1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

I Proton through solid object

  1. Mar 28, 2017 #1
    When protons or nuclei of light elements like Helium passes through gas, it ionises the molecules on it path. But that's not the case when proton or nuclei of light elements pass through solid objects like metal. What's the reason behind that?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 28, 2017 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Why do you think it wouldn't happen in solid objects?
     
  4. Mar 28, 2017 #3

    Khashishi

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    A piece of metal is essentially one big molecule. So, if a piece of metal loses or gains some charge, it's essentially an ion.
     
  5. Mar 28, 2017 #4
    Can you give any example that it happens in solid objects too?
     
  6. Mar 29, 2017 #5

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    All semiconductor detectors use the energy transfer to electrons, for example.
     
  7. Mar 29, 2017 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    You are approaching this the wrong way. You made a statement that really isn't obvious (i.e. protron and ions going through solids without causing such ionization) without citing any valid evidence for it, and then asking someone else to show why you're wrong. This is not how you make an argument on this forum, or in a typical scientific discussion. It is you who is responsible for backing up your claim.

    Please note that it is well-known that proton beams can cause significant changes to solids. It is why we have proton therapy. Proton accelerators have significant residual radiation because the protons can activate the beam pipe walls or beam dump when they hit them. In fact, if you do a search of the list of ionizing radiation, proton beams are certainly a very effective source! And this is true for solids.

    So there is no "reason" for it as asked in your first post that I quoted, because the premise that you presented isn't true.

    Zz.
     
  8. Mar 29, 2017 #7
    Semicondustors don't use protons and/or nuclei of light materials.
    I don't know much examples of protons or light nuclei passing through soild. What I know is the famous Geiger-Marsden experiment, in which a thin foil of gold is bombarded with α particles. There is no mention that the gold foil has been ionised by the bombardment. Do you know any experiment where protons and/or light nuclei is used to bombard a solid object?
     
  9. Mar 29, 2017 #8

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0953-8984/13/40/315

    You need to remember that in many cases, these solids are often grounded, so any net electrical charge has been neutralized.

    Again, read what I had written above. Considering the proton therapy is a known medical procedure, you could have easily looked that up. If you think a beam of protons will just "pass through" your skin without inducing anything, then I have a particle accelerator for you to meet.

    Zz.
     
  10. Mar 29, 2017 #9
    Semiconductors have some unique electrical properties and it can't be said that when they are bombarded by protons, the same result would be obtained in case of a solid metal. And for proton therapy, we should keep in mind that our body (or any kind of living tissue) is much more complex than a simple metal block/plate. Our body contains liquids with dissolved gases in them.
    In the description of the experiment, it isn't mentioned anywhere that the gold foil is grounded.
     
  11. Mar 29, 2017 #10

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    Remember that in your ORIGINAL POST, you said ".... pass through solid objects like metal..." I assume that you care more about the object being a "solid" rather than being specific to a metal.

    There is nothing here to prevent ionization of metals. The difference being that a metal (i) can easily be grounded and (ii) have huge amount of free electrons that can quickly neutralize the ionized atoms. Still there's nothing here that says that positive ions or protons can't cause such ionization. In fact, it is well-known that proton or positive ion bombardments can cause secondary electron emission in solids, INCLUDING metals.

    http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1103&context=ameslab_iscreports

    So where do you think these electrons came from?

    Zz.
     
  12. Mar 29, 2017 #11

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    You asked about "solid objects like metals", not about solid objects made out of hydrogen or other light elements. Semiconductors are not metals, but that difference doesn't matter here (and they are certainly solid): They have electrons that can gain energy if ionizing radiation passes through the object.
     
  13. Mar 31, 2017 #12
    A very good source and thanks for the information. As per the paper, one proton of 23 kilovolts of energy can knock off 3.59 electrons maximum and the energy of the electrons knocked can be just 30 volts maximum. In the paper, 23 kilovolt is the lowest energy level for protons and that means the lowest energy proton with the maximum number of stray electron generation can loose only 107.7 volt out of the 23 kilovolt.
    In contrast, when a proton passes through a gas, it ionises all the molecules it can until it's drained off with its energy. In short, even for the sake of logic, we can consider that protons can knock of electrons from metals but the amount is so little in comparison to gas, it's simply negligible.
     
  14. Mar 31, 2017 #13
    Can you give any example where semicoductors were bombarded by protons?
     
  15. Mar 31, 2017 #14
    il has been ionised by the bombardment. Do you know any experiment where protons and/or light nuclei is used to bombard a solid object?[/QUOTE]
    Proton detectors certainly are bombarded by protons.

    For instance:
    http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567173905001951
    http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-0221/11/09/P09005/meta


    A proton passing through a solid will excite a huge number of electrons, but the energy distribution of the electrons is given by
    [tex] \frac{dn}{dE}\propto \frac{1}{E^2}[/tex]
    So most of the electrons excited in a solid will only gain a small amount of energy, and won't be enough to cause ionisation, see p26 in the pdf here. Such small energy processes aren't possible in gases as gases don't have a continuous density of states like solids do, as such the only processes that are allowed are those that result in transitions between the discrete energy levels and those that cause ionisation.

    Note also that the mean free path of a free electron in a solid is also extremely short, a few nanometres usually, so any ionised electrons would likely not make it out of the solid to be detected.
    h14_9.jpg
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  16. Mar 31, 2017 #15

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    That is the energy of the few electrons that completely leave the material. There are also electrons in the material gaining energy, these are not counted in that study.
    Every detector looking for protons. Detectors for particle physics get hit by protons frequently, for example.
     
  17. Mar 31, 2017 #16
    It's so far the most valuable input here. Whatsoever, kindly tell whether that also means that proton also losses less energy while passing through solids in comparison to passing through gases?
     
  18. Mar 31, 2017 #17

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    To a good approximation, the energy loss depends only on the electron density, which is roughly proportional to the density of the material (apart from hydrogen (as target material!)).
    Bethe formula.
     
  19. Jun 25, 2017 #18
    As per the formula above; higher the energy of the proton, lower is the amount of energy transferred to the electrons. And from your post, it seems that energy transfer from a high velocity Proton is small in case of solids, especially metals in comparison to gases. Am I right?
     
  20. Jun 25, 2017 #19

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    At very high energies that trend reverses, but it is true over a large energy range.
    I don't see how you got that impression.
    Per distance the energy loss is much larger due to the higher density, per amount of material crossed the energy loss is similar.
     
  21. Jun 25, 2017 #20
    You haven't mentioned, at what range the trend will reverse. Whatsoever, thanks for the information.
    What you have said can be easily understood as solids have much higher density in comparison to gas. What I want to mean is that the energy loss of the proton for a specific number of atoms/molecules is lower in solid/metal in comparison to gases. In the solid/metal, most of the electrons will gain a small amount of energy while in case of gases the energy gain will be so high that the atom/molecule will be ionised. Am I right?
     
  22. Jun 25, 2017 #21

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    ~3 GeV for protons.
    It is not.

    In gases, ionization (high energies for electrons) are the only process. In solids, you still get electrons with high energy - but in addition you also get electrons with lower energies. The resulting energy loss per electron in the material is very similar.
     
  23. Jun 25, 2017 #22
    In case of solid/metals, high energy electrons are at the periphery while lower energy electrons are closer to the nucleus. They can only jump to the upper orbit and for metals mainly, those are already occupied. The only way to absorb energy from the proton by an electron is by jumping to a higher orbit. But that's already occupied for low energy electrons that are closer to nucleus. They how that can be done?
    In case of ionisation, the electrons from the outermost orbit is released if the amount of energy input is equal or more than a specific amount. But that's not the case for lower orbit low energy electrons having their higher orbits occupied. As for example in case of Boron, it has 3 electrons in its outermost shell and as it's a metallic solid, those electrons behave like free electrons. While low energy electrons occupy the inner shell. The electrons at the outermost shell have more probability of getting energy from a proton than the inner electrons.
     
  24. Jun 25, 2017 #23

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2017 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    They are occupied for gases as well. Up to some level, beyond that they are free. Really similar between metals and gases. In metals you don't have discrete levels, you have bands and some electrons are very close to the Fermi level, which means they can (but don't have to) absorb very low energies.
    It doesn't have to be the outermost.
    For ionization it doesn't matter if higher orbits are occupied, because the resulting state is never occupied.
     
  25. Jun 25, 2017 #24

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor

    But if this is true, then we also won't have core-level photoemission, which is clearly not the case here. Or what about Auger process?

    I still do not believe that you are continuing with this after being given numerous examples and papers that clearly debunked your original idea in the first post. Are you still clinging to the idea that ".... When protons or nuclei of light elements like Helium passes through gas, it ionises the molecules on it path. But that's not the case when proton or nuclei of light elements pass through solid objects like metal....." Are you still arguing that protons and ions can pass through solids without ionizing the molecules in the solid?

    Please note that while many of us have given you reference papers and sources to counter your argument, you haven't produced any on your own. That reference to Geiger-Marsden experiment doesn't apply because make the film thicker and tell me what happens.

    Zz.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Loading...