Skip to content
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

fixes calculation of beta from beta0 issue #62

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

martinschwinzerl
Copy link

In the tracking maps for the spacecharge elements,
beta has been calculated as

beta = beta0 / rvv

However, since rvv is defined as rvv = beta / beta0,

beta = beta0 * rvv

would be the correct way to calculate beta. This fixes inconsistencies between
SixTrackLib >= 0.6 and pysixtrack

In the tracking maps for the spacecharge elements,
beta has been calculated as

beta = beta0 / rvv

However, since rvv is defined as rvv = beta / beta0,

beta = beta0 * rvv

would be the correct way to calculate beta. This fixes inconsistencies between
SixTrackLib >= 0.6 and pysixtrack
@rdemaria rdemaria marked this pull request as ready for review April 20, 2021 17:15
@rdemaria
Copy link

The argument is correct. For simplecticity reasons we should only use beta0, although is less accurate.
I propose to change both pysixtrack and sixtracklib in this way.

@giadarol
Copy link

Indeed, beta should disappear and we should use beta0 everywhere in the space charge lenses.

As Riccardo says it is the only way of preserving symplecticity with a 4D lens.

Moreover keeping beta does not really improve the accuracy: the interaction time depends on the beta of the particle but depends also on the path length (which in turn depends on px, py). These two effects fight against each other in typical cases (positive dispersion), therefore it does not really make much sense to keep one while neglecting the other.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants