Can Gamma Rays Completely Disrupt Electrons in Solid Objects?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter lucas_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Electrons
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential of gamma rays and other forms of radiation to completely remove electrons from solid objects and disrupt intermolecular bonds, leading to disintegration. Participants explore the theoretical implications, practical limitations, and various forms of radiation, including gamma rays, visible light, UV light, and X-rays.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether gamma rays can remove all electrons from a solid object and disrupt intermolecular bonds.
  • Another participant humorously suggests that the inquiry may be related to weapon development, which is dismissed as a serious concern.
  • A participant notes that while particle beam weapons use atoms or particles, photons might not effectively knock out all electrons, particularly within the material, citing the photoelectric effect's limitations to surface electrons.
  • It is mentioned that bulk materials absorb energy from free electrons, primarily resulting in heating rather than complete electron removal, potentially leading to plasma formation if enough energy is supplied.
  • Discussion includes the Bohr-Oppenheimer approximation, with some participants debating its relevance to the energy transfer and molecular vibrations when exposing materials to gamma rays.
  • Concerns are raised about the increasing energy required to eject electrons as more are removed, leading to higher electric field strengths and potential static discharge effects.
  • One participant emphasizes that other forms of radiation, such as visible light and UV light, can also excite electrons, questioning the necessity of gamma rays for the process.
  • Clarification is made regarding the distinction between disintegrating an object by forming plasma versus removing all electrons from it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the feasibility of using gamma rays or other radiation to remove electrons from solid objects, with no consensus reached on the effectiveness or implications of such methods.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to energy absorption in bulk materials, the increasing difficulty of electron removal, and the potential for static discharge, but these aspects remain unresolved within the discussion.

lucas_
Messages
413
Reaction score
23
What kind of beam can remove all the electrons of the target solid object and disrupt the intermolecular bonds disintegrating the object? Can gamma rays do it (enough energy to knock all electrons)?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
now i understand...you want to build a new weapon of destruction and rule the world...sorry we are not going to answer to terrorists!
 
funny.. I read particle beam weapon uses atoms or particles as projectiles to heat up or shread the target.. but why can't they be composed of photons to knock out all the electrons.. is this not possible.. is there no em frequency that can knock electrons out especially if it is inside the material? I think photoelectric effect can only disrupt the surface electrons...
 
The problem is that bulk materials quickly absorb energy from these free electrons as they travel through the material. Youd mostly just heat up the material. You could continue to heat it up until it ionizes completely of course, in which case youd have a plasma.
 
Drakkith said:
The problem is that bulk materials quickly absorb energy from these free electrons as they travel through the material. Youd mostly just heat up the material. You could continue to heat it up until it ionizes completely of course, in which case youd have a plasma.

The Bohr-Oppenheimer approximation says you can separate analysis of the wavefunctions of the electrons and nucleus because the electronic transition is much faster. But if you can expose an object to gamma rays enough to make electronic transitions.. how much would the energy transfer to molecular vibrations (or how much heat would this produce in Fahrenheit compared to just heating the object)?
 
lucas_ said:
The Bohr-Oppenheimer approximation says you can separate analysis of the wavefunctions of the electrons and nucleus because the electronic transition is much faster.

The bohr approximation is about analyzing interactions, so I don't see how it's relevant here. You're blasting electrons out of their orbitals and sending them careening through a sea of charged particles. They're going to be bouncing around and ionizing other atoms as they travel, regardless of how you analyze it. Practically all of the energy eventually ends up deposited in atomic and molecular vibrations. The effect this has on the material is to heat it up.

lucas_ said:
But if you can expose an object to gamma rays enough to make electronic transitions..

You don't even need gamma rays for this. Visible light, UV light, and X-Rays all excite electrons too. Besides, you're missing the bigger issue here. You can't remove all the electrons from a bulk object anyways. With each electron taken the more positively charged the object becomes. Eventually the energy required to eject an electron would be so high that you couldn't eject anymore. You'd also reach a point where the electric field strength becomes so high that the object would rip electrons off of other nearby objects in the form of a static discharge.
 
Drakkith said:
Eventually the energy required to eject an electron would be so high that you couldn't eject anymore. You'd also reach a point where the electric field strength becomes so high that the object would rip electrons off of other nearby objects in the form of a static discharge.

Add enough energy quickly enough and the target in principle could be heated to the point of forming a plasma. Of course it would have vaporized long before that, which is the principle behind laser cutting and machining. Google for "laser machining" and "laser weaponry" to get a sense of the state of the art here.

There's not much more to say in this thread (except that if you want to actually build something, you should review our policy on dangerous activities!) so this thread is closed. As always, send me or any of the other mentors a private message if you disagree and want to add more to it.
 
Nugatory said:
Add enough energy quickly enough and the target in principle could be heated to the point of forming a plasma. Of course it would have vaporized long before that, which is the principle behind laser cutting and machining.

Sure. I said that in my previous post. Just to clarify for the OP, there is a difference between disintigrating an object by turning it into a plasma and disintigrating an object by removing all electrons from it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K