Gamma-Ray for Telecommunication? [Archive]

Curious

May25-04, 01:33 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n\n\nThanks\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?

Thanks

Mike Crowe

May25-04, 03:56 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting .google.com...\n> Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n>\n>\n> Thanks\n>\n\nDepends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of\ntelling someone you don\'t like them!\n\nBasically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you can\'t\nplace data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can\'t\nrefract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All you\nhave to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don\'t\nwant to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n\nOf course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\ntelecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\ngammas to (and into) the public\n\nMike Crowe\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
> Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
>
>
> Thanks
>

Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of
telling someone you don't like them!

Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you can't
place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can't
refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All you
have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don't
want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!

Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
gammas to (and into) the public

Mike Crowe

Curious

May26-04, 05:12 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n"Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39\\$dgt\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...\n > "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...\n> > Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n> >\n> >\n> > Thanks\n> >\n>\n> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of\n> telling someone you don\'t like them!\n>\n> Basically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you can\'t\n> place data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can\'t\n> refract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All you\n> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don\'t\n> want to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n>\n> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\n> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\n> gammas to (and into) the public\n>\n> Mike Crowe\n\nNot if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled\nenvironment I see no harm. Gamma-ray lasers would be far more\nadvantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency\nphotons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39$dgt$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
> > Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of
> telling someone you don't like them!
>
> Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you can't
> place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can't
> refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All you
> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don't
> want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!
>
> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
> gammas to (and into) the public
>
> Mike Crowe

Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled
environment I see no harm. \Gamma-ray lasers would be far more
advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency
photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.

Joseph.D.Warner

May26-04, 09:45 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>\n\nCurious wrote:\n> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39\\$dgt\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...\n >\n>>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>>news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posti ng.google.com...\n>>\n>>>Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication? <snip>\n>>Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\n>>telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\n>>gammas to (and into) the public\n\n> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled\n> environment I see no harm. Gamma-ray lasers would be far more\n> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency\n> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.\n\nNot necessary. The amount of information for any particular modulation\nscheme and encoding scheme is dependent not on the frequency but the\nbandwidth. True higher frequency usually means higher data rate\navailable because if the bandwidth is the same percentage of the\nfrequency then the higher frequency signal will have a higher available\nbandwidth.\n\nBut consider the case today for infra-red and visible communication.\nPresently, the maximum modulation frequency of this light is ~20 to 30\nGHz. So that is the usable bandwidth. But there is a lot of work on\ntrying to develope lasers with 50 GHz spread in their frequency.\nCurrently the spread is closer to 200 GHz. The reason is that if they\ncan get the spead to 50 GHz instead of 200 GHz and with the good filters\none can use Frequency Division Multiplexing to pack more light signals\ninto one fiber than before and carry more discreet channels. So at the\npresent the limitation on optical communication is not the frequency of\nthe light being used but how narrow in frequency range the laser is and\nhow fast one can modulate the laser signal.\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Curious wrote:
> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39$dgt$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>
>>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
>>
>>>Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication? <snip>
>>Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
>>telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
>>gammas to (and into) the public

> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled
> environment I see no harm. \Gamma-ray lasers would be far more
> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency
> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.

Not necessary. The amount of information for any particular modulation
scheme and encoding scheme is dependent not on the frequency but the
bandwidth. True higher frequency usually means higher data rate
available because if the bandwidth is the same percentage of the
frequency then the higher frequency signal will have a higher available
bandwidth.

But consider the case today for infra-red and visible communication.
Presently, the maximum modulation frequency of this light is ~20 to 30
GHz. So that is the usable bandwidth. But there is a lot of work on
trying to develope lasers with 50 GHz spread in their frequency.
Currently the spread is closer to 200 GHz. The reason is that if they
can get the spead to 50 GHz instead of 200 GHz and with the good filters
one can use Frequency Division Multiplexing to pack more light signals
into one fiber than before and carry more discreet channels. So at the
present the limitation on optical communication is not the frequency of
the light being used but how narrow in frequency range the laser is and
how fast one can modulate the laser signal.

Curious

May29-04, 11:52 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39\\$dgt\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...\n > "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...\n> > Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n> >\n> >\n> > Thanks\n> >\n>\n> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of\n> telling someone you don\'t like them!\n>\n> Basically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you can\'t\n> place data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can\'t\n> refract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All you\n> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don\'t\n> want to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n>\n> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\n> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\n> gammas to (and into) the public\n>\n> Mike Crowe\n\n\nWouldn\'t gamma rays have more bandwidth than even light.\n\nLight is better than radio because it is higher frequency and can thus\nhandle more channels. Since gamma ray is even shorter wavelength than\nlight, wouldn\'t it be capable of an even higher bit-rate than light?\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39$dgt$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
> > Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
> >
> >
> > Thanks
> >
>
> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of
> telling someone you don't like them!
>
> Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you can't
> place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can't
> refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All you
> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don't
> want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!
>
> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
> gammas to (and into) the public
>
> Mike Crowe

Wouldn't \gamma rays have more bandwidth than even light.

Light is better than radio because it is higher frequency and can thus
handle more channels. Since \gamma ray is even shorter wavelength than
light, wouldn't it be capable of an even higher bit-rate than light?

William R. Frensley

May29-04, 11:53 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Mike Crowe wrote:\n> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...\n>\n>>Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n>>\n......\n>\n> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of\n> telling someone you don\'t like them!\n>\n> Basically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you can\'t\n> place data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can\'t\n> refract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All you\n> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don\'t\n> want to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n>\n> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\n> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\n> gammas to (and into) the public\n>\n\nQuestions of this sort really point out some gaping holes in how we educate\npeople in the technical disciplines, and what material is deemed significant.\n\nIn this case, the seldom-articulated general principles are:\n\n* Active (technological) systems, such as telecommunication systems, always\ninvolve the creation and manipulation of a far-from-equilibrium state in some\n(physical) system. In the case of telecommunications, this is usually a state\nof the electromagnetic field that is far from the terrestrial-temperature\nblack-body distribution.\n\n* Creation and maintenance of this far-from-equilibrium state requires that\nfree (as in Gibbs of Helmholtz) energy be supplied to the system. But,\neffective use of this free energy requires that one must be able to control and\nchannel the flow, transfer, etc. of such energy.\n\n* The control of the movement of this energy is accomplished through\ninteractions with different materials, and for effective control to be achieved,\none must have available different materials for which the strength of\ninteraction spans many decades.\n\nFor telecommunications, a transfer of free energy occurs in the generation and\ndetection of EM radiation, and it is channeled by such structures as waveguides.\nAll this works because we have dielectrics in which the "photon" interactions\nare extremely weak, semiconductors in which the interactions are of intermediate\nstrength (and we really wish they were a lot stronger), and metals, where the\ninteractions are extremely strong.\n\nWithin this analysis one can see that an obvious shortcoming of gamma-ray\ntelecommunications is that we cannot control or channel the free energy they\nrepresent. And the reason we cannot do so is that the interactions with\nmaterials (as measured by the absorption coefficient) do not span anything like\nthe ten orders of magnitude or more that is available with near-visible EM\nradiation.\n\n- Bill Frensley\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Mike Crowe wrote:
> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
>
>>Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
>>
......
>
> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of
> telling someone you don't like them!
>
> Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you can't
> place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can't
> refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All you
> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don't
> want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!
>
> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
> gammas to (and into) the public
>

Questions of this sort really point out some gaping holes in how we educate
people in the technical disciplines, and what material is deemed significant.

In this case, the seldom-articulated general principles are:

* Active (technological) systems, such as telecommunication systems, always
involve the creation and manipulation of a far-from-equilibrium state in some
(physical) system. In the case of telecommunications, this is usually a state
of the electromagnetic field that is far from the terrestrial-temperature
black-body distribution.

* Creation and maintenance of this far-from-equilibrium state requires that
free (as in Gibbs of Helmholtz) energy be supplied to the system. But,
effective use of this free energy requires that one must be able to control and
channel the flow, transfer, etc. of such energy.

* The control of the movement of this energy is accomplished through
interactions with different materials, and for effective control to be achieved,
one must have available different materials for which the strength of
interaction spans many decades.

For telecommunications, a transfer of free energy occurs in the generation and
detection of EM radiation, and it is channeled by such structures as waveguides.
All this works because we have dielectrics in which the "photon" interactions
are extremely weak, semiconductors in which the interactions are of intermediate
strength (and we really wish they were a lot stronger), and metals, where the
interactions are extremely strong.

Within this analysis one can see that an obvious shortcoming of \gamma-ray
telecommunications is that we cannot control or channel the free energy they
represent. And the reason we cannot do so is that the interactions with
materials (as measured by the absorption coefficient) do not span anything like
the ten orders of magnitude or more that is available with near-visible EM
radiation.

- Bill Frensley

Mike Crowe

May29-04, 11:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\nnews:34a4f456.0405250827.a10959f@posting. google.com...\n>\n> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message\nnews:<c8uv39\\$dgt\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac .uk>...\n> > "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n> > news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...\n> > > Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n> > >\n> > >\n> > > Thanks\n> > >\n> >\n> > Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel\nway of\n> > telling someone you don\'t like them!\n> >\n> > Basically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you\ncan\'t\n> > place data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you\ncan\'t\n> > refract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All\nyou\n> > have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you\ndon\'t\n> > want to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n> >\n> > Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future\nin\n> > telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to\nbroadcast\n> > gammas to (and into) the public\n> >\n> > Mike Crowe\n>\n> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled\n> environment I see no harm. Gamma-ray lasers would be far more\n> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency\n> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.\n\nYou can\'t refract or do any of the normal optics with gamma\'s so you can\'t\ncreate a fibre optic for gammas. They won\'t even know the fibre optic cable\nis there! Thats the problem you can\'t send them along any sort of waveguide.\n\nNow as far as where the obsolute limit in frequency come for controlling\nthem I\'m not sure, somewhere in UV I imagine.\n\nMike Crowe\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>"Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34a4f456.0405250827.a10959f@posting.google.co m...
>
> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:<c8uv39$dgt$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
> > "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
> > > Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> >
> > Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel
way of
> > telling someone you don't like them!
> >
> > Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you
can't
> > place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you
can't
> > refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All
you
> > have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you
don't
> > want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!
> >
> > Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future
in
> > telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to
broadcast
> > gammas to (and into) the public
> >
> > Mike Crowe
>
> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled
> environment I see no harm. \Gamma-ray lasers would be far more
> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency
> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.

You can't refract or do any of the normal optics with \gamma's so you can't
create a fibre optic for gammas. They won't even know the fibre optic cable
is there! Thats the problem you can't send them along any sort of waveguide.

Now as far as where the obsolute limit in frequency come for controlling
them I'm not sure, somewhere in UV I imagine.

Mike Crowe

Douglas Natelson

May29-04, 11:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>Curious wrote:\n\n[regarding gamma rays for telecommunications]\n\n> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled\n> environment I see no harm. Gamma-ray lasers would be far more\n> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency\n> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.\n\nHow exactly do you propose to make an optical fiber that\ncan guide gamma rays?\n\nTelecommunications optical fibers guide light because they\nhave a higher index of refraction at optical frequencies than\nthe fiber cladding and the surrounding medium. The problem\nyou run into at very high (i.e. gamma) frequencies is that\npretty much everything has the same index of refraction\n(--> 1). Higher Z elements do scatter more efficiently at\nthese frequencies than low Z elements.\n\nFor more information on this, look up "x-ray optics" on\nyour favorite search engine, and remember that anything to\ndo with gamma rays is even more difficult.\n\n--DN\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>Curious wrote:

[regarding \gamma rays for telecommunications]

> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled
> environment I see no harm. \Gamma-ray lasers would be far more
> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency
> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.

How exactly do you propose to make an optical fiber that
can guide \gamma rays?

Telecommunications optical fibers guide light because they
have a higher index of refraction at optical frequencies than
the fiber cladding and the surrounding medium. The problem
you run into at very high (i.e. \gamma) frequencies is that
pretty much everything has the same index of refraction
(--> 1). Higher Z elements do scatter more efficiently at
these frequencies than low Z elements.

For more information on this, look up "x-ray optics" on
your favorite search engine, and remember that anything to
do with \gamma rays is even more difficult.

--DN

Oliver Jennrich

May29-04, 11:54 AM

<jabberwocky><div class="vbmenu_control"><a href="jabberwocky:;" onClick="newWindow=window.open('','usenetCode','toolbar=no, location=no,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes,status=no ,width=650,height=400'); newWindow.document.write('<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>Usenet ASCII</TITLE></HEAD><BODY topmargin=0 leftmargin=0 BGCOLOR=#F1F1F1><table border=0 width=625><td bgcolor=midnightblue><font color=#F1F1F1>This Usenet message\'s original ASCII form: </font></td></tr><tr><td width=449><br><br><font face=courier><UL><PRE>* Curious writes:\n\n> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39\\$dgt\\$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...\n >> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message\n>> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...\n>> > Would gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?\n>> >\n>> >\n>> > Thanks\n>> >\n>>\n>> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of\n>> telling someone you don\'t like them!\n>>\n>> Basically gamma\'s aren\'t good for transmitting anything, because you can\'t\n>> place data in gamma\'s very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can\'t\n>> refract or lens them at all, and you can\'t reliably reflect them. All you\n>> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don\'t\n>> want to be the poor person who\'s doing some absorbing!\n>>\n>> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in\n>> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast\n>> gammas to (and into) the public\n>>\n>> Mike Crowe\n\n> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled\n> environment I see no harm. Gamma-ray lasers would be far more\n> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency\n> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.\n\nVery true, but considering that technology is a far cry from the\ntheoretical bandwidth for typical telecomm-lasers (bandwidth is\nusually limited by material properties such as dispersion, not by some\nvariant of the Nyquist-theorem), gamma-ray lasers might be a solution\nwithout a problem.\n\n--\nSpace - the final frontier\n\n</UL></PRE></font></td></tr></table></BODY><HTML>');"> <IMG SRC=/images/buttons/ip.gif BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER ALT="View this Usenet post in original ASCII form">  View this Usenet post in original ASCII form </a></div><P></jabberwocky>* Curious writes:

> "Mike Crowe" <mjac2@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message news:<c8uv39$dgt$1@pegasus.csx.cam.ac.uk>...
>> "Curious" <curious11112001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:34a4f456.0405241808.3881f919@posting.google.c om...
>> > Would \gamma-rays be practical for use in telecommunication?
>> >
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> >
>>
>> Depends what you want to communicate :-) They would be a pretty cruel way of
>> telling someone you don't like them!
>>
>> Basically \gamma's aren't good for transmitting anything, because you can't
>> place data in \gamma's very easily, let alone at high bit rate, and you can't
>> refract or lens them at all, and you can't reliably reflect them. All you
>> have to work with is diffraction and absorbtion, and believe me you don't
>> want to be the poor person who's doing some absorbing!
>>
>> Of course there could be some use someone might think of in the future in
>> telecommunication, but it would certainly be a really bad thing to broadcast
>> gammas to (and into) the public
>>
>> Mike Crowe

> Not if it is done through laser optic fiber. When in this controlled
> environment I see no harm. \Gamma-ray lasers would be far more
> advantageous than light in terms of bandwidth. Higher-frequency
> photons can carry more info/per time than lower-frequency photons.

Very true, but considering that technology is a far cry from the
theoretical bandwidth for typical telecomm-lasers (bandwidth is
usually limited by material properties such as dispersion, not by some
variant of the Nyquist-theorem), \gamma-ray lasers might be a solution
without a problem.

--
Space - the final frontier