Kinetic/Potential question.

[YT2095]

a thought occured to me about this, HOW does Radiation fall into this energy type(s)?

 

a strongly radioactive substance, is it kinetic energy at a rate, with potential energy stored?

 

or is it something else entirely?

 

ta

[swansont]

Not sure I understand the question.

 

Photon energy is purely kinetic - there is no rest mass term.

 

Radioactive decay converts rest mass into other forms of energy.

[mezarashi]

I'm no nuclear scientist, but I think to answer to this question, you have to clearly define what you mean by "radioactive". Because as far as I know, radiactive material is simply metastable configurations at the atomic level, as similarly you have metastable chemical substances.

 

In anycase, what makes something radioactive is that it emits "high-energy" atomic particles, the more commonly known ones being alpha-particles (helium nuclei), gamma particles (high frequency photons), beta particles (high velocity electrons), that can penetrate and rip apart other atoms if they come into contact with them. So that is a problem of course if you're around and it starts ripping apart your cell's DNA.

 

So yeah, knowing what these elements are would put you in a better position in classifying what kind of energy makes up this radioactivity. Generally it is in the form of kinetic energy yes. They are released at high enough velocities to cause damage on collision. Thats why nuclear facilities use lead or some kind of boron carbon? if I'm not wrong, in thick layers to stop the penetration of these particles. And of course, the high energy photons like gamma particles and x-rays can literally fry you alive, somehow like your microwave cooks food.

[YT2095]

I was thinking alont the lines of this...

 

Imagine 2 cubes, one made of a very radioactive element and another of a non-radioactive element.

both weigh exactly 1Kg, and are suspended 1 meter above the floor.

 

do they both have the same potential energy?

[swansont]

I was thinking alont the lines of this...

 

Imagine 2 cubes' date=' one made of a very radioactive element and another of a non-radioactive element.

both weigh exactly 1Kg, and are suspended 1 meter above the floor.

 

do they both have the same potential energy?[/quote']

 

If they both have a mass of exactly 1 kg, then yes. But the radioactive one will not have a mass of 1 kg after any time has passed, though the mass difference will be small.

[swansont]

I'm no nuclear scientist, but I think to answer to this question, you have to clearly define what you mean by "radioactive". Because as far as I know, radiactive material is simply metastable configurations at the atomic level, as similarly you have metastable chemical substances.

 

Actually, "metastable" has certain implications in atomic and nuclear systems. In atomic systems it usually means that the strongest coupling transition is not allowed, and it must proceed through some second-order transition. In nuclear systems I think it is similar. metastable implies the lifetime is longer than what you'd expect from the energy difference and mode of decay.

 

 

So yeah, knowing what these elements are would put you in a better position in classifying what kind of energy makes up this radioactivity. Generally it is in the form of kinetic energy yes. They are released at high enough velocities to cause damage on collision. Thats why nuclear facilities use lead or some kind of boron carbon? if I'm not wrong, in thick layers to stop the penetration of these particles. And of course, the high energy photons like gamma particles and x-rays can literally fry you alive, somehow like your microwave cooks food.

 

Boron carbon (B₄C) is used specifically to absorb neutrons, since B-10 has a large capture cross section (~10 kilobarns, IIRC). Lead is a gamma/X-ray shield; alphas and betas are trivial to shield.

 

Microwaves are non-ionizing, so I don't think the analogy is correct. Ionizing radiation damages cells by ionizing (surprise!). Thermal effects are, AFAIK, secondary.

[J.C.MacSwell]

I was thinking alont the lines of this...

 

Imagine 2 cubes' date=' one made of a very radioactive element and another of a non-radioactive element.

both weigh exactly 1Kg, and are suspended 1 meter above the floor.

 

do they both have the same potential energy?[/quote']

 

I'm going to be a pain and point out that if they "weigh" one kg the denser one will have less mass. Minor point, but it would overwhelm the other factors in significance.

[YT2095]

I'm going to be a pain and point out that if they "weigh" one kg the denser one will have less mass.

 

eh?

 

it would have the same mass, but less volume surely?

[J.C.MacSwell]

eh?

 

it would have the same mass' date=' but less volume surely?[/quote']

 

Less volume means less buoyant force from the air. So if they weighed the same the larger volume would have more mass.

[DavidAngelMX]

First, about the question of the two bodies 1mt above the ground, you gotta specify what kind of Potential you mean; the fact that you pointed out that they are 1mt above the ground, makes me think you are talking about Gravitational Potential, but that just doesn't have anything to do with radiation, which is more likely related to Weak Nuclear interaction, or in the case of electromagnetic radiation, to electromagnetic potential.

 

For a veri specific answer to the first question posted, I can say that alpha and beta radiation, which are related to particles being emmited from unstable nuclei, can be described with Kinetic energy. As for light, x rays, Gamma, etc... they can be described as an oscilating electromagnetic potential field. Perhaps this can only describe these particular cases, but I guess radiation cannot be fully described as only one of these kinds of energy.

[Asimov Pupil]

my thought would be that the radiation particles of Alpha and Beta Radiations (4over2 helium nucleus, and speeding electrons respectively) have a mass and a velocity, also Gamma has it's wave-particle duality theorem. if they all have a Kinetic energy then from my understanding, kinetic energy comes from a stored potenial. so maybe the radioactive materiel has greater potential energy, I don't know

[DavidAngelMX]

Well, not necessarily, because the alpha decay occurs even though the "potential barrier" that bounds the protons in the nuclei is greater that the energy any of the particles inside the nuclei can ever acquire. The alpha decay is a quantum effect, it doesn't mean that the emmiting nuclei has a lower potential or that the particle emmited had a higher energy that usual, it's just a consequence of Scrodinger's quation, only a probabilistic efect. So radiation emmiting atoms don't necessarily have a higher potential.

[Asimov Pupil]

oh.......ok

[CPL.Luke]

even though the "potential barrier" that bounds the protons in the nuclei is greater that the energy any of the particles inside the nuclei can ever acquire.

 

sorry if I'm mistaken but I thought the strong force had no traditional potential energy, nor did the weak force

 

leaving the only force that you can disribe with a potential thats of any significance in an atomic nucleus as the electric force which will try and push the protons apart.

 

and to my limited knowledge its pointless to talk about the potential energy of a system out of context of a specific field. unless you want to know the total kinetic energy that could possibly come out of the system.

 

I believe that this would be equal to mc^2 as this would give the kinetic energy that would be released as light, the rest of the potential energy stored in variouse fields would be worthless as it would not be released in the form of kinetic energy on charged particles (in the case of the electric force) or on mass's in the case of the gravitational force.

 

now heres a question of my own where does the energy in the fields go