How to Calculate Absolute Gamma Probability from Relative Intensities?

AI Thread Summary
Calculating absolute gamma probabilities from relative intensities involves converting relative values from tables of nuclides into probabilities that sum to one. After alpha or beta decay, a nucleus can emit multiple gamma rays, leading to relative intensities that may exceed one due to successive emissions. This situation complicates calculations related to activity and mass, as a total probability greater than one can result in negative mass values. The accumulation of unobserved probabilities may contribute to this discrepancy, making it challenging to achieve accurate calculations. Understanding these nuances is crucial for precise nuclear decay analysis.
HaniNaber
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hi All,

I want to ask how to calculate the absolute gamma probability from relative intensities ( found on the tables of nucliedes) following alpha or beta decay.

I mean the probabilities that all add to 1.

Many thanks.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
HaniNaber said:
the absolute gamma probability from relative intensities
I'm not sure what one means by "the absolute gamma probability". To what 'probability' is one referring. After alpha or beta decay, a nucleus of a radionuclide can be left in an excited state, and the only way to become more stable is to emit a gamma ray. A given gamma energy has a probability of occurring when compared to all the other possible decays, and some of more likely to happen, or more probable, depending on precursor decay.

To what 'chart of the nuclides' is one referring?
 
I mean in the table of nuclides for example the IAEA table , they would list the relative intensities of all the gammas from one isotope for example one gamma from the 4th energy level to the 2nd and one from the 2nd to ground state, after adding all the relative probabilities of all the possible gammas listed they don't add to one (after adding all of them the total is 1.4 for Ac228), I'm looking to convert these relative intensities to probabilities that add to 1.

Thank You.
 
HaniNaber said:
I mean in the table of nuclides for example the IAEA table , they would list the relative intensities of all the gammas from one isotope for example one gamma from the 4th energy level to the 2nd and one from the 2nd to ground state, after adding all the relative probabilities of all the possible gammas listed they don't add to one (after adding all of them the total is 1.4 for Ac228), I'm looking to convert these relative intensities to probabilities that add to 1.

Thank You.
Well, the reason that probabilities for all gamma ray energies can add up to >1 is that in some decays two gamma rays are produced successively, i.e., they both happen successively from the same decay. One sees this in radiative capture of neutrons as well, where the excited nucleus emits 1 or 2 gammas in response to absorption of a neutron. The energy of the two gammas is often nearly equal to the single gamma energy.

https://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/getdecayscheme.jsp?nucleus=228TH&dsid=228ac bM decay&unc=nds
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Vanadium 50
Thank you, it makes sense.

I am trying to do some calculations related to activity and mass based of the total probability of all the gammas, and for this calculation to be done, the total probability should be less than 1, otherwise I would get negative masses.

I think that accumulation of error in adding all the possible probabilities ( some might have never been observed) is the reason for greater than 1 total probability. It might just be impractical to do so.

Thanks again for your help.
 
Hello, I'm currently trying to compare theoretical results with an MCNP simulation. I'm using two discrete sets of data, intensity (probability) and linear attenuation coefficient, both functions of energy, to produce an attenuated energy spectrum after x-rays have passed through a thin layer of lead. I've been running through the calculations and I'm getting a higher average attenuated energy (~74 keV) than initial average energy (~33 keV). My guess is I'm doing something wrong somewhere...
Back
Top