Comparing Light & X-Rays: Wavelengths

AI Thread Summary
The principal difference between light and X-rays lies in their wavelengths, with X-rays having shorter wavelengths compared to visible light. Both are forms of electromagnetic radiation, but the distinction becomes clearer when quantifying their wavelengths. The discussion emphasizes the importance of specifying the exact measurements to avoid ambiguity in comparisons. For clarity, it is suggested to state the wavelength difference in numerical terms, highlighting the quantitative nature of physics. Providing precise data enhances understanding and accuracy in scientific communication.
zachcumer
Messages
106
Reaction score
0
Hey here is the question I have to answer...

What is the principal difference between light and an X-ray?

I thought that X rays have short wavelengths, and light has long?

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hello?
 
anyone? hello? anyone there?
 
Yes, visible light and X-rays are BOTH electromagnetic radiation. The only thing that distinguishes them is their wavelength. It's true that the wavelength of X-rays is shorter than that of visible light, but the words "short' and "long" in your answer are pretty meaningless unless you actually quantify the wavelength.
 
so what I was going to put down was the principal differences are that visible light has longer wavelengths compared to x rays which have shorter wavelengths.
 
That's fine, I was just pointing out that if you write it that way, the question naturally arises: shorter than WHAT? Longer than WHAT?

"Shorter" and "longer" imply a comparison

If you write: "The principal difference is the wavelength of the two types of EM radiation. The wavelength of visible light is longer than the wavelength of an X-ray."

EDIT: Or you could just omit the 4 words "which have shorter wavelengths" from the end of your answer.

Either way, that's a better wording because it makes it clear WHAT the comparison is. However, the answer is still vague. If you actually specified how many orders of magnitude longer the wavelength of visible light was, that would be even better:

The wavelength of visible light is 10^{blah} times longer than the wavelength of x-rays.

Even better would be to explicitly state the wavelengths. Physics is a quantitative science.
 
Kindly see the attached pdf. My attempt to solve it, is in it. I'm wondering if my solution is right. My idea is this: At any point of time, the ball may be assumed to be at an incline which is at an angle of θ(kindly see both the pics in the pdf file). The value of θ will continuously change and so will the value of friction. I'm not able to figure out, why my solution is wrong, if it is wrong .
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Back
Top