-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 21
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Changing the Propagation Medium Density #379
Comments
Hello! There are a few aspects that are important to note here. Firstly, with the line Since PROPOSAL 7, we started to calculate everything internally in grammage. This means that changing the mass density does not have any effect on the calculations of energy losses, scattering, etc. (which is ok in first order approximation! more about this aspsect later...). The only difference for the three different propagations is therefore the (trivial) conversion from grammage to distance. This difference can be seen when you look, for example, at the propagated distances of the particles (i.e. I've mentioned that for the calculation of energy losses, changing the mass density doesn't have an effect. This is only a valid approximation for linear effects, but doesn't work for non-linear effects, for example calculation of the LPM effect. To take these effects into account, this density correction needs to be explicitly passed to the parametrizations. You can do this by passing a See this adapted script:
The corresponding output looks like this:
Note that the differences are very small, since the non-linear corrections are negligible at the involved energies. |
I (with @afedynitch) am trying to use PROPOSAL v7.4.2 to propagate muons through rock and I've noticed that when I change the density of the rock, the energy loss of the secondaries is identical, whereas at least some variation should be expected. This is essentially what I am running:
This outputs three identical lists:
Am I setting the density correctly? I seem to remember getting different results in the past (I unfortunately don't have a record of the exact PROPOSAL version I used, but it was earlier than v7.1.0); has something changed?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: