deletions | additions       diff --git a/section_Discussion_subsection_Muon_Decay__.tex b/section_Discussion_subsection_Muon_Decay__.tex  index 9df0ebe..44389a3 100644  --- a/section_Discussion_subsection_Muon_Decay__.tex  +++ b/section_Discussion_subsection_Muon_Decay__.tex 
...
Several key characteristics of muons were identified in this experiment. The most important feature was perhaps the mean muon lifetime, $\tau_{obs}$, for this variable was critical in the calculation of positive to negative muons and the Fermi Coupling Constant. Statistically, the fit of our data to the exponential function expressed in Equation 3 is good, since our function has a $\tilde\chi^{2}$ value of 0.6211. Thus our data matches the expected behavior of muon decay distribution. Furthermore our result, $\tau_{obs}=2.04\pm0.04$ agrees with the accepted value of muon lifetime within uncertainty. Thought the observed result $\tau_{obs}=2.04\pm0.04$ fails to agree with the accepted value of antimuon lifetime, it is assumed this incongruity is an indicator that many more muon decays were observed than antimuon decays, and thus the average lifetime was weighted. This is quite interesting, since we had previously hypothesized that since positive muons do not have the potential to interact with matter we would see more of them than negative muons, which can vanish prior to decay due to interaction with material inside the scintillator. Nontheless, our computation of the ratio between positive and negative muons, $\rho=0.072$, was quite small, which confirmed our conclusion that there were many more negative muon decays observed than antimuon decays.   \par Finally, our calculated value for the Fermi Coupling constant, $G_{F}$, was close to the accepted value, but failed to match the value within uncertainty. However, the discrepancy is not particularly problematic, since $\tau_{obs}$ was an average of the mean muon lifetime and the mean antimuon lifetime. Therefore $\tau_{obs}$ is not expected to match the mean muon lifetime in a vacuum. Since the Fermi Coupling constant is calculated using the mean muon lifetime in a vacuum, it would make sense that the value observed and the accepted value did not match within uncertainty.   \subsection{Gamma Ray Spectroscopy} The radioactive decay of a nucleus for elements Cs-137 and Co-60 was studied by detecting gamma rays which were emitted in response to the decay. Gamma ray spectroscopy was used to determine an unknown isotope. The spectral distribution from the multi-channel analyzer appeared to have to photopeaks. Values for the photopeaks seen in the distribution for the unknown sample were 0.53655±7.11⋅10−5 MeV and 1.2791±0.000406 MeV respectively. Though our observed values are not consistent within uncertainty of the expected values of Sodium-22, the percent error between the expected and observed values is very slight ($5\%$ for the first peak and $0.36\%$ for the second peak) , thus we uphold that we have correctly determined the mystery sample. Furthermore, when compared to the expected photopeak values of the other possible elements the discrepancy between expected and observed values was far larger.  \par We were also able to compute the age of a sample of Cs-137 by finding the difference in the number of gamma rays that occured at the photopeak energy. From the Guassian Gaussian  fits it was determined that the number of gamma rays, $n_{1}$, associated with the photopeak energy for $S_{1}$ was $5856.6 \pm 5.67$, and the number of gamma rays, $n_{2}$,associated with the photopeak energy for $S_{2}$ was $845.6 \pm 1.78$. The age of $S_{2}$ was found to be 37.80 years, which is significantly older than the age of the known sample, $S_{1}$. This agrees with our qualitative conclusion from our data that $S_{2}$ was older, since the number of gamma rays associated with its photopeak energy was far smaller.