A Mass measurement in a Penning trap

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter kelly0303
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on measuring the mass of a molecular ion in a Penning trap, highlighting the impact of polarization on mass measurements. The author derives an effective mass formula, incorporating an induced electric dipole, which aligns with existing research findings. They explore the implications of assuming a fully polarized molecule, leading to a different treatment of the dipole moment in the Lagrangian. The challenge arises in interpreting the term related to the intrinsic dipole moment when factoring in the effects of polarization. The author seeks clarification on how to accurately account for this term in the context of mass measurement.
kelly0303
573
33
Hello! My question is motivated by this paper (also attached below). They are measuring the mass of a molecular ion in a Penning trap, and they are able to see a difference due to the fact that the molecule gets polarized (the motion is classical and non-relativistic). I was able to derive their result, for an induced electric dipole, using the Lagrangian:


where is the polarization and is the electric field. If we use the fact that we can see from the form of the Lagrangian, if we take the derivative with respect to :


From this we get an effective mass of:


which is consistent with their result. However, I was wondering, if we assume that the molecule is highly (or fully) polarized and not just weakly, instead of we have simply , where is the intrinsic dipole moment of the molecule. However, assuming is constant, which is (very close to being) true for a fully polarized molecule, we have which gives:


now we can't factor out anymore and thus it's not clear anymore how to count towards the mass of the molecule. However, intuitively, I would expect that the higher the polarization, the higher the shift in the measured mass. What am I doing wrong, or how should I interpret the term in this case? Thank you!
 
Thread 'The rocket equation, one more time'
I already posted a similar thread a while ago, but this time I want to focus exclusively on one single point that is still not clear to me. I just came across this problem again in Modern Classical Mechanics by Helliwell and Sahakian. Their setup is exactly identical to the one that Taylor uses in Classical Mechanics: a rocket has mass m and velocity v at time t. At time it has (according to the textbooks) velocity and mass . Why not ##m -...