photoabsorption cross section
of the mediumDensityIncident particle momentum, PIncident particle mass (muon)
Distributions in Pt and energy loss - the ELMS program
Input theoryMaxwell’s equations and point charge scatteringCausalityOscillator strength sum ruleDipole approximation Electron constituent scattering (Dirac) Nuclear constituent scattering (Rosenbluth) Atomic form factor (exact H wave function) Nuclear form factor (Rosenbluth)
Double differential cross section for long. and trans. mtm. transfers, pL and pT :
Ppp TL dd
d2
MC distributions in longitudinal and transverse momentum loss in thin absorbers, including correlations and non-gaussian tails
Effect of general absorber thickness on 6-D phase space distributions including correlations and non-gaussian tails
not done yet
all known
recent data for
H2
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
5
Plan of talk1. Theory of the double differential cross section
2. The photoabsorption data for atomic and molecular hydrogen
3. The ELMS Monte Carlo program
4. Energy loss and multiple scattering distributions for H and H2 (preliminary).
5. Verification and estimation of systematic uncertainties
6. Further work
7. Preliminary conclusions
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
6
First the atom and constituent electron part; then the nuclear coulomb part
The atom and constituent electron part. (see ARNPS 1980)
The longitudinal force F responsible for slowing down the particle in the medium is the longitudinal electric field E pulling on the charge e F = eE where the field E is evaluated at time t and r = ct where the charge is.
By definition the rate of work is force×velocity and thus the mean rate of energy change with distance is the force itself
From the solution of Maxwell’s Equations for the moving point charge in a medium
wheredde
~i
~i
2
1),( 3.i
2
kkAβE βk tcttct
.ββE tcte
x
E,
d
d
ck
czec
k
zeβk
βkAβkk .
2),(
~ and .
/1
2),(
~2
002
02
002
0
1. Theory of the double differential cross section
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
7
22222
2221
2
224
2222
LT2
3 1
1dd
d
LTL
TL
TL kkk
kk
kkNkk
Integrating over this gives
This mean energy loss is due to the average effect of collisions with probability per unit distance N dσ for a target density N. The energy loss dE = - Σ ω = - Σ ω N dx dσ . Thus equating integrands
kk
k
kk
0
3222
222
20
3
2
d1
Imβ
Im2
2
d
d
kk
cck
k
ce
x
E
where 1 and 2 are the real and imaginary parts of ε(k,ω).
1 is given in terms of 2 by the Kramers Kronig Relations [see J D Jackson].
So all we need is 2 which is given in terms of the photoabsorption cross section σ(ω). Following Allison & Cobb, Ann Rev Nucl Part Sci (1980) we may write
where m is the electron mass.
.2
d)(2
H)(),(0
22
2
m
k
m
kNck
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
8
The resulting cross section covers both collision with an atom as a whole, and with constituent electrons at higher Q2.Included are Cherenkov radiation, ionisation, excitation, density effect, relativistic delta
Second there are the nuclear coulomb collisions. The Rutherford cross section is
with
The kinematic condition for collision with a nucleus of mass M is .
The cross section may then be expressed in terms of pL and pT.
2242
22
2
4
d
dQF
Q
z
Q
22222222 // ckkckQ TL
M
Q
2
2
The first term describes collisions with the whole atom; the second with constituent electrons. The two together satisfy the Thomas-Reiche-Kuhn Sum Rule. In ELMS this formula is corrected for relativistic electron recoil and magnetic scattering.
.2
d)(2
H)(),(0
22
2
m
k
m
kNck
in a different part of phase space so that there is no interference!
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
9
Example: Calculated cross section for 500MeV/c in Argon gas. Note that this is a Log-log-log plot - the cross section varies over 20 and more decades!
log kL
2
18
17
7
log kT
whole atoms at low Q2 (dipole region)
electrons at high
Q2
electrons backwards in
CM
nuclear small angle scattering (suppressed
by screening)
nuclear backward scattering in CM
(suppressed by nuclear form factor)
Log pL or energy transfer
(16 decades)
Log pT transfer (10 decades)
Log cross
section (30
decades)
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
10
50GeV/c in Argon gas .... Yes, at larger anglesPT
PL or E
5GeV/c in Argon gas. ....Yes PT
PL or E
Zooming in to look for Cherenkov Radiation just below ionisation threshold......
500MeV/c in Argon gas .... NoPT
PL or E
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
11
2. Photoabsorption cross section for atomic and molecular hydrogen
New data compilation “Atomic and Molecular Photoabsorption”, J Berkowitz, Academic Press (2002).
Atomic H photoabsorption cross section
(all theory)
Molecular H photoabsorption cross section
(theory and experiment)
10 100 1000eV 10 100 1000eV
m2 per atom
m2 per atom
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
12
The Rutherford cross section is modified at both high and low Q2.
Form factors corrections to electron constituent scattering For scattering from constituent electrons at low Q2 there is a fraction g() describing the proportion of electrons that are effectively free for energy transfers The remaining fraction (1 - g) are involved in atomic resonance scattering.
The maximum Q2 in scattering off constituent electrons is small as can be seen from the given formula. At maximum Q2 there is pure point-like μ-e Dirac scattering.
Form factor corrections to proton constituent scattering at high Q2
These are due to the finite nuclear size and magnetic scattering. They are described together by Rosenbluth Scattering for a spin-½ incident muon. These high Q2 corrections are not very important but we get them right anyway.
Form factor corrections to proton constituent scattering at low Q2
These are due to electron shielding. We use the exact atomic hydrogen wave function.
The effect of these may be judged from the area under the formfactor curve plotted against log Q2 ....
mQ 2/22
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
13
Formfactors (squared) for Hydrogen.
At high Q2, Green = the Rosenbluth form factor.
At low Q2, Red = atomic hydrogenic wave function form factor
log Q2 m-2
nucleus screening by electrons at 10-10 m
proton structure effect at 10-15 m
F(Q2)
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
14
The double differential cross section in molecular hydrogen
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
15
To calculate the distribution of long. mtm. and transverse mtm. transfer due to the many collisions in a finite absorber thickness. (In Hydrogen there are about 106 collisions per m.)
We cut the problem up into elements of probability. Thus the chance of a collision with transverse momentum between kT and (kT+dkT) and longitudinal momentum between kL and (kL+dkL) is:
(The size of the cells is chosen so that the fractional range of k covered is small.)
1-2
mdddd
dLT
LT
kkkk
NP
The value of the different P per metre vary over many orders of magnitude. In a given thickness of material some occur rarely or a small number of times; others will occur so many times that fluctuations in their occurrence are less important and time spent montecarloing all of them is unnecessary. Two orders of magnitude in calculation time can be saved by mixing folding and generating techniques.
The method has been rigorously checked.
3. The ELMS Monte Carlo Program
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
16
Refractive index Mean dE/dx
RMS projected θMS (98% lowest)
MeV cm2 g-1 mrad
Molecular Hydrogen 1.085 3.474 14.52
Atomic Hydrogen 1.137 3.714 14.63
Input: ELMS calculation of 105 traversals of 180 MeV/c muons. Absorber 0.5m liquid H2, density = 0.0586 g cm-3. [bubble chamber value]
Result:
4. Energy loss and multiple scattering distributions for H and H2 (preliminary).
Actual value at this density 1.093 (bubble chamber
data)
Expected value (PDG) 16.94 mrad
with radiation length 61.28 g cm2
Preliminary comp. with range/mtm
relation in H2 bubble chambers. OK
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
17
elementmm
Values from105 ELMS samples PDG book values
RMS deviation Pl
MeV/c
RMS deviation
2D Pt
MeV/c
Correl-ation (MeV/c)2
RMS98 proj ang
RMS 98
/X0 Ratio ELMS/PDGmrad mrad
Molecular H
500 1.136 2.390 0.496 14.52 16.94 0.0478 0.857
Lithium 1 0.098 0.378 0.224 1.58 1.60 0.0006 0.988
Beryllium 1 0.247 0.904 0.469 3.49 3.63 0.0028 0.961
Carbon 1 0.232 1.122 0.305 4.94 5.11 0.0053 0.967
Aluminium 1 0.466 1.703 0.463 7.68 7.71 0.0113 0.996
Iron 1 0.518 3.400 0.419 18.81 18.62 0.0569 1.010
Lithium 10 1.054 1.133 0.239 5.44 5.69 0.0065 0.956
Beryllium 10 0.621 2.179 0.216 12.01 12.75 0.0284 0.942
Carbon 10 0.758 3.073 0.282 17.06 17.93 0.0530 0.951
Aluminium 10 0.887 4.452 0.341 26.53 26.94 0.1125 0.985
Iron 10 1.604 9.210 0.334 63.62 64.65 0.5686 0.984
Results for some other elements. Muons at 180MeV/c.
Most elements agree to 2-3% - except
hydrogen
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
18
180MeV/c muons in 500mm molecular H at liquid density. 105 samples. Red curve = normal dist Left plots projected pt, right plots dE/dx or pL.
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
19
Contributions of each component of cross section. 180MeV/c muon. Liquid Molecular Hydrogen.
Molecular Hydrogen 500mm Atomic Hydrogen 500mm
Mean PtMean dEdx
correl-ation
RMS98 ang
mean Pt
mean dEdx
correl-ation
RMS98ang
MeV/cMeV
cm2 g-1 (MeV/c)2 mrad MeV/cMeV
cm2 g-1 (MeV/c)2 mrad
Cherenkov 0.002 0.057 0.000 0.007 0.002 0.073 0.000 0.009
Discrete 0.022 0.004 0.000 0.089 0.022 0.003 0.000 0.092
resonance 0.498 1.156 0.000 2.070 0.519 1.333 0.000 2.153
electron constituent
2.180 2.243 0.145 9.086 2.254 2.296 0.129 9.313
nuclear constituent
2.639 0.011 0.248 10.75 2.662 0.011 0.175 10.97
All mechanisms
3.542 3.474 0.496 14.52 3.584 3.715 0.984 14.63
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
20
Correlations. 105 sample. 180MeV/c muons.
The scatter plot of magnitude of 2D Pt (left to lower right ) against E (left to upper right).Note that the main peak has been very heavily truncated.
Correlations largely confined to hard single scatters.
PTPL or E
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
21
Results independent of balance between folding and MC over 3 orders of magnitude
The deviation of the mean MC dE/dx value from value derived from the probability table should be described by the calculated error on the MC mean value.
Results independent of modest variation of the momentum transfer value at which resonance scattering is replaced by electron constituent scattering. Preliminary investigation suggests that this test is passed.
Atomic Formfactor. Molecular effects on electron screening of nuclear scattering. Effect of density on electron screening. Probably small, but largest for H2?
Effect of constituent electron fermi momentum. Arguments suggest that this is small.
Bremsstrahlung effects. Supposed small at energies of interest for cooling. Other than for H, the magnetic effect of nuclear spin. Certainly negligible.
5. Verification and estimation of systematic uncertainties
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
22
Calculate range in liquid H2 of μ from π decay and compare with Bubble Chamber data at appropriate density. (done but check again)
Further work on materials other than Hydrogen Extend ELMS to thick targets. It is currently assumed that the medium is
thin such that the path length in the target and the cross sections are not affected by the scattering or energy loss.
Then further extend ELMS to transport a 6-D phase space distribution through a given absorber.
6. Further work
3 July 2002 ELMS calculations in Molecular Hydrogen
23
7. Preliminary conclusions It has been shown that robust calculations of Energy Loss and Multiple Scattering distributions, and their correlations can be made.
Such calculations have been made for molecular hydrogen at liquid density based on the latest available atomic physics data.
While the calculations for other elements roughly agree with expected Multiple Scattering (based on Radiation Length values), in molecular hydrogen the calculations are low by about 14%, compared with predictions for a Radiation Length of 61.28 g cm-2.
Further comparisons of calculated Energy Loss distributions with other estimates will be interesting.
Comparison with MUSCAT data will provide a good check.
Correlations between MS and dE/dx are understood and are largely confined to the correlations that occur as a result of hard single scatters.