What is the Physical Reason for Gamma Rays Being Absorbed?

AI Thread Summary
Gamma rays are absorbed by materials due to their high energy, which interacts differently with matter compared to lower frequency electromagnetic waves. While lower frequency waves like radio waves can penetrate walls, higher frequency waves such as x-rays can pass through skin but are still absorbed by denser materials. The absorption of gamma rays is influenced by the properties of the material they encounter, rather than solely their frequency. The discussion highlights the complexity of electromagnetic wave interactions with matter, emphasizing that both the wave and the material play crucial roles. Understanding these interactions requires considering both aspects to clarify misconceptions about absorption and penetration.
jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
But high frequency are absorbed, like gamma rays. I would think it would be the opposite. So what's the physical reason?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Why is it that lower frequency EM waves are aloud to pass through objects, but high frequency are absorbed, like gamma rays. I would think it would be the opposite. So what's the physical reason?
I believe you'll find that gamma rays have higher penetration in, say, steel, than infrared rays.
I can stop a lot of visible light with a black sheet of paper - but this has almost no effect on high energy gammas.

Where did you get this idea from?
 


This does not seem right even if one invokes the concept of plasma frequency.Metals having plasma frequency higher than frequency of light will reflect it otherwise transmit.May be you can see feynman lectures vol. 2 ,last 1/4 part for it.
 


Radio waves (low f) pass through walls that visible light doesn't. But x-rays (high f) also pass through things visible light doesn't. So frequency isn't the determining factor here perhaps?
 


lundyjb said:
But high frequency are absorbed, like gamma rays. I would think it would be the opposite. So what's the physical reason?

But x-rays, which has a higher frequency than visible light, can penetrate through your skin/body, while visible light can't!

So now we have a contradiction to your assertion, which is something that you should have brought up (I'm assuming you are well-familiar with x-rays). So now how would you proceed in your thinking? Is this whole thing really an issue with EM wave, or is this really more of a function of the material that interacts with that EM wave? Remember, there are two parties involved here - the light and the material that it is impinging upon. You seem to have dismissed the latter.

Just because the bride wears all the fancy dress and gets all the attention doesn't mean that you can ignore the groom!

Zz.
 
This is from Griffiths' Electrodynamics, 3rd edition, page 352. I am trying to calculate the divergence of the Maxwell stress tensor. The tensor is given as ##T_{ij} =\epsilon_0 (E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} E^2)+\frac 1 {\mu_0}(B_iB_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij} B^2)##. To make things easier, I just want to focus on the part with the electrical field, i.e. I want to find the divergence of ##E_{ij}=E_iE_j-\frac 1 2 \delta_{ij}E^2##. In matrix form, this tensor should look like this...
Thread 'Applying the Gauss (1835) formula for force between 2 parallel DC currents'
Please can anyone either:- (1) point me to a derivation of the perpendicular force (Fy) between two very long parallel wires carrying steady currents utilising the formula of Gauss for the force F along the line r between 2 charges? Or alternatively (2) point out where I have gone wrong in my method? I am having problems with calculating the direction and magnitude of the force as expected from modern (Biot-Savart-Maxwell-Lorentz) formula. Here is my method and results so far:- This...
Back
Top