Talk:Beam emittance

Emittance and Projections of Emittance[edit]

I don't believe the formula for the emittance is correct. It's a naive approximation that leaves out correlations in the 4 dimensions of transverse emittance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.107.13.185 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the 4D emittances are included in the article as of 2022. The 2D emittances are also fairly important for application when the beam doesn't have correlation. ElectronsNStuff (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About the conservation of emittance[edit]

If conservation of emittance means that just as much rays enters as leaves then I don't think lenses can apply. --Nabo0o (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you mean; conservation of emittance with quadrupoles (lenses) acting on the beam is pretty much the reason why it is useful. This article would be helped significantly by having a phase space ellipse (or a couple showing different beams). If someone has the time please make one! Cambion (talk) 10:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ops. Sorry I got something mixed up there ..... I was thinking more in terms of radiation intensity than the actual number of rays--Nabo0o (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--anonymous (no user name now, my name is Boaz).. Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia. I'm an accelerator physicist. I edited the article a little and will try to do some more. The two distinctions that should be understood are between single particle emittance and RMS emittance, and between emittance for electrons (which radiate substantially) and emittance for other heavier particles.

Confusion[edit]

I think the article is pretty confusing. It seems to mix optics of light and "optics" of particle accelerators. Personally I've never used 'brightness' in a particle beam - only luminosity which is a more useful metric. However, I see how it makes sense in some respects. I suppose when I did all this we just pretended the particles in a bunch don't affect each other so including how many particles there are is just not relevant. Cambion (talk) 19:34, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that Etendue would be the equivalent for a photon beam? As far as I can see, they are closely related, so the wiki pages should probably at least be cross-linked. See also: http://www.physics.princeton.edu/~mcdonald/examples/lamp.pdf (search for emittance) Kyrsjo (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need to state that angle is dimensionless?[edit]

The article states emittance has dimensions of length or length*angle, which makes sense once you remember angle is dimensionless. (I had to look up to make sure angle is dimensionless.) Should we state that angle is dimensionless to make this clearer? RJFJR (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We should rather speak about the fact that we use very often a "small angle" approximation and blend angles and slopes ;) 77.197.180.90 (talk) 17:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emittance Measurement[edit]

I started adding detail on emittance measurement technique. Not sure if it will be warranted to break them off into their own article soon, or if leaving them here is more appropriate. ElectronsNStuff (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]