Alpha Particles: Is 'Radiation' a Misnomer?

[azaharak]

Isn't Alpha radiation a misnomer?

Alpha particles are released during the decay of an unstable nucleus, their kinetic energy along with their charged nature have the ability to ionize other atoms. There is no radiation emitted.

This is why alpha particles are only dangerous when relatively close, they can not travel long distances in air?

Does this sound reasonable? Comments greatly appreciated.

Thankyou

AZ

 

[Vanadium 50]

Wouldn't beta radiation have the same problem?

It's rare to redefine things so they "make more sense", since a change in definition causes confusion, and the whole reason you have definitions in the first place is to avoid confusion. As an example, just ask Pluto.

 

[azaharak]

Yes I was thinking that as well

However beta can create gamma photons.

Thanks

 

[davenn]

Isn't Alpha radiation a misnomer?

Alpha particles are released during the decay of an unstable nucleus, their kinetic energy along with their charged nature have the ability to ionize other atoms. There is no radiation emitted.

This is why alpha particles are only dangerous when relatively close, they can not travel long distances in air?

Does this sound reasonable? Comments greatly appreciated.

Thankyou

AZ

not at all ... they are emitted and can be detected, therefore they are being radiated
(emitted radiation)

Dave

 

[azaharak]

By radiation I was suggesting Electromagnetic radiation,

are you suggesting that radiation solely means the ejection or emission of something?

 

[BruceW]

yes, radiation doesn't necessarily mean electromagnetic radiation. (That's why you put electromagnetic to specify the type of radiation).

 

[davenn]

By radiation I was suggesting Electromagnetic radiation,

are you suggesting that radiation solely means the ejection or emission of something?

answered well by BruceW, but keep in mind even electromagnetic radiation ... say a radio signal ... is still the emission of particles, photons in this case, rather than Alpha or Beta particles

Dave

 

[davenn]

Yes I was thinking that as well

However beta can create gamma photons.

Thanks

Do you have a reference to that ? I cannot find anything when googling such.

All references to Gamma emission says its emitted from the nucleus of the atom.
there are comments that some times a Beta and a Gamma particle can be emitted at the same time but haven't found anything that states that Beta particles can be a source of Gamma particles.

The other source of Gamma particles is of course the astronomical Gamma Ray Bursts where the process of gamma ray production isn't fully understood.

This I didnt know tho...
quote from wikipedia...
"Being composed of charged particles, beta radiation is more strongly ionising than gamma radiation. When passing through matter, a beta particle is decelerated by electromagnetic interactions and may give off bremsstrahlung x-rays"

Dave

 

[azaharak]

I agree with the bremsstrahlung...

beta plus produces positrons which can annihilate with electrons releasing photons

heres one source

http://www.surviveabide.com/Advanced/NBC/Radiation.htm

heres another

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation

and another...

"The slowing-down processes have the same effect on both β− and β+ particles. However, as antimatter, the positron (β+) cannot exist for long in the presence of matter. It soon combines with an atomic electron, with which it annihilates, the masses of both particles being replaced by electromagnetic energy. Usually this annihilation occurs after the positron has come to rest and formed a positronium atom, a bound but short-lived positron-electron system. In that case, the electromagnetic energy that is emitted from the annihilation takes the form of two 511-keV gamma rays that are emitted in opposite directions to conserve momentum. See also Positronium."

http://www.answers.com/topic/beta-particle


I didn't think about the bremsstrahlung from the alpha particles...

"The total power radiated in the two limiting cases is proportional to γ4 (a \perp v) or γ6 (a \parallel v). Since E = γmc2, we see that the total radiated power goes as m − 4 or m − 6, which accounts for why electrons lose energy to bremsstrahlung radiation much more rapidly than heavier charged particles (e.g., muons, protons, alpha particles). This is the reason a TeV energy electron-positron collider (such as the proposed International Linear Collider) cannot use a circular tunnel (requiring constant acceleration), while a proton-proton collider (such as the Large Hadron Collider) can utilize a circular tunnel. The electrons lose energy due to bremsstrahlung at a rate (m_p/m_e)^4 \approx 10^{13} times higher than protons do."


but apparently they decelerate relatively slow due to their large mass, producing longer wavelength radiation.

 

[ZealScience]

I think the point is on the word radiation only, alpha particles are innocent...

 

[Drakkith]

Isn't Alpha radiation a misnomer?

Alpha particles are released during the decay of an unstable nucleus, their kinetic energy along with their charged nature have the ability to ionize other atoms. There is no radiation emitted.

This is why alpha particles are only dangerous when relatively close, they can not travel long distances in air?

Does this sound reasonable? Comments greatly appreciated.

Thankyou

AZ

Nonsense, radiation of all types is composed of particles of energy. Does having mass mean that it cannot be radiation? The definition OF radiation is below.

From wikipedia:

In physics, radiation is a process in which energetic particles or energy or waves travel through a medium or space.

By radiation I was suggesting Electromagnetic radiation,

are you suggesting that radiation solely means the ejection or emission of something?

Yep. See above.