Talk:Internal conversion

Conversion electrons originates from internal conversion, right? If so, I suggest linking to it. -- Haakan 01:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this is not a photoelectric effect! Go read Krane if you don't believe me and edit my page instead of reverting to an older version! -- Jpau 08:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The internal conversion process is not actually the photoelectric ejection of an atomic electron, as the nucleus does not actually emit a gamma ray in the first place in this process. What happens is that the wavefunction of an inner shell electron penetrates the nucleus (ie there is a finite probability of the electron being found in the nucleus) and when this is the case the electron takes the energy of the nuclear transition without an intermediary gamma ray being produced. The energy of the emitted electron is equal to the transition energy minus the binding energy of the electron. Most internal conversion electrons come from the K shell as this electron has the highest probability of being found inside the nucleus.

It should be noted that in chemistry, "internal conversion" is defined as a transition between one set of atomic (or molecular) electronic excited levels to another set. It is sometimes called "radiationless de-excitation", because no photons are emitted.

A classic example of this process is the quinine sulphate fluorescence, which can be "quenched" by the use of various halide salts. What happens is that the excited molecule can de-excite by increasing the thermal energy of the surrounding solvated ions.

Thus, although internal conversion is well-known in nuclear science, it is known to be present in other branches of physical science. It might be best to write a disambiguation for this, ie. internal conversion (nuclear), and then internal conversion (atomic/molecular).

--142.58.75.134 07:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy to put the most common usage at the name without brackets and then use braces to delinate other uses for other pages. I have made a page and placed your information at the appropriate page. --metta, The Sunborn 17:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

How about giving an example

It would be useful to see an actual real example of internal conversion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chcastan (talk • contribs) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Differences between internal conversion and $\beta$-decay

In the article on internal conversion, it is stated that "Thus, in an internal conversion process, a high-energy electron which appears to be a classical beta particle is emitted from the radioactive atom, but without beta decay taking place.". This is very misleading. To an observer, internally converted electrons are nothing like $\beta$ particles. Internally converted electrons have a well specified discrete energy. However, $\beta$ particles, while being electrons or positrons, may be emitted with a range of energies up to a maximum value. This is because of the presence of the neutrino in the $\beta$-decay process which can share the energy with the emitted electron/positron. The spectrum of a $\beta$ particle is thus a broad hump while the spectrum of internally converted electrons is a sharp peak, the width of which is limited only by the resolution of the detector. This article requires a lot of work in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.79.162.143 (talk) 10:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right. I will add your qualification, and we can find a reference later. SBHarris 02:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this discussion is informative and should be in the article as a headed paragraph. I did not see what the difference was between betas and IC electrons, and now I do. But I am immediately changing the article as it stands since it says that "high-speed electrons from internal conversion are by definition not beta particles". This is clearly wrong since it is not "by definition" but by observation: namely, beta particles have one energy spectrum and IC electrons have another! —Preceding unsigned comment added by C.jeynes (talk • contribs) 10:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

What happens with the atom after an 1s-electron become ejected? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Theory

Hello, I have no time to do it now but if someone wants to write a section on the theroy of the internal conversion, these are some reference papers on this subject

• H. M. Taylor and N. F. Mott, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, Vol. 138, No. 836 (Dec. 1, 1932), pp. 665-695
• N. Tralli and G. Goertzel, Phys. Rev. 83, 399–404 (1951)
• H. R. Coish , Phys. Rev. 84, 164–165 (1951)

Pamputt (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Misleading

The following is very misleading: "In the internal conversion process, the wavefunction of an inner shell electron penetrates the nucleus..."

A wavefunction is a mathematical construct. It doesn't penetrate anything. Zedshort (talk) 04:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. Atomic orbitals are mathematical constructs also. In that sense, also not real. In the mathematical model of internal conversion, which is exceedingly complex and subtle, the wavefunction of the electron penetrates the volume associated with the nucleus. I've fixed it to be specific. SBHarris 06:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of the "Wave function collapse"? It doesn't "penetrate anything" but it seems like it performs "strange stuff" for sure...   M aurice  10:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

cases with minuscule decay energy

Perhaps the most striking example is ^229mTh, where so little energy is available from the decay that the valence electrons are the ones undergoing internal conversion (yes, 7s!). Double sharp (talk) 06:55, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Internal conversion is not non-radioactive

The current opening sentence of the article calls internal conversion "non-radioactive":

"Internal conversion is a non-radioactive, atomic decay process ..."

I do not consider this correct: An electron is emitted (typically with high energy) as a result of a nuclear transition. Agreed, the electron does not originate from the nucleus, so this is not a beta decay. But it is an example of a nuclear transition resulting in emission of something. That would to me seem to be the definition of a radioactive decay. (Just as I would call electron capture an example of radioactive decay, even though we do not register the emitted neutrino - in line with the opening clarification of that Wiki-article.)

It is not important for the article to call the process "radioactive", though, so a simple solution would be to omit the word "non-radioactive":

"Internal conversion is an atomic decay process ..."

Any objections to such a change? Lj phys (talk) 10:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)