Charged Particles and Ionization

Click For Summary
A bubble chamber detects charged particles by ionizing hydrogen, leaving visible tracks, while neutral particles do not create tracks. Charged particles are not the only ones that can ionize; photons can also ionize atoms through processes like Compton scattering, but they lose energy and do not leave tracks themselves. Neutral particles can ionize under rare conditions, such as close collisions, but this is infrequent compared to the ionization caused by charged particles. The disappearance of a track can indicate the decay of a neutral particle into charged particles, with the distance reflecting the time taken for the neutral particle to decay. Overall, charged particles dominate ionization events in bubble chambers due to their long-range electric fields and frequent interactions.
Vortexology
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm studying A Level physics. I've read that a bubble chamber only shows up particles with a charge, as they ionize the hydrogen in the chamber, leaving tracks, whereas neutral particles don't show up. Is it therefore true then that only charged particles ionize? Because UV-radiation is ionizing and photons don't have a charge.

Is it that charged particles are the only ones to ionize in the circumstances, i.e. in hydrogen?

Hope this makes sense.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Photons can ionize atoms, but they are destroyed in the process (or lose a significant fraction of their energy) - they do not leave tracks in the bubble chamber. The electrons which were hit by the photons can leave those tracks, however.
 
mfb said:
Photons can ionize atoms, but they are destroyed in the process (or lose a significant fraction of their energy) - they do not leave tracks in the bubble chamber. The electrons which were hit by the photons can leave those tracks, however.

So say if a charged particle decays and one of the products is neutral, which then goes on to decay into two oppositely charged particles, then the distance where the track disappears - I.e where the neutral particle was - is caused by the time it takes for that particle to be destroyed? Sorry I'm still a bit confused about this.
 
Vortexology said:
So say if a charged particle decays and one of the products is neutral, which then goes on to decay into two oppositely charged particles, then the distance where the track disappears - I.e where the neutral particle was - is caused by the time it takes for that particle to be destroyed?
Right, the distance between the two points of decays correspond to the flight distance of the neutral particle.
 
Neutral particles can ionize, but they do so only on rare close collisions. For example a photon ionizes on each Compton scattering event, giving a large amount of energy to a single charged electron, but then passes a long distance without any interaction save slight retardation and refraction. A neutron ionizes when it bounces off a proton - but these are rare events, and most of them give a lot of energy to the proton. Small energy collisions are possible, but these are especially rare - they only happen on a rare glancing collisions.

Whereas a charged particle has a long range electric field. It generates a few high energy collisions on direct hits to charge centres, but a lot of low energy ionization events at large distances. It is these low energy ionizations that form a track.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 49 ·
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K