Can Gamma Radiation Be Deflected by Matching Frequencies of Ionized Radiation?

  • Thread starter Thread starter naurob03
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gamma
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interaction of gamma radiation with materials, particularly focusing on the possibility of deflecting gamma radiation using ionized radiation that matches its frequency. Participants explore concepts related to gamma radiation absorption, shielding materials, and the mechanisms of interaction between gamma rays and matter.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether gamma radiation could be absorbed in a material and then transferred or dispersed, suggesting a potential method of deflection using ionized radiation that matches the frequency of gamma radiation.
  • Another participant asserts that gamma radiation, being a form of electromagnetic radiation (EMR), cannot be deflected by other beams of light, emphasizing that absorption is the only effective shielding method.
  • It is noted that the effectiveness of lead as a gamma ray shield is not solely due to its density, but also because the absorption cross-section increases with the atomic number of the material.
  • Some participants discuss the interaction of gamma rays primarily with electrons rather than nuclei, indicating that a higher number of protons leads to more surrounding electrons, which enhances interaction.
  • Two principal absorption processes for gamma rays are identified: pair production and the photoelectric effect, with explanations on how these processes depend on the energy of the gamma rays and the atomic structure of the absorbing material.
  • Compton scattering is mentioned as a significant interaction that changes the direction of gamma rays and reduces their energy, although it is not classified as an absorption process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the feasibility of deflecting gamma radiation with ionized radiation, with some asserting that such deflection is not possible while others explore the idea. The discussion includes multiple competing views on the mechanisms of gamma radiation interaction with matter, and no consensus is reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various mechanisms of gamma radiation interaction, but the discussion does not resolve the complexities of these interactions or the conditions under which they occur.

naurob03
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I am very uneducated in physics, however I did take a remote sensing course in college where we discussed EMR. My questions are the following: could gamma radiation be absorbed in a material and then transferred to another material or dispersed. I know that gamma radiation has no charge and is only slightly affected by magnetic fields. I know that a super dense material like lead is routinely used to absorb gamma radiation. If gamma radiation has properties of no mass or electrical charge yet are EMR then there has to be a way to match the frequency of this pre energy. Could a field of ionized radiation matching the frequency of gamma radiation deflect a jet of gamma radiation (deflect energy with energy). I may be way off on this so please bare with me.
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
Gamma radiation is plain old light but at a much much higher frequency and carries with it much greater momentum and energy. The only way to shield from it is to absorb it. This is accomplished with lead or other dense materials because dense materials occupy the least amount of space, which is always a sought after property since designing a reactor or something similar with 100 ft of Styrofoam is just silly. (Just using it as an absurd example.)

Just like normal light you cannot shine two beams of light and deflect each other with them. EMR doesn't readily interact.
 
The effectiveness of lead as a gamma ray shield is more than just the density. The absorption cross-section increases with atomic number.
 
That as well. I believe it is because the extra charges help absorb the photons somehow?
 
Drakkith said:
That as well. I believe it is because the extra charges help absorb the photons somehow?

Drakkith,

EMR like gamma rays interact principally, with the ELECTRONS, not the nucleus for the most part.

The reason why the interaction cross-section goes up so strongly with Z, is that the greater the number of protons in the nucleus, the greater the number of electrons surrounding it.

Greg
 
There are two principal absorption processes for (nuclear) gamma rays, pair production and photoelectric effect.

Pair production involves the nucleus for conservation of momentum. The more massive the nucleus, the greater the cross-section. This applies only to gamma rays with energy > 1.022 Mev.

Photoelectric effect cross-section depends on how easily the electrons can be photo-ionized. Increasing the number of electrons per atom increases the chances per electron. This effect increases as the gamma ray energy decreases.
 
Morbius said:
Drakkith,

EMR like gamma rays interact principally, with the ELECTRONS, not the nucleus for the most part.

The reason why the interaction cross-section goes up so strongly with Z, is that the greater the number of protons in the nucleus, the greater the number of electrons surrounding it.

Greg

Yeah that's what I was saying.
 
mathman said:
There are two principal absorption processes for (nuclear) gamma rays, pair production and photoelectric effect.

mathman,

Although not directly an absorption process, another big interaction is Compton scatter.

The direction of the gamma is changed and it also loses energy in the process. Multiple Compton scatterings can deplete the energy of the gamma.

Greg
 
Morbius said:
mathman,

Although not directly an absorption process, another big interaction is Compton scatter.

The direction of the gamma is changed and it also loses energy in the process. Multiple Compton scatterings can deplete the energy of the gamma.

Greg
You're perfectly right. I just didn't bother mentioning it, since it is not absorption.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
714
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
5K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
2K