MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027731662 · doi:10.1118/1.3608904

On the Monte Carlo simulation of electron transport in the sub‐1 keV energy range

2011· letter· en· W2027731662 on OpenAlexaff
Rowan M. Thomson, I. Kawrakow

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical Physics · 2011
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiation Therapy and Dosimetry
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsElectronMonte Carlo methodMomentum (technical analysis)Quantum Monte CarloKinetic energyUncertainty principleRange (aeronautics)Mean free pathComputational physicsPosition (finance)QuantumStatistical physicsQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The validity of "classic" Monte Carlo (MC) simulations of electron and positron transport at sub-1 keV energies is investigated in the context of quantum theory. METHODS: Quantum theory dictates that uncertainties on the position and energy-momentum four-vectors of radiation quanta obey Heisenberg's uncertainty relation; however, these uncertainties are neglected in "classical" MC simulations of radiation transport in which position and momentum are known precisely. Using the quantum uncertainty relation and electron mean free path, the magnitudes of uncertainties on electron position and momentum are calculated for different kinetic energies; a validity bound on the classical simulation of electron transport is derived. RESULTS: In order to satisfy the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, uncertainties of 5% must be assigned to position and momentum for 1 keV electrons in water; at 100 eV, these uncertainties are 17 to 20% and are even larger at lower energies. In gaseous media such as air, these uncertainties are much smaller (less than 1% for electrons with energy 20 eV or greater). CONCLUSIONS: The classical Monte Carlo transport treatment is questionable for sub-1 keV electrons in condensed water as uncertainties on position and momentum must be large (relative to electron momentum and mean free path) to satisfy the quantum uncertainty principle. Simulations which do not account for these uncertainties are not faithful representations of the physical processes, calling into question the results of MC track structure codes simulating sub-1 keV electron transport. Further, the large difference in the scale at which quantum effects are important in gaseous and condensed media suggests that track structure measurements in gases are not necessarily representative of track structure in condensed materials on a micrometer or a nanometer scale.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical PhysicsSame topicRadiation Therapy and DosimetryFrench-language works237,207