Why the log? Is it there to make the growth of the function slower? As this is a common experiment

rockandriot0odjn 2022-04-07 Answered
Why the log? Is it there to make the growth of the function slower?
As this is a common experimental observable, it doesn't seem reasonable to take the range from [ 0 , ) to ( , ) (For a particle emitted along the beam axis after collision θ = 0 wouldn't be better to have a number that says how close it is to zero rather than one that says how large a number it is. I hope that makes the question clear.)
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Mollie Roberts
Answered 2022-04-08 Author has 22 answers
The advantage of this particular definition is that differences in pseudorapidity are invariant under boosts along the z axis. Specifically, consider a Lorentz transformation corresponding to a boost by velocity β z ^ . Since the tangent is basically a transverse distance over a longitudinal distance, it transforms under a Lorentz boost along the longitudinal axis with a factor γ:
tan ϕ Δ x T Δ x L tan ϕ = Δ x T Δ x L / γ = γ tan ϕ
and if you put that in the pseudorapidity formula, you find
η = log ( tan θ 2 ) η = log ( tan θ 2 ) log γ
The first term is a function of the particle's trajectory, but the second term is a function of the boost parameter only - it doesn't depend on the particle at all. So if you have two particles coming out of a collision with pseudorapidities η 1 and η 2 , the log γ term is the same for both, and thus when you take the difference it cancels out:
η 1 η 2 = η 1 η 2
The reason why it's so important to keep the pseudorapidity difference invariant is that in particle physics, people like to make plots called "lego plots" which show the directional distribution of the particles detected after a collision. When you do this, you could plot the particle detections vs. the polar and azimuthal angles θ and ϕ. But if you use pseudorapidity instead of the angle θ, the fact that Δ η is invariant means that you can perform a Lorentz boost on your data by just translating the whole graph along the η axis.
This is useful because in hadron collisions, it's often the case that one of the individual quarks or gluons involved in the collision may have a lot more momentum than the other, so all the particles produced come out near one end of the detector. But by translating the graph appropriately, you can effectively shift to the center-of-mass frame of the colliding quarks or gluons, where the particles come out symmetrically distributed, and it's a lot easier to analyze.
By the way, the reason it's tan θ 2 rather than just tan θ is that we'd like a jet which comes out of the collision at θ π 2 , where the resolution is best, to have the same shape in the lego plot as it does in physical space. In particular, a circular jet should appear circular on the graph. This requires that the two coordinates be scaled the same way. If we were using ( θ , ϕ ) as the directional coordinates, this wouldn't be a problem, since both are measured in radians, so we just need to choose a scaling for η such that a small increment in θ near π 2 corresponds to the same numerical increment in η:
| d η d θ | ( θ = π 2 ) = 1
The argument in the first part of the post (along with some common-sense conditions) basically requires that psuedorapidity be defined as
η = log ( tan a θ )
for some constant a. Plugging into the derivative gives
| d η d θ | π 2 = | a sec 2 ( a θ ) tan ( a θ ) | π 2 = | a sin ( a θ ) cos ( a θ ) | π 2 = 2 a sin ( 2 a π / 2 ) = 1
This is a transcendental equation, so you can't solve it analytically, but with a little mathematical reasoning it's not hard to convince yourself that a = ± 1 2 are the only nonzero solutions. Having a negative argument to a logarithm brings in an extra imaginary term, though it would cancel out anyway, so we might as well choose the positive one.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-09-17
How do Vectors transform from one inertial reference frame to another inertial reference frame in special relativity.
A bound vector in an inertial reference frame ( x, c t) has its line of action as one of the space axis in that frame and is described by x* i*,then what would it be in form of new base vectors ( a) and ( b) in a different inertial system ( x , c t ) moving with respect to the former inertial system with v*i* velocity.Let (i) and (j) be the two bounded unit vectors with the line of action as co-ordinate axis( x) and ( c t) respectively and senses in the positive side of co-ordinates and similarly ( a) and ( b) are defined for co-ordinates ( x ) and ( c t ) respectively.
asked 2022-08-19
A source of light pulses moves with speed v directly away from an observer at rest in an inertial frame. Let Δ t e be the time between the emission of pulses, and Δ t o be the time between their reception at the observer. Show that Δ t o = Δ t e + v Δ t e .
Based on my understanding of special relativity, the space-time interval between two events as measured from two inertial frames of reference should be the same. Therefore,
Δ t e 2 = Δ t o 2 Δ x 2
Δ t e 2 = Δ t o 2 v 2 Δ t o 2
Δ t o = ( 1 v 2 ) 1 / 2 Δ t e
which is not the same relation. What is wrong with my reasoning?
asked 2022-07-14
Special relativity theory says simultaneity is relative, meaning that different observers will not agree on what happened first and what second. Does it then make sense to say that looking at distant stars, we see them how they looked "billions of years ago" and not how they look now? Does it make sense to talk about what these stars look like now? How do we define this "now" if simultaneity is relative?
asked 2022-08-17
Two person, A and B, each holding one end of a long solid rod.
Now person A pushes the rod on one end.
Question: Is it correct that the information that the rod has been pushed will travel to the other end at the speed of light whereas the actual 'push' will travel at the speed of sound in the rod?
asked 2022-05-10
Observer A and B are at the same "depth" in a gravity well. Observer B then descends into the well. A will observe B's time as going slower than their own. B will observe A's time as going faster than their own.
What happens if B were to ascend the well back to A's depth, would B's local time speed back up to the same rate as A's, but B would be younger (relative to A)?
What about the paradox caused by relative motion (ignoring gravity)? If A is moving relative to B, A and B will both observe the other's time as going slower. If A and B were together initially, then B moves away and returns, do their clocks agree?
asked 2022-05-19
Is there a time + two spatial dimension representation of a Minkowski-space surface which could be constructed within our own (assumed Euclidean) 3D space such that geometric movement within the surface would intuitively demonstrate the “strange" effects of the Lorentz transformation (length contraction, time dilation)?
asked 2022-07-17
Is there an easy way to show that x 2 t 2 = 1 / g 2 for a (relativistic) body undergoing acceleration g?

New questions