Notices
Results 1 to 18 of 18

Thread: Electromagnetic Waves Smaller Than Gamma

  1. #1 Electromagnetic Waves Smaller Than Gamma 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Electromagnetic Waves with a shorter wavelength than Gamma Radiation:

    -Do they exist in nature?

    -Can they be artificially produced?

    -Could they theoretically be artificially produced within the laws of physics as we currently understand them, even if our current technology doesn't allow us to do so?

    -If yes (to any of the above), could they be as small as a single attometer?

    -And if yes to that, how energetic would those waves be? How lethal to living organisms? How much more energetic and/or lethal to living organisms than Gamma waves?

    Thanks guys. I need to know this stuff for a project I'm working on, if anyone knows these answers, I'd greatly appreciate it.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Well seing as wavelength is given by this relation:



    Where |\ is the wavelength
    Where vw is the velocity of the wave, or rather more technically, the propogation velocity
    Where f is the frequency

    So to inrease the wavelength, or in this case decrease it you'd need the frequency to be a higher number or the speed to be a lower number. Good luck with the last one there .

    Frequency is given with this equation:



    Where f is the frequency of the radiation
    Where v is velocity of the wave
    Where |\ is the wavelength

    In a vaccum replace v with a c (speed of light).

    To get a small wavelength you'd need to vary Plancks constant, and that is not yet possible.

    Frequency can also be found with this relation:

    E = hf

    Where E = the energy of the radiation
    Where h is Plancks constant (6.626X10^-34J s)
    Where f is the frequency of the radiation

    Rearrange this to make f the subject, I don't know how to do this because Plancks constant is a small number. Ask the mathmaticians on this forum .

    On a personal theoretical note, I have detected that it may be possible to include the Planck constant equation for the energy of a photon into the wavelength equation somehow. This may help make a master equation :-D. Hope I've been helpful.

    SVWillmer.


    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Well, I really just wanted to know if they existed, I don't need to know their precise frequency.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFinalSon
    Well, I really just wanted to know if they existed, I don't need to know their precise frequency.
    They have to somewhere. As the same as the opposite end :-D.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Ok thanks. And what about also, the other things....

    -Can they be artificially produced?

    -Could they theoretically be artificially produced within the laws of physics as we currently understand them, even if our current technology doesn't allow us to do so?

    -If yes (to any of the above), could they be as small as a single attometer?

    -And if yes to that, how energetic would those waves be? How lethal to living organisms? How much more energetic and/or lethal to living organisms than Gamma waves?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFinalSon
    Ok thanks. And what about also, the other things....

    -Can they be artificially produced?

    -Could they theoretically be artificially produced within the laws of physics as we currently understand them, even if our current technology doesn't allow us to do so?

    -If yes (to any of the above), could they be as small as a single attometer?

    -And if yes to that, how energetic would those waves be? How lethal to living organisms? How much more energetic and/or lethal to living organisms than Gamma waves?
    1: Yes, by making the frequency higher, or the speed of the photon lower.

    2: Yes, by making the technology. (Research Special and General relativity, it has quite a few more secrets to reveal :wink.

    3: Yes, even infinitely small.

    4:Put it this way, at infinite they would be everywhere at once, killing ever single one of us and separating even gluons between quarks naturally, maybe they existed once at the big bang? If not infinite in length, they would be more dangerous and hazardous to humans and all living organisms than gamma radiation.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Thanks, svwillmer. I'm just trying to figure, assuming there was somehow a way to precisely control where those waves were going, could you use them like a microscope to observe matter at a subatomic scale without completely destroying whatever you were looking at?

    Let's say you had perfect control of those photons' position in space at any given time, just hypothetically, could you "gently" bounce them off of subatomic particles?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFinalSon
    Thanks, svwillmer. I'm just trying to figure, assuming there was somehow a way to precisely control where those waves were going, could you use them like a microscope to observe matter at a subatomic scale without completely destroying whatever you were looking at?

    Let's say you had perfect control of those photons' position in space at any given time, just hypothetically, could you "gently" bounce them off of subatomic particles?
    If the velocity of the photons remained relative as to preserve the frequency and wavelength, and if you could slow a photon down, yes .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    Thank you. Hmm, interesting. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    By definition, gamma is the highest classification of electromagnetic radiation. The highest energy rays are from cosmic radiation and are called "very high-energy gamma rays." I don't know if it would be possible to make them in a laboratory. They result from acceleration of charged particles by supernovas and pulsars.
    http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7199
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Cooking Something Good MacGyver1968's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    2,051
    Other than turning guys named "Banner" into large, green monsters....What application would artificially created gamma rays have?

    Just curious...just how high frequency are gamma rays?
    Fixin' shit that ain't broke.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by MacGyver1968
    Other than turning guys named "Banner" into large, green monsters....What application would artificially created gamma rays have?

    Just curious...just how high frequency are gamma rays?
    Gamma rays are typically >10^20 Hz with quantum energy >1 MeV (10^6 eV). The consmic rays go up to 10^15 eV.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    From Wikipedia (I know, the accuracy, but still):

    The task is to measure an object's position by bouncing electromagnetic radiation, namely photons, off it. The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement. If the photons are sufficiently energetic to make possible a measurement more precise than a Planck length, their collision with the object would, in principle, create a minuscule black hole. This black hole would "swallow" the photon and thereby make it impossible to obtain a measurement. A simple calculation using dimensional analysis suggests that this problem arises if we attempt to measure an object's position with a precision to within a Planck length.
    Key phrase: The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement.

    The application I'm thinking of, though it seems kind of impossible without blasting things to quarks and gluons, which is kind of what this article about planck length is talking about in the first place, is to observe things way smaller than we currently can.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFinalSon
    From Wikipedia (I know, the accuracy, but still):

    The task is to measure an object's position by bouncing electromagnetic radiation, namely photons, off it. The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement. If the photons are sufficiently energetic to make possible a measurement more precise than a Planck length, their collision with the object would, in principle, create a minuscule black hole. This black hole would "swallow" the photon and thereby make it impossible to obtain a measurement. A simple calculation using dimensional analysis suggests that this problem arises if we attempt to measure an object's position with a precision to within a Planck length.
    Key phrase: The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement.

    The application I'm thinking of, though it seems kind of impossible without blasting things to quarks and gluons, which is kind of what this article about planck length is talking about in the first place, is to observe things way smaller than we currently can.
    Its a clever and ingiunuitive idea nonetheless and I for one look forward to the development of this theory .
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,525
    Quote Originally Posted by TheFinalSon
    From Wikipedia (I know, the accuracy, but still):

    The task is to measure an object's position by bouncing electromagnetic radiation, namely photons, off it. The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement. If the photons are sufficiently energetic to make possible a measurement more precise than a Planck length, their collision with the object would, in principle, create a minuscule black hole. This black hole would "swallow" the photon and thereby make it impossible to obtain a measurement. A simple calculation using dimensional analysis suggests that this problem arises if we attempt to measure an object's position with a precision to within a Planck length.
    Key phrase: The shorter the wavelength of the photons, and hence the higher their energy, the more accurate the measurement.

    The application I'm thinking of, though it seems kind of impossible without blasting things to quarks and gluons, which is kind of what this article about planck length is talking about in the first place, is to observe things way smaller than we currently can.
    You will, unfortunately, come up against the immovable (physicists believe in principle immovable) barrier of the Uncertainty Principle.

    Please note that higher energies can easily be achieved by using massive particles, like electrons - which is precisely why we use electron microscopes these days instead of photons, for higher resolution scanning.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    7
    But there's a size limit to what electron microscopes can see. What about seeing quarks? They can't see anything smaller THAN electrons, or, indeed, nearly as small as them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    To be able to "see" something, it has to emit light, which electrons do as they give off energy in the form of a photon and drop to a lower valence. We can "detect" things indirectly in other ways though.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    To be able to "see" something, it has to emit light, which electrons do as they give off energy in the form of a photon and drop to a lower valence. We can "detect" things indirectly in other ways though.
    I was going to say that! Humph .

    Never mind :wink:.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •