Can a Raser Amplify Radioactive Rays Like a Laser?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter desert fox
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laser
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the possibility of amplifying radioactive rays, such as alpha, beta, and gamma radiation, using mechanisms similar to those employed in lasers. Participants explore theoretical frameworks, practical challenges, and the implications of such amplification in the context of physics.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that gamma rays are electromagnetic and could theoretically be amplified like light, although practical challenges due to their short wavelength are acknowledged.
  • Others argue that alpha and beta radiation, being particles, cannot be amplified in the same way as light.
  • One participant suggests that alpha particles, being bosons, could potentially be amplified, raising questions about charge conservation and the creation of a population inversion.
  • A participant mentions that "matter lasers" are an active area of research, indicating that amplification of particles in specific states is possible without creating new particles.
  • Speculative ideas about gamma-ray lasers using excited nuclei or positronium annihilation are discussed, with a note that these concepts remain largely theoretical.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the potential danger of gamma rays produced from a gamma-laser, suggesting they could be more hazardous due to concentrated energy.
  • Participants discuss the limitations of existing technologies, such as the lack of effective mirrors for gamma rays and the low coherence time associated with free electron lasers, which affects their practical application.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the feasibility of amplifying radioactive rays, with no consensus reached on the practicality or implications of such amplification. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific mechanisms and potential outcomes.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations such as the need for charge conservation, the challenges of creating a population inversion, and the practical difficulties associated with amplifying gamma rays due to their short wavelengths and the lack of suitable mirrors.

desert fox
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Nice to meet all of you :smile:

We know that laser is amplified light.

There's possible if amplify the radioactive ray (alpha, beta, or gamma) with the same procedure like the laser mechanism? :confused:
 
Science news on Phys.org
Gama rays are electromagnetic - like light - and could theoretically be amplified in the same way (though I suspect it wouldn't be practical due to the short wavelength).

Alpha and beta radiation are particles and you can't amplify a particle.
 
Welcome to PF!

Hi desert fox! Welcome to PF! :smile:
russ_watters said:
Alpha and beta radiation are particles and you can't amplify a particle.

Hi russ! :smile:

Alpha particles are bosons, so why couldn't we amplify a beam of them in the same way? :confused:
 


tiny-tim said:
Alpha particles are bosons, so why couldn't we amplify a beam of them in the same way? :confused:

(1) Charge conservation.

(2) How are you planning on creating a population inversion?
 
"Matter lasers" happen to be an active area of research, in the laser cooling / BEC research community:
http://everything2.com/e2node/atom%20laser

It isn't necessary to actually create particles, you just need to amplify the number of particles that are in a specific state, using an available reservoir of the particles.
 
russ_watters said:
Gama rays are electromagnetic - like light - and could theoretically be amplified in the same way (though I suspect it wouldn't be practical due to the short wavelength)...

Just for fun, I searched through Wikipedia looking for the phrase "gamma-ray laser" and found a couple more exotic possibilities -- using excited nuclei in the place of excited atoms, or using positronium annihilation. It all seems very speculative, but possibly more practical than trying to apply the standard procedure to such short wavelengths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_gamma_emission
 
russ_watters said:
I stand corrected!

On the other hand, this is cold, low-kinetic-energy matter being used for matter-lasers. Not what you typically find as radioactive decay products.
 
Are the product of Gamma ray amplified more dangerous than the ordinary gamma ray?
 
  • #10
If they existed, I imagine gamma rays from a gamma-laser would be more dangerous just as laser beams are more dangerous than ordinary light. Mainly because the energy would be more concentrated.
 
  • #11
The main problem is the lack of sensible mirrors in the gamma range.
Free electron lasers however are able to produce light in the vacuum UV to soft x-ray range and even a bit beyond (see for example FLASH at the Desy in Hamburg). The drawback is that these lasers rely on self amplified stimulated emission, which uses just the emission of microbunched electrons going through an undulator once. Therefore the amplification is there, but the coherence time is very low.
 
  • #12
Low coherence time = short range / rapid dispersion?
 
  • #13
LURCH said:
Low coherence time = short range / rapid dispersion?

Coherence time is defined by the inverse spectral width, so low coherence time means most of all, that the emission is spectrally rather broad as the coherence times can be as low as 0.3 fs.
The temporal profile of the intensity will also show a lot of spikes. See for example the Desy-FEL page here for what the beam looks like: http://hasylab.desy.de/facilities/s...rotron_radiation_to_a_sase_fel/index_eng.html
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
28K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
6K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K