Compton scattering on blackbody photons

Lowell S. Brown and Ronald S. Steinke

Citation: American Journal of Physics 65, 304 (1997); doi: 10.1119/1.18512

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.18512
View Table of Contents: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aapt/journal/ajp/65/4?ver=pdfcov
Published by the American Association of Physics Teachers

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 Compton scattering on blackbody photons
Lowell S. Brown and Ronald S. Steinke
Department of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195
~Received 14 June 1996; accepted 8 October 1996!
We examine Compton scattering of electrons on blackbody photons in the case where the electrons
are highly relativistic, but the center of mass energy is small in comparison with the electron mass.
We derive the partial lifetime of electrons in the large electron positron ~LEP! accelerator due to this
form of scattering in the vacuum beam pipe and compare it with previous results. © 1997 American
Association of Physics Teachers.

I. INTRODUCTION Analytic computations can be performed because the

Vacuum beam pipes of modern particle accelerators
closely approach the ideal limit of a pipe completely devoid
of gas molecules. However, even an ideal vacuum beam pipe
in a laboratory at room temperature is filled with photons
having an energy distribution given by Planck’s law. Some
time ago, Telnov1 noted that the scattering of electrons on
these blackbody photons could be a significant mechanism
for the depletion of the beam. This scattering of the electrons
in the Large Electron Positron collider at CERN ~LEP! on
the blackbody radiation has been detected.2–4 There is a long
history of theoretical investigations on the scattering of high-
energy electrons on blackbody photons, centering around the
role this plays as an energy loss mechanism for cosmic rays,
which is summarized by Blumenthal and Gould.5 More re-
cently, Domenico6 and Burkhardt7 have considered this ef-
fect for the LEP experiments and the consequent limit on the
beam lifetime by using numerical Monte Carlo methods. In
view of the intrinsic interest of the problem of high-energy
electron scattering on blackbody photons, we believe that it
is worthwhile to present here a simplified calculation of the
effect. We compute the total cross section analytically. The
cross section as a function of the energy loss—which is the
important quantity for the beam lifetime—is also done ana-
lytically except for a final straightforward numerical integra-
tion. Our calculations use relativistic invariant methods, and
are thus of some pedagogical interest.
problem involves two small dimensionless parameters. On
the one hand, the electron of mass m has a very large labo-
ratory energy E and it is ultrarelativistic, as characterized by
the parameter m 2 /E 2 . ~We use natural units in which the
velocity of light c51, Planck’s constant \51, and Boltz-
mann’s constant k51, so that temperature is measured in
energy units.! At LEP, m 2 /E 2 '10210. We shall neglect
terms of order m 2 /E 2 . On the other hand, the temperature
T of the blackbody radiation is very small in comparison
with the electron mass m. Thus, although the electron is
ultrarelativistic, the energy in the center of mass of the
electron–photon system is still small in comparison with the
electron mass. The head-on collision of a photon of energy
T with a relativistic electron of energy E produces, with the
neglect of the electron mass, the squared center-of-mass en-
ergy 4ET. We shall use the dimensionless parameter ~which
gives an average value!
s52ET/m 2 . ~1.1!
At LEP, s'1022 . Thus it is a good approximation to use the
nonrelativistic limit in the center of mass, with the relativis-
tic Compton cross section replaced by its constant, nonrela-
tivistic Thomson limit. To assess this approximation, we
shall also compute the first corrections in s.

304 Am. J. Phys. 65 ~4!, April 1997 © 1997 American Association of Physics Teachers 304

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 In Sec. II we use simple relativistic techniques to compute In the nonrelativistic limit, s may be replaced with the
the total cross section for the scattering of an ultrarelativistic Thomson cross section, s T 58 p r 20 /3, where r 0 5e 2 /4p m is
electron on the Planck distribution of blackbody photons. the classical electron radius. Since this is independent of k,
Section III describes the more detailed calculation needed for the scattering rate may be rewritten as
the cross section in which the electron loses an energy
greater than DE. If the energy loss DE in an electron– Ḡ0 5 s T j̄ 0 , ~2.6!
photon collision is too large, the electron’s motion falls out- where
side of the acceptance parameters of the machine. At LEP
this happens when DE/E is greater than about 1%. As we
shall see, this means that even if the beam were in a perfect
vacuum, it would decay with a half life of about two days.
j̄ m 5 E ~ d 3 k̄ ! k̄ m
~ 2 p ! 3 k̄ 0
f̄ ~ k̄! ~2.7!

The vacuum in the LEP accelerator is so good that the beam is the photon number flux four vector. Since p̄ m /m5(1,0) in
scattering of the blackbody photons is, in fact, the primary the electron’s rest frame, we may write this leading approxi-
mechanism for beam loss when the machine is run with a mation, denoted with a 0 subscript, as

S D
single beam. Scattering on the residual gas in the beam pipe
gives a considerably longer half life of about 6 days.8 When dn p̄ m
52 s T j̄ m , ~2.8!
the machine is run in the usual mode with two beams for dt 0
m
e 1 e 2 collision experiments, beam–beam collisions reduce
the beam half life to about 14 h.8 with the minus sign arising from our Lorentz metric conven-
tion in which the metric has the signature (2,1,1,1). The
result ~2.8! is now in an invariant form which holds in any
II. TOTAL SCATTERING RATE frame. With a thermal photon distribution in the lab frame,
In the general case of an electron scattering off some pho- 2
f ~ k !5 ,
v /T ~2.9!
ton distribution, the scattering rate Ḡ in the electron’s rest e 21
frame may be computed using the formula
where v 5k 0 is the photon energy, the photon number dis-

E ~ d k̄ !
3 tribution is isotropic, and so only the number density com-
Ḡ5 f̄ ~ k̄! s ~ k̄! , ~2.1! ponent j 0 is nonvanishing. Thus, in the lab frame,
~ 2p !3
m p0
where f̄ (k̄) is the photon phase-space density @with the nor- G 05 s T j 0 5 s T j 0. ~2.10!
malization defined such that j̄ 0 in Eq. ~2.7! is the photon E m
number density# as a function of the photon momentum and The lab photon number density obtained from integrating
s (k̄) is the scattering cross section, which is similarly a ~2.7! with the distribution ~2.9! is the familiar result
function of the photon momentum. Here all quantities are 2z~ 3 ! 3
evaluated in the electron’s rest frame as indicated by the j 05 T , ~2.11!
overbar. This scattering rate may be viewed as a time deriva- p2
tive in which z (3)51.202 . . . is the Riemann zeta function.
dn Thus, G 0 is given by
Ḡ5 , ~2.2!
dt 2z~ 3 ! 3
G 05 T sT . ~2.12!
where t is the time in the electron’s rest frame. Since num- p2
bers are Lorentz invariant and t may be defined to be the The first-order relativistic correction to this result is ob-
invariant proper time of the electron, the rate dn/d t is, in tained with the use of the corrected cross section

S D
fact, a Lorentz invariant. Thus, if the integral on the right-
hand side of the rate formula ~2.1! is written in a Lorentz 2 pk
invariant manner, we can immediately evaluate the rate in s 5 s T 11 . ~2.13!
m2
the laboratory frame. In the lab frame, the electron moves
with four momenta Note that the product kp5k m p m of the two four-momenta is
negative with our metric. Because s is no longer indepen-
dz m
p m 5m , ~2.3! dent of k, the corresponding form of Eq. ~2.10! is
dt
where z m ( t ) is the world line of this particle, its space-time
position as a function of proper time, and m is the electron
G 15
m
s
E T
E ~ d 3 k ! 2kp
~ 2 p !3 k 0m
S
2 pk
f ~ k ! 11 2
m D
mass. This gives the familiar time-dilation formula
dt dz p E 0 0
52
1
E S m
2
s T j m p m1 2 T mn p m p n , D ~2.14!
5 5 5 , ~2.4!
dt dt m m where
where E is the electron’s total energy. Thus the scattering
rate G in the lab frame may be easily evaluated using T mn5 E ~ d 3k ! k mk n
~ 2p !3 k0
f ~k! ~2.15!

dn m dn is the stress-energy tensor of the photons. Due to the isotropy

G5 5 . ~2.5!
dt E d t of the thermal photons in the lab frame, T m n has no off

305 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 4, April 1997 L. S. Brown and R. S. Steinke 305

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 diagonal components, and it is also traceless because the 2
photon is massless, k m k m 50. Therefore, in the lab frame, f ~ k !5 2bmk
. ~3.2!
m 21
S D S D
e
1 4 m 2 00
T m n p m p n 5 E 2 1 u p2 u T 005 E 2 12 T . From the definition of b m , 2 b m b m 51/T 2 and
3 3 4E 2
2 b m p m 5E/T, because multiplication by b m selects out the
~2.16!
time component in the lab frame. In the electron rest frame,
2 2
The m /E term is very small, and it may be neglected. b m therefore takes on the value

S D
Integrating over the photon distribution in Eq. ~2.15! gives
the well-known blackbody energy density E p
b m5 ,2 , ~3.3!
Tm Tm
6z~ 4 ! 4
T 005 T , ~2.17!
p2 where E and p are taken in the lab frame. We have not yet
taken into account the lower bound on the electron energy
where z (4)5 p 4 /9051.082•••. This yields the corrected loss in the lab frame. Because multiplication by b m selects
scattering rate the time component in the lab frame, this limit may be insti-

G 15
2z~ 3 ! 3
p 2 T s T 124s F
z~ 4 !
z~ 3 !
. G ~2.18!
tuted by the inclusion of an ‘‘energy loss’’ step function in
the integrand of Eq. ~3.1!,

For the temperature in the LEP beam pipe we take

T5291 K50.0251 eV, which is about room temperature.
S
u 2 b m ~ p m 2 p m8 ! 2
DE
T D
, ~3.4!
This gives the leading rate G 0 59.98 3 1026 s21 corre- where the 1/T in the second term has been included to com-
sponding to the mean life t 0 51/G 0 528 h. A typical LEP pensate for the factor of 1/T which the first term has picked
beam energy E546.1 GeV is just above half the Z 0 mass— up by being multiplied by b m . Using the identity
within the width, but on the high side of resonance curve.
Together with the previous value of the temperature, this
gives s50.008 86, and the first-order corrected rate E ~d3p8! 1
~ 2 p ! 3 2E 8
5 E ~ d4p8!
~ 2p !4
u ~ E 8 2m ! 2 p d ~ p 8 2 1m 2 ! ,
G 1 59.66 3 1026 s21 , which is about 3% smaller than the ~3.5!
leading rate. This gives a mean life t 1 51/G 1 529 h.
the final electron four momentum p 8 may be integrated over
to leave

III. RATE WITH ENERGY LOSS G ~ DE ! 5

1
2E
E ~ d 3k ! 1
~ 2p !3 2v
f ~k! E ~ d 3k 8 ! 1
~ 2p !3 2v8
The calculation of the scattering rate in which the electron
loses an energy greater than DE is facilitated by going back 3 u ~ v 2 v 8 ! 2 p d ~ 22m v 12m v 8 22kk 8 !
to the basic formula9 that expresses the rate in terms of Lor-
entz invariant phase space integrals, an energy-momentum
conserving d function, and the square of the scattering am-
S
3 u 2 b k 82 S DE
T
2bk DD uTu2. ~3.6!

plitude u T u 2 . The total electron scattering rate as observed in We do the k8 integral in spherical coordinates and take the
the lab frame reads z axis to be parallel to k, with u the angle between these two

G5
1
2E
E ~ d 3k ! 1
~ 2p !3 2v
f ~k! E ~ d 3k 8 ! 1
~ 2p !3 2v8
vectors. The angle u is the photon scattering angle in the
electron rest frame, and
2kk 8 5 vv 8 ~ 12cos u ! . ~3.7!
3 E ~ d3p8! 1
~ 2 p ! 3 2E 8
~ 2 p ! 4 d ~ 4 ! ~ k 8 1p 8 2k2 p ! u T u 2 , The d function can now be solved for v 8 to yield
~3.1! d ~ 22m v 12m v 8 22kk 8 !
where p and p 8 are the initial and final electron four mo-
menta, k and k 8 the initial and final photon four momenta,
with E5p 0 , E 8 5 p 8 0 , v 5k 0 , and v 8 5k 8 0 the time com-
5
1
2 @ m1 v ~ 12cos u !#
d v 82
mv
S
m1 v ~ 12cos u !
, D
ponents of these four vectors. Except for the initial factor of ~3.8!
1/2E which is the lab energy of the initial electron and which which requires that v 8 , v and thus makes the u ( v 2 v 8 )
converts the invariant proper time into the lab time, the right- step function redundant. The scattered photon energy v 8
hand side of this expression is a Lorentz invariant. The prob- given by the d function is, of course, just the Compton en-
lem proves to be greatly simplified if the integrals are evalu- ergy. To deal with the ‘‘energy loss’’ step function, we note
ated in the rest frame of the electron, because Compton that the Lorentz transformation from the lab frame to the
scattering of a photon on an electron at rest has a very simple initial electron rest frame turns the lab frame isotropic black-
nonrelativistic limit. This complicates the initial photon dis- body photon distribution into a very narrow pencil in the
tribution, but, if we introduce a four-vector b m , whose time electron rest frame in which we are now working. Thus the
component in the lab frame is one over the temperature of initial photon distribution is sharply peaked about the aver-
the photon distribution and whose spatial components are age value
zero in the lab frame, the distribution in an arbitrary frame
still has the simple form ~ k m/ v !5 b m/ b 0. ~3.9!

306 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 4, April 1997 L. S. Brown and R. S. Steinke 306

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 Hence, we can approximate vb2 vm
2k b . v ~ b 0 2 u bu ! 5 . . ~3.20!
b0 b 1 u bu 2TE
0
2 b k 8 . ~ 2kk 8 ! 5 b 0 v 8 ~ 12cos u ! . ~3.10!
v Thus, with the neglect of order m 2 /E 2 corrections, and re-
To verify this and assess the order of accuracy, we define the membering that u bu .E/mT,

E E
average more precisely by 1 mT 2 v E/mT

* ~ d k ! / ~ 2 p ! ~ 1/2 v ! f ~ 2k b ! X
3 3 d cos x 5 d ~ 2k b ! . ~3.21!
21 vE v m/2TE
^X&5 . ~3.11!
* ~ d 3 k ! / ~ 2 p ! 3 ~ 1/2 v ! f ~ 2k b !
We shall do the 2k b integral last, due to its dependence on
Then, by virtue of the relativistic invariance of this defini- the initial photon distribution. In order to interchange the
tion, order of the v and 2k b integrations, we note that the lower
^ k m k n & 5 ~ b m b n 2 41 b 2 g m n ! A ~ b 2 ! , ~3.12! limit on 2k b ,
l
since b is the only four vector available and k k m 50. Re- m vm
2k b . , ~3.22!
membering that v 5k 0 , this presents the squared fluctuation 2TE
about the average as gives the upper bound on v ,

KS v
DS v
k m2 b m 0 k n2 b n 0
b b DL v,
2TE ~ 2k b !
m
5s ~ 2k b ! m. ~3.23!
^ v 2&
The upper limit on 2k b ,
S bn
b
bm
b
b mb n
5B g m n 2 0 g m 0 2 0 g n 0 1 0 2 ,
~b !
D ~3.13!
2k b ,
2vE
mT
, ~3.24!
where
gives the lower bound on v ,
2b2 m2
B5 2. . ~3.14! ~ 2k b ! mT m2
4~ b ! 1b
0 2
4E 2 v. 5s ~ 2k b ! m . ~3.25!
2E 4E 2
Thus the deviations away from our approximation may be
neglected because they involve the very small quantity In view of the extreme smallness of m 2 /E 2 , we may replace
m 2 /E 2 . Using this approximation for 2k 8 b simplifies the this lower limit by v 50. Hence, switching the order of in-
‘‘energy loss’’ step function to tegration gives

S
u v 82
DE
b T ~ 12cos u !
0 5 u v 82D S
DE m
E 12cos u
, D E vE
0
`
d
2 v E/mT

v m/2TE
d ~ 2k b ! 5 E0
`
d ~ 2k b ! E
0
s ~ 2k b ! m
dv.
~3.15! ~3.26!
where the 2 b k in the original step function has been ne- We perform this reversal of integrals, do the two trivial azi-
glected because it is much less than DE/T. Inserting the muthal integrals, and do the v 8 integrals using the d function
value of v 8 given by the energy-conserving d function ~3.8! to obtain

E
into the step function gives m 2T `

S D
G ~ DE ! 5 d ~ 2k b ! f ~ 2k b !
mv DE m 16E 2 ~ 2 p ! 3 0
u 2
m1 v ~ 12cos u ! E 12cos u
E 1
E s ~ 2k b ! m

5u v2 S DE m
E 8 12cos u
, D ~3.16!
3
21
d cos u

v
0
dv

where on the right-hand side we have solved for v and de- 3 uTu2
@ m1 v ~ 12cos u !# 2
fined
E 8 5E2DE,
which is the maximum final electron energy in the lab frame.
~3.17! 3u v2 S DE m
E 8 12cos u
. D ~3.27!

We perform the k integral in spherical coordinates, with To work out the integrals which appear here, it is conve-
the polar angle x taken to be the angle between k and b, so nient to first introduce the appropriate, dimensionless vari-
that ables,
2k b 5 v ~ b 0 2 u bu cos x ! . ~3.18! v
x52k b , z512cos u , n5 , ~3.28!
We rewrite the angular integral for k in terms of an integra- s ~ 2k b ! m
tion over k b by noting the limits and define
2vE DE
2k b , v ~ b 0 1 u bu ! .2 v b 0 5 , ~3.19! u5 . ~3.29!
mT 2sE 8
and With this new notation, we have

307 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 4, April 1997 L. S. Brown and R. S. Steinke 307

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 G ~ DE ! 5
T3
4m 2 ~ 2 p ! 3
E
0
`
dxx 2 f ~ x ! E
0
2
dz

3 E 0
1
dn
n
~ 11s n xz ! 2 uTu u n2
2
2u
xz
. S D ~3.30!

The final step function provides the lower limit n 52u/xz.

This lower limit must not exceed the upper limit n 51.
Hence we must have the condition z.2u/x on the z integra-
tion. But again, this must not exceed the upper limit z52.
Thus x.u, and imposing all these limits gives

G ~ DE ! 5
T3
4m ~ 2 p ! 3
2 E
u
`
dxx 2 f ~ x ! E
2u/x
2
dz

E
Fig. 1. The dimensionless F 0 (u) defined in Eq. ~3.35! as a function of the
1 n dimensionless variable u defined in Eq. ~3.29!.
3 dn uTu2. ~3.31!
2u/xz ~ 11s n xz ! 2
This will be evaluated in the nonrelativistic limit, keeping
first-order corrections in s. The exact squared amplitude dif-
fers from its nonrelativistic limit
^ E2E 8 & 5 E 0
`
du
G ~ DE ! dDE
G1 du
, ~3.38!

u T u 2 52e 4 ~ 11cos2 u ! 52e 4 ~ 222z1z 2 ! ~3.32! with, in view of Eq. ~3.29!,

dDE 2sE
by corrections of order vv 8 /m 2 . These corrections involve 5 . ~3.39!
s 2 and are thus negligible. To first order in s, du ~ 112su ! 2

1 Inserting the expressions for G(DE) and G 1 into the integral

.122s n xz. ~3.33! and expanding in powers of s gives
~ 11s n xz ! 2
The z and n integrations are now straightforward. We ex-
press the result as
^ E2E 8 & 52sE E H
0
`
F
du F 0 ~ u ! 24s uF 0 ~ u !

F
G ~ DE ! 5G 0 F 0 ~ u ! 24s
z~ 4 !
F ~u! ,
z~ 3 ! 1 G ~3.34! 2
z~ 4 !
z~ 3 !
F 0~ u ! 1
z~ 4 !
G
F ~ u ! 1O ~ s 2 ! .
z~ 3 ! 1 J
where G 0 is the approximate total scattering rate from Eq. ~3.40!
~2.12!. The straightforward integrations give Inserting the expressions for the F’s from Eq. ~3.35! and Eq.

F 0~ u ! 5
1
2z~ 3 !
E ` dx
e x 21
x 2
S
23ux13u 2
ln
x
u
1
2u 3
x
, SD D ~3.36! and interchanging the order of the x and u integrals,
the integrals may be evaluated analytically, and we find that

H F G J
u
~3.35! z~ 4 ! z ~ 4 ! 63 z ~ 5 !
^ E2E 8 & 52sE 11s 4 2 1O ~ s 2 !
and 10 z~ 3 ! z~ 3 ! 5 z~ 4 !

F 1~ u ! 5
1
6z~ 4 !
E `

u
dx
e 21
x
9
S
x 3 2 u 2 x2u 3
2
51.80sE @ 128.5s # .
To check that no mistakes have been made in our calcu-
~3.41!

SD D
x 9u 4
16u 3 ln 1 .
u 2x
It can be seen that in the DE→0 limit, F 0 (0)5F 1 (0)51, so
G(DE) reduces to the result ~2.18! for G 1 .
At this stage, one must resort to numerical calculations to
evaluate the integrals. However, analytic calculations of the
energy weighted moments of the distribution can still be per-
formed. The simplest of these is the average energy loss
observed in the lab frame, ^ E2E 8 & . Because G(DE) de-
scribes the rate due to all scattering events where
E2E 8 .DE, this average value may be computed by
lation of F 0 (u) and F 1 (u) given in Eq. ~3.35! and Eq. ~3.36!,
we have independently evaluated the average energy loss
~3.36!
^ E2E 8 & starting from Eq. ~3.6! and only make the small s
approximation toward the end of the calculation. We find the
same result with this different method.
The integrals in the definitions ~3.35! and ~3.36! of the
functions F 0 (u) and F 1 (u) have been calculated numeri-
cally, and the results are displayed in Figs. 1 and 2. As a
check on this numerical result, we have used it to evaluate
the integrals in Eq. ~3.40! numerically, and the results agree
with the analytic expression ~3.41! to within 0.2%.
We may compare our calculations with those of
Domenico6 who employed a Monte Carlo method. He used

^ E2E 8 & 52 E 0
`
dDEDE
d
dDE S
G ~ DE !
G1
, D ~3.37!
the values E546.1 GeV and T5291 K ~which we have pre-
viously employed! that give s50.0089. He also took
DE50.012 E which places u50.69. Numerical integration
where G 1 is the total scattering rate including the first cor- gives F 0 (0.69)50.44 and F 1 (0.69)50.83, and from these
rection in s given by Eq. ~2.18!. Changing variables to u and values we calculate a mean beam lifetime of 64 h to zeroth
integrating by parts gives order in the nonrelativistic limit, and of 68 h when the first-

308 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 4, April 1997 L. S. Brown and R. S. Steinke 308

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46
 Note added in proof: We should stress that our results do
agree to within 0.6% with those obtained by V. Telnov1 us-
ing Monte Carlo methods.

Fig. 2. The dimensionless F 1 (u) defined in Eq. ~3.36! as a function of u.
order relativistic corrections are included. This is to be com-
pared with Domenico’s value of 90 h for the same input
parameters. We do not understand the reason for this discrep-
ancy.
We may also compare our results with those of
Burkhardt,7 who also used a Monte Carlo method. Burkhardt
uses parameters that are slightly different than those used by
Domenico, namely, E545.6 GeV and T5295 K. These pa-
rameters yield the same s50.0089. However, since the over-
all rate scales as T 3 , which is 4% larger with Burkhardt’s
temperature, our value of the beam lifetime for
DE50.012 E with his parameters is reduced from 68 to
65 h. Burkhardt finds 83 h. ~To compare with Domenico, we
note that modifying his result of 90 h by the 4% change in
T 3 produces 86 h.! Burkhardt and Kleiss8 also state that the
average fractional energy loss ^ E2E 8 & /E is 1.1% for this
value of s, but our result ~3.41! gives the larger value of
1.5% corresponding to our shorter beam lifetime. Again, we
can only state that we do not understand the reason for these
discrepancies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank J. Rothberg for making us aware
of the electron scattering on the photons in the LEP beam
pipe. We would also like to thank H. Burkhardt for inform-
ing us of relevant literature and C. Woll for checking many
of our calculations. This work was supported, in part, by the
U.S. Department of Energy under Grant. No. DE-FG03-96
ER40956.
1
V. I. Telnov, ‘‘Scattering of electrons on thermal radiation photons in
electron–positron storage rings,’’ Nucl. Instrum. Methods A 260, 304–
308 ~1987!.
2
B. Dehning, A. C. Melissinos, F. Perrone, C. Rizzo, and G. von Holtey,
‘‘Scattering of high energy electrons off thermal photons,’’ Phys. Lett. B
249, 145–148 ~1990!.
3
C. Bini, G. De Zorzi, G. Diambrini-Palazzi, G. Di Cosimo, A.
Di Domenico, P. Gauzzi, and D. Zanello, ‘‘Scattering of thermal photons
by a 46 GeV positron beam at LEP,’’ Phys. Lett. B 262, 135–138 ~1991!.
4
C. Bini, G. De Zorzi, G. Diambrini-Palazzi, G. Di Cosimo, A.
Di Domenico, P. Gauzzi, and D. Zanello, ‘‘Fast measurement of luminos-
ity at LEP by detecting the single bremsstrahlung photons,’’ Nucl. In-
strum. Methods A 306, 467–473 ~1991!.
5
G. R. Blumenthal and R. J. Gould, ‘‘Bremsstrahlung, synchrotron radia-
tion, and Compton scattering of high-energy electrons traversing dilute
gases,’’ Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 237–270 ~1970!.
6
A. D. Domenico, ‘‘Inverse Compton scattering of thermal radiation at LEP
and LEP-200,’’ Part. Accel. 39, 137–146 ~1992!.
7
H. Burkhardt, ‘‘Monte Carlo Simulation of Beam Particles and Thermal
Photons,’’ CERN/SL Note 93-73 ~OP!, 1993 ~Internal Note, unpublished!.
8
See, for example, H. Burkhardt and R. Kleiss, ‘‘Beam lifetimes in LEP,’’
Proceedings of the Fourth European Particle Acceleration Conference
EPAC, London 1994, edited by V. Suller and Ch. Petit-Jean-Genaz ~World
Scientific, Singapore, 1994!, Vol. II, pp. 1353–1355.
9
See, for example, L. S. Brown, Quantum Field Theory ~Cambridge U.P.,
Cambridge, 1992!, Sec. 3.4.
10
The result for F 0 (u) given in Eq. ~3.35! can be obtained from an integra-
tion of Eq. ~2.42! of Blumenthal and Gould ~Ref. 5!, but the result for
F 1 (u) in Eq. ~3.36! appears to be new.

NEW ENGLAND WINTER

I have not yet lost a feeling of wonder, and of delight, that this delicate motion should reside in
all the ordinary things around us, revealing itself only to him who looks for it. I remember, in the
winter of our first experiments, just seven years ago, looking on snow with new eyes. There the
snow lay around my doorstep—great heaps of protons quietly precessing in the earth’s magnetic
field. To see the world for a moment as something rich and strange is the private reward of many
a discovery.

Edward M. Purcell, ‘‘Research in nuclear magnetism’’ ~Nobel Lecture, December 11, 1952, reprinted in Nobel Lectures,
Physics, Vol. 3, 1942–1962, Elsevier Amsterdam, 1964!.

309 Am. J. Phys., Vol. 65, No. 4, April 1997 L. S. Brown and R. S. Steinke 309

This article is copyrighted as indicated in the article. Reuse of AAPT content is subject to the terms at: http://scitation.aip.org/termsconditions. Downloaded to IP:
107.222.41.79 On: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 21:59:46