How can we measure the wavelength of gamma-rays?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter avicenna
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Measure Wavelength
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the experimental measurement of gamma-ray wavelengths, specifically for gamma-rays around 0.7 MeV. Participants explore various methods of measurement, the relationship between energy and wavelength, and the implications of different measurement techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that wavelengths are not directly measured but calculated from energy measurements, raising questions about the necessity of measuring wavelength directly.
  • Others mention that Bragg diffraction can provide direct wavelength measurements for X-rays, but express doubt about its applicability for gamma-rays at 700 keV.
  • A participant points out that measuring energy and inferring wavelength is a semantic issue, questioning whether this constitutes a true measurement of wavelength.
  • Concerns are raised about the limitations of diffraction methods for high-energy gamma-rays, with references to atomic radii and lattice constants.
  • Some participants discuss the use of atomic force microscopy and its precision in measuring atomic distances, noting its limitations compared to X-ray diffraction.
  • There is mention of using X-ray diffraction patterns to derive atomic spacing without needing to know the spacing beforehand, suggesting a method to calibrate wavelength measurements.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether wavelength can be measured directly or must be inferred from energy measurements. There is no consensus on the best approach or the implications of these measurement techniques.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of measuring wavelengths at high energies and the dependence on various assumptions, such as the accuracy of atomic spacing and the limitations of different measurement techniques.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying experimental physics, particularly in the fields of gamma-ray spectroscopy, X-ray diffraction, and atomic measurements.

avicenna
Messages
96
Reaction score
8
How can we experimentally measure the wavelength of gamma-rays, say for about 0.7MeV?
Can it be done without gamma-ray spectrometry?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
We don't measure wavelengths. We measure energies. If we want wavelength (and why?) we calculate it.
 
avicenna said:
How can we experimentally measure the wavelength of gamma-rays, say for about 0.7MeV?
Can it be done without gamma-ray spectrometry?
What wavelength does one calculate from the stated energy?

Bristol Instruments provides instruments to measure wavelength using interferometry, but the instruments are limited to light with wavelengths of 375 nm.
https://www.bristol-inst.com/bristol-instruments-products/wavelength-meters-scientific/

Otherwise, as V50 indicated we measure energy and calculate wavelength or frequency.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
I am confused by these answers. What then does Bragg diffraction of X-rays from a crystal measure?
 
It gives direct wavelength measurements in the x-ray range, but I doubt this will give useful results at 700 keV.

Measuring the energy and calculating the wavelength will be better.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: vanhees71
Yes it certainly is easier. I am undecided as to whether that is actually a measurement of wavelength It is a measurement of energy from which wavelength may be inferred. This is largely a semantic point I guess (but not entirely so?) I guess all measurement requires a chain of inference.
As a practical matter it looks like the limit is indeed about 300keV photons for doing useful crystalline diffraction (this is my cursory literature search).
 
hutchphd said:
I am confused by these answers. What then does Bragg diffraction of X-rays from a crystal measure?
I thought of Bragg diffraction, but 'measuring' the wavelength requires 'knowing' the distance between atoms in crystal. How does one 'know' or 'measure' the distance between atoms? X-ray diffraction.

Here is a paper that indicates "Measurement of X-ray spectral line wavelengths by using two Bragg reflections"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0895399690900079

The term 'measuring' is important, in contrast to 'determining'. For example, we can measure distance or displacement, but we do not measure stress. Stress is calculated.
 
Astronuc said:
How does one 'know' or 'measure' the distance between atoms? X-ray diffraction.
Or atomic force microscopy, these days. By far less precise than x-ray diffraction of course.
You can also measure it using interference with visible light (at large incidence angles), relating the x-ray wavelength to a measurement of visible light wavelengths that can be done with other methods.
 
mfb said:
Or atomic force microscopy, . . .
I thought about AFM, but wasn't sure. I'm curious about the resolution. I could not find a definitive statement, other than noise on the order of 10s of pm. A 1 MeV gamma ray has a wavelength of ~1.24 pm (~0.00124 nm), so diffraction methods are too coarse. Atomic radii of most atoms are on the order of 100 pm, and lattice constants slightly larger.
 
  • #10
We're going far afield from the original question.

You can calibrate the x-ray wavelength from diffracation without being circular. You use x-ray diffraction to get the crystal structure - you don't need the spacing here, just the pattern. From the density and the atomic weight plus the crystal structure you get the atomic spacing. From the atomic spacing and the diffraction pattern you can get the wavelength.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc, hutchphd and mfb
  • #11
Astronuc said:
I thought about AFM, but wasn't sure. I'm curious about the resolution. I could not find a definitive statement, other than noise on the order of 10s of pm. A 1 MeV gamma ray has a wavelength of ~1.24 pm (~0.00124 nm), so diffraction methods are too coarse. Atomic radii of most atoms are on the order of 100 pm, and lattice constants slightly larger.
You gain a lot from the angle. If you can determine the height of a layer to be e.g. 100 pm +- 3 pm your relative uncertainty on the wavelength from the lattice constant will just be 3%, even if you measure wavelengths below 10 pm because the diffraction angle is small. But, as V50 noted, you can also measure the mass of an atom and the mass of a macroscopic object.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Astronuc

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K