How Can We Compare the Frequency and Wavelength of Gamma Rays and Visible Light?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Allen J
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frequency
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around comparing the frequency and wavelength of gamma rays and visible light, focusing on the relationship between energy, frequency, and wavelength. Participants explore how to articulate these comparisons in a clear and scientifically accurate manner.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that gamma rays have a higher frequency than visible light due to their higher energy, referencing the equation E=hf.
  • Others clarify that wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency, suggesting that if gamma rays have a higher frequency, they must have a shorter wavelength.
  • One participant suggests looking up specific energy values for gamma rays and the highest energy visible light to substantiate claims about frequency and energy comparisons.
  • Another participant elaborates on the relationship between frequency and wavelength, proposing a conceptual analogy involving the speed of radiation and the distance between successive peaks.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that gamma rays have a higher frequency than visible light and that wavelength is inversely related to frequency. However, the discussion includes various approaches to explaining these relationships, indicating some differences in how to articulate the concepts.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the definitions of energy, frequency, and wavelength may not be explicitly stated, and the discussion does not resolve how to best present these relationships in a formal context.

Allen J
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hi, I am trying to solve a couple of questiosn where I need to say whether gamma rays have a higher frequency than visible light or not. The answer is obviously yes(they mentioned it several times in the text), but they want me to explain my answer based on the relationship between energy and frequency. Maybe they're referring to E=hf, but I'm not really sure how I could show anything with that anyway.

The second question wants to know which has the longer wavelength. Of course, the frequency and the wavelength are proportional. I could simply say this, based on the first question. But is there a way to answer it "properly", rather than say, "If the frequency is low, the wavelength is long; if the frequency is high, the wavelength is short" ?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For the first question, I presume they mean gamma rays have more energy than light, therefore have higher frequency.

For the second, wavelength is inversely proportional to frequency.
 
Indeed, you can use E=hf. You'll have to know that gamma rays are much more energetic than visible light rays.

You know wavelength and frequency are inversely proportional. In fact, I`m sure you can state their precise relationship and deduce the answer from that. It doesn't get more proper than that.
 
Allen J said:
Hi, I am trying to solve a couple of questiosn where I need to say whether gamma rays have a higher frequency than visible light or not. The answer is obviously yes(they mentioned it several times in the text), but they want me to explain my answer based on the relationship between energy and frequency. Maybe they're referring to E=hf, but I'm not really sure how I could show anything with that anyway.


Look up the energies of gamma rays and of the highest energy visible rays (violet) in your book. Perhaps there's a table or an annotated spectrum diagram? So then you can compare E_visible = hf_visible to E_gamma = hf_gamma and see which is bigger, and conclude which has higher frequency. You don't need to know h, but just that it's the same h for both frequencies.


The second question wants to know which has the longer wavelength. Of course, the frequency and the wavelength are proportional. I could simply say this, based on the first question. But is there a way to answer it "properly", rather than say, "If the frequency is low, the wavelength is long; if the frequency is high, the wavelength is short" ?

The relationship of frequency to wavelength is frequency = c/wavelength. Think of it this way; suppose the readiation was just successive spikes, like pickets of a picket fence going by you at a speed of c; one foot per nanosecond. Then the number of pickets per nanosecond going past is just the speed divided by the distance between them in feet. If they were half as far apart there'd be twice as many going by per nanosecond. Dimensionally, speed = length/time, and wavelength is length, so the quotient is 1/time {"per nanosecond"), which is the correct dimension for a frequency.

So you use that formula, freq = c/wavelength, to relate the frequency answer of the first question to the wavelength answer of the second one.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
858
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K