How Thick Should the Wall Be to Scatter Half the Particle Beam?

AI Thread Summary
To determine the thickness of a wall that allows half of a particle beam to penetrate without scattering, the mean free path formula is applied, where λ = 1/nσ. Given the wall's atom density of 2 x 10^29 atoms/m^3 and each atom's effective radius of 3 x 10^-15 m, the microscopic cross-section is calculated as σ = π*(3 x 10^-15 m)², resulting in approximately 2.83 x 10^-29 m². The macroscopic cross-section is then found using Σ = Nσ, which allows for the application of the exponential attenuation formula I = I0 exp(-Σt) to solve for the thickness t. This approach can also be adapted to find the thickness needed to stop all but one particle in 10^6. The calculations hinge on understanding the relationship between atomic density, cross-section, and penetration depth.
leviathanX777
Messages
39
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



A beam of particles strike a wall containing 2 x 10^29 atoms per m^3. each atom behaves like a sphere of radius 3 x 10^-15 m. Find the thickness of the wall that exactly half the particles will penetrate without scattering. What thickness would be needed to stop all but one particle in 10^6

Homework Equations



the mean free path (λ) = 1/nσ


The Attempt at a Solution



I'm not sure how to start the solution. I can't find an equation that will bring the thickness of the wall into the problem

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hmmm... you could consider the surface area effectivley covered by the spheres... what is that relative to the wall area in terms of the thickness?
 
I do not know the wall area, it didn't say.
 
Cool problem. I would approach it this way: The microscopic cross-section is ~ the area presented by a single nucleus, so in this case \sigma = \pi*(3x10-15 m)2 = 2.83 x 10-29 m2

Once you have that, you can calculate the macroscopic cross section using \Sigma=N\sigma and then you can use the exponential attenuation formula I = I0exp(-\Sigmat) to solve for the penetration depth t.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...
Back
Top