Talk:Internal conversion

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  How about giving an example 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Differences between internal conversion and <math>\beta</math>-decay 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Theory 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading 

message: 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)
thread_title:  cases with minuscule decay energy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Internal conversion is not non-radioactive