EM Spectrum's Official EM Ranges

[Nim]

Different sources show different ranges for the electromagnetic spectrum. Some sources say X-rays range from 10 nm to .01 nm and other sources say that it ranges from 1 nm to .001 nm for instance. I know that it's all really abritrary, but I would like to use numbers that are official or at least the most widely used in the scientific community.

I wanted to know for the list below.


TEMP(K) PEAK WAVE(nm) RANGE NAME

500000000 0.006 Gamma Rays
400000000 0.0075 Gamma Rays
300000000 0.01 ?NAME CHANGE
200000000 0.015 X-rays
100000000 0.03 X-rays

50000000 0.06 X-rays
40000000 0.075 X-rays
30000000 0.1 X-rays
20000000 0.15 X-rays
10000000 0.3 X-rays

5000000 0.6 X-rays
4000000 0.75 X-rays
3000000 1 *NAME CHANGE
2000000 1.5 Ultraviolet
1000000 3 Ultraviolet

500000 6 Ultraviolet
400000 7.5 Ultraviolet
300000 10 Ultraviolet
200000 15 Ultraviolet
100000 30 Ultraviolet

50000 60 Ultraviolet
40000 75 Ultraviolet
30000 100 Ultraviolet
20000 150 Ultraviolet
10000 300 Ultraviolet

9000 333.3 Ultraviolet
8000 375 Ultraviolet
7000 428.5 Blue-violet
6000 500 Blue-green

5000 600 Infrared
4000 750 Infrared
3000 1000 Infrared
2000 1500 Infrared
1000 3000 Infrared

500 6000 Infrared
400 7500 Infrared
300 10000 Infrared
200 15000 Infrared
100 30000 Infrared

50 60000 Infrared
40 75000 Infrared
30 100000 *NAME CHANGE
20 150000 Microwaves
10 300000 Microwaves

5 600000 Microwaves
4 750000 Microwaves
3 1000000 Microwaves
2 1500000 Microwaves
1 3000000 Microwaves

0.5 6000000 Microwaves
0.4 7500000 Microwaves
0.3 10000000 Microwaves
0.2 15000000 Microwaves
0.1 30000000 Microwaves

0.05 60000000 Microwaves
0.04 75000000 Microwaves
0.03 100000000 Microwaves
0.02 150000000 Microwaves
0.01 300000000 *NAME CHANGE

0.005 600000000 Radio Waves
0.004 750000000 Radio Waves
0.003 1000000000 Radio Waves
0.002 1500000000 Radio Waves
0.001 3000000000 Radio Waves

[Nim]

I just remembered another thing that I was wondering about. The new Blu-ray HD-DVD technology says that it uses a blue laser, more specifically, a 405 nm laser. A lot of sources list 400 nm as the smallest wavelength of the visible spectrum, some others say 390 nm is. Wouldn't something that close to ultraviolet be violet and not blue? Another website said that 400 nm was a deep blue, that doesn't leave much room for violet. And a lot of other sources list... I think violet as getting up to 450 nm! Although a couple websites have said that Blu-ray uses a blue-violet laser, which still doesn't mesh well with some of the other numbers that I've seen.

[chroot]

I'm not sure why you're so fixated on these boundary numbers; they're inexact for a reason.

Every human being is going to have a slightly different frequency range. Some people can't detect 390 nm light, others easily can. Some people would call 405 nm light "blue," while others will see it as "violet."

As far as the rest of the EM spectrum, most people's concern with frequency is the different technologies required to work with those frequencies. The electronic techniques to build microwave equipment is quite different than to build lower-frequency radio equipment. The technology ranges overlap, hower -- you can make a pretty good low-frequency microwave device using simple radio-frequency techniques, and vice versa.

The reason the scientific community has not agreed upon a set of boundaries between microwave and radio, and so on, is simply because that just wouldn't be useful to anyone. The spectrum is continuous, after all, and drawing a line in the sand just isn't necessary. No one needs that kind of standardization.

- Warren

[Chi Meson]

As I understand it, the overlap between x-rays and gamma rays is so extensive, that they are distinguished only in how they are created: a photon would be an X-ray if it was created by a high speed electron hitting a metal surface while an identical photon would be a gamma ray if it was created through a nuclear process.

There is a similar overlap between microwaves and radiowaves. I've got an older textbook that depicts microwaves as a subset entirely within radiowaves. THere used to also be "cosmic rays." Whatever happened to cosmic rays? Its a very mushy spectrum.

I totally agree with Warren that it doesn't do anyone any good to make definite barriers between segments. THe names are indicative of the ways the various ranges are used. Recently there has been a breakthrough in the creation of "T-waves." This is light with frequencies in the tetrahertz range. THis is right in the microwave/infra-red overlap. If we develop enough uses that are specific to "T-waves," we might as well start calling it another region unto itself.

[chroot]

Originally posted by Chi Meson
a photon would be an X-ray if it was created by a high speed electron hitting a metal surface while an identical photon would be a gamma ray if it was created through a nuclear process.
Yup... kinda silly. [:)]
THere used to also be "cosmic rays." Whatever happened to cosmic rays? Its a very mushy spectrum.
Cosmic rays are not necessarily EM -- they can be charged particles too, like protons and electrons. Some cosmic rays are gamma photons, though. The term "cosmic rays" refers to basically anything, particle or photon, coming in from space.

- Warren

[Nim]

Originally posted by Chroot
I'm not sure why you're so fixated on these boundary numbers; they're inexact for a reason.

Instead of having things inexact, I think a better way would be to just have more than one standard way of organizing the frequencies that each have a purpose for a certain application, which would make the numbers more meaningful. Their could be a wireless/broadcast scheme, biology scheme, source scheme, and basic scheme, for example. Their kind of is in a way, but it's a bit sloppy.

And I wouldn't say I am fixated on them. I wanted to use the numbers that were at least the most commonly used, so as not to be as confusing. But if there is no such thing, then I'll just choose what I think is best. And the 405 nm laser confused me. I've never, not even once, seen violet listed between 400-390 nm, and many times see it end (not begin) at 400 nm, which is almost 405 nm. That's almost the same as saying a 400 nm laser is blue, when the spectrum is shown many times as ending at 400 nm (where did purple go?).

Originally posted by Chroot
Some people would call 405 nm light "blue," while others will see it as "violet."

If I had a 405 nm laser, would some people really see it as blue while others see it as violet or blue-violet? If so, I figure the wavelength should be labeled by whatever color that most people see it as. And I assumed that most people would see violet, especially if some people can't even see frequencies beyond 400 nm.

Originally posted by Chi Meson
I've got an older textbook that depicts microwaves as a subset entirely within radiowaves.

I came across a couple websites yesterday that had microwaves listed as part of radio waves. A lot of times microwaves are refered to as "high frequency radio waves".

[chroot]

Originally posted by Nim
Their could be a wireless/broadcast scheme, biology scheme, source scheme, and basic scheme, for example.
Well, that would be extremely complicated, and basically pointless.
If I had a 405 nm laser, would some people really see it as blue while others see it as violet or blue-violet?
The eye does not see violet directly. It sees violet as an equal excitation of both the red and blue photodetectors. If you shine high-end violet light into someone's eye, their blue receptor may fire, but not their red -- thus, they'll see it as blue.

Color is not very scientific -- it's a perception, not a sensation.

- Warren

[Njorl]

While there may be differences in perception of color, you have 500 listed as red. That is bluish-green. Anybody seeing this as red would be considered rare enough to have some sort of condition.

Now, it may have something to do with labelling -Range name and peak wave etc. I suppose if all visible light is considered red or violet, that extends the range a bit.

Njorl

[chroot]

Good catch Njorl. I always thought red was roughly 700 nm.

- Warren

[Nim]

Originally posted by Nim
Their could be a wireless/broadcast scheme, biology scheme, source scheme, and basic scheme, for example.

Well, that would be extremely complicated, and basically pointless.

How would it be complicated? I know that for me personally, it wouldn't be complicated at all. And this is something that is done for a lot of things to make them simpler. One thing that comes to mind is the network protocol models. And how is assigning different frequencies a range and scheme that gives them meaning pointless? People have already assigned certain ranges, the only thing they haven't done is clearly seperate their interpretation from other peoples interpretation. I just think that it's a good idea to have a basic layout of things and for any alteration of that layout to be made clear by giving it a name. You don't see alterations of the OSI model for protocols for instance, any alterations that are made are given a name such as the DoD model. There is more than one way to catagorize animals too, but these different ways/schemes are given different names instead of using inexact labeling under one name.

Originally posted by Njorl
While there may be differences in perception of color, you have 500 listed as red. That is bluish-green.

Thanks for pointing that out.