Talk:Compton scattering

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Compton scattering article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article is on a subject of Mid importance within physics.
Help with this template This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Importance of Proof 2 recat 3 Derivation image? 4 Introduction 5 Inconsistency in proof 6 Increase in photon energy possible? 7 Confusing 8 Compton effect as a double Doppler shift 9 concern about error

[edit] Importance of Proof

How important is it to have such a long derivation of the Compton formula? I think it would suffice to drop three-fourths of the steps, and instead highlight the fundamental concept that the equation results from conservation of energy and momentum.

BailesB 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It's fine to summarize the proof in words, but the derivation itself should remain.

I say this because many authors of physics and math books are content to skip steps in their publications (and I guess that makes sense since every extra page costs money), but Wikipedia isn't made of paper - it can be as long as we want.

And one of the reasons Wikipedia is so valuable is because derivations like this are hard to find in the literature, and it's fantastic that we have an opportunity to finally store and share information like this.JabberWok 03:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Areed. The equations brought me completely through from a minimal reference. I skipped most of it the first few times but they ultametly helped. I wish there were individual reference preference settings.........bat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.179.180 (talk) 02:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] recat

I moved the article from Category:Physics to Category:Quantum Mechanics to alleviate overcrowding. StuTheSheep 03:11, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article from the heading "Compton efect" under the heading "Compton scattering". The last one is more often used. --Eleassar777 15:13, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Derivation image?

The derivation would be greatly helped by an image showing what was going on (for the visual thinkers among us). For examply, it is very hard to see what theta is, exactly. --jonon 09:33, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added a diagram and one sentence that clarifies what theta is. --Tim314 22:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

It says "which occurs when X-ray (or gamma ray) photons with energies of around 0.5MeV to 3.5MeV interact with electrons". Doesn't it occor when photons with lower energies interact with electrons, too? Isn't it just that the ammount of wavelength change does not depent on the incoming photons' wavelength and that therefore compton scattering can only be observed if the interacting photons have a high energy!? greetings --Space-Marine 01:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, it claims that these 0.5-3.5 MeV photons are "medium energy," but then refers to visible light photons as "high-energy," despite the fact that they would be about a million times less energetic than MeV photons. This paragraph needs some work. (Side note: this is my first time editing a talk page, did I do it all right?) 171.66.50.17 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the intro, the line "If the photon has sufficient energy (in general a few eV, right around the energy of visible light), it can even eject an electron from its host atom entirely (a process known as the Photoelectric effect)." implies that Compton effects are more common for energies below those that interact through Photoelectric absorption, which is not true. See, for example, Saha, G.P., Physics and Radiobiology of Nuclear Medicine, Springer-Verlag, pp.55-58, 77-80, 1993.122.107.129.221 (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistency in proof

The lambdas are written with apostrophes in the proof, and with indices in the formula being proved. This might be lead to more confusion than absolutely necessary. — Irrbloss 18:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Increase in photon energy possible?

Can the photon ever gain energy after the collision? For example, if the electron is moving towards the photon, and the photon is reflected backwards after ejecting the electron, will it have a shorter wavelength and more energy?--SeanMon 23:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's called Inverse Compton scattering. It used to be hiding on its own page (at Inverse Compton scattering), but I've just merged the info about it into this article. --Mike Peel 08:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The formulae are not appearing as they should. This is true for Compton Effect as well.

[edit] Confusing

This article has no details about the effect and the math formulaes are confusing for the common user, having no meaning. Please add more details in explanation, don't make the article like a short draft for an exam.

i strongly agree with this person! it is full of Math wile i couldn't find any information about the second wavelength coming out from this effect, i know we do have second wavelength but i don't remember how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Astrosona (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compton effect as a double Doppler shift

Kidd, Richard; James Ardini; Anatol Anton (July 1985). "Compton effect as a double Doppler shift". Am. J. Phys. 53 (7): 641–644. doi:10.1119/1.14274.  This article describes how the Compton effect can be explained by the wave model of light, so it does not provide direct evidence for the photon model. —Keenan Pepper 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance to the article. JFlav 02:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

If that article is correct then this article is not accurate when it says "Light must behave as if it consists of particles in order to explain the Compton scattering." and it may be improved by having a Particle Derivation and a Wave Derivation --200.112.183.170 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] concern about error

along the proof comes this equation, I just link the line:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/3/8/9/38925d4e4159a20f7b81355cab23f7f8.png

under the root, shouldn't there be index zero with mass? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quu (talk • contribs) 14:50, 26 December 2007 (UTC)