I Searching Beyond EM Spectrum: Tech Needed to Discover New Wavelengths

[Starling]

Hello PF members,

I'm currently working on a project alongside others who are interested in the topic of searching for wavelengths beyond the EM spectrum. We've been through countless piles of literature and seem to have a mixed opinion. Our question is simple (ironically):

What type of technology would be required in order to look beyond Gamma rays and discover a new wavelength?
We also have to keep it dummy friendly and so the less jargon the better, though we could sort that out once we've found relevant info.

Thanks for reading :)

 

[Nugatory]

What type of technology would be required in order to look beyond Gamma rays and discover a new wavelength?

Gamma rays are loosely defined as "anything that has a shorter wavelength than X-rays", so you whatever you find won't be beyond gamma rays, it'll be a more energetic gamma ray. Existing detection technologies, including cosmic ray observations, are capable of finding much more energetic rays than we've seen so far... So it's likely just a matter of time before we see something more energetic than what we have already seen.

 

[ZapperZ]

Hello PF members,

I'm currently working on a project alongside others who are interested in the topic of searching for wavelengths beyond the EM spectrum. We've been through countless piles of literature and seem to have a mixed opinion. Our question is simple (ironically):

What type of technology would be required in order to look beyond Gamma rays and discover a new wavelength?
We also have to keep it dummy friendly and so the less jargon the better, though we could sort that out once we've found relevant info.

Thanks for reading :)

Er... re-read your post. What are "... wavelengths beyond the EM spectrum..."?

Just because something is beyond "gamma rays" doesn't mean that it isn't part of the EM wave/spectrum.

Zz.

 

[russ_watters]

To say it another way, the classical spectrum is infinite by definition, stretching from wavelengths of zero to infinity. The wiki says there is a maximum wavelength of the width of the universe, though it strikes me that that's probably a fuzzy issue since the universe may be infinite today and even if it isn't is still expanding.

 

[mfb]

If the "countless piles of literature" didn't include a definition of gamma rays, I would look for better literature.

The most high-energetic photons are found in cosmic rays - and photons with higher energy are simply less frequent. To study them, you need detectors covering larger areas and longer observation times. Both cost money, so it is not easy to extend the range of energies where photons can be studied reliably (finding "the most high-energetic photon" makes a nice press release, but not a nice scientific study).

 

[sophiecentaur]

Gamma rays are loosely defined as "anything that has a shorter wavelength than X-rays",

I have seen textbooks in which there is a definite overlap in the definition, shared by high end X rays and low end gamma rays. I always put that down to the sources of the radiation; those named 'gamma rays' being produced by nuclear transitions and the X rays coming from non-nuclear interactions. But you can never fully trust School textbooks. It's my old enemy Classification at work, confusing people.

 

[Nugatory]

I have seen textbooks in which there is a definite overlap in the definition, shared by high end X rays and low end gamma rays. I always put that down to the sources of the radiation; those named 'gamma rays' being produced by nuclear transitions and the X rays coming from non-nuclear interactions. But you can never fully trust School textbooks.

That's true, and just goes to show that classification is overrated :)

 

[sophiecentaur]

That's true, and just goes to show that classification is overrated :)

Indeed. A photon is a photon is a photon.

 

[lychette]

Indeed. A photon is a photon is a photon.

indeed. A book is a book is a book

But you can never fully trust School textbooks

 

[sophiecentaur]

But you can never fully trust School textbooks

You need to scrutinise every word!

 

[geoelectronics]

Indeed. A photon is a photon is a photon.

Ionizing Radiation, Particles and Photons from a Gamma Spectrometrist's point of view.

As an amateur Gamma Ray Spectrometrist, I follow the strict rules of naming photons according to their origin. If not known, we call them simply "photons."

We MEASURE photon energy to determine other facts about origin, such as which specific electron shell of which specific elemental atom produced it. Each one has a very specific, well known and easily measured energy level. It's true that in most normal radioactive decay the X-Rays produced occupy a lower energy (frequency) level on a spectrum chart, but that is not always the case. Some X-Rays can be more energetic than some Gamma Rays, in fact there is no upper limit to X-Ray energy.

We consider Gamma Rays as coming from the nucleus of the daughter of a parent which has undergone radioactive decay. X-Rays come from electrons shells, and free electrons emit Bremsstrahlung Rays. Electron-Positron annihilation photons are Annihilation Radiation (Rays) and occur in matched pairs, 511 keV being the normal energy for each.

Also we consider a "radioactive decay" as one which transforms the parent element into a different element. The new element is usually 1 step up or 2 steps down on the Periodic Table, depending if a Beta Particle or Alpha particle is emitted. The new element is the atom that emits a Gamma Ray, from the newly formed nucleus, in the process of attaining its most stable state.

By the way Cosmic Rays are not photons, but particles.

George Dowell

 

[ZapperZ]

Ionizing Radiation, Particles and Photons from a Gamma Spectrometrist's point of view.

As an amateur Gamma Ray Spectrometrist, I follow the strict rules of naming photons according to their origin. If not known, we call them simply "photons."

We MEASURE photon energy to determine other facts about origin, such as which specific electron shell of which specific elemental atom produced it. Each one has a very specific, well known and easily measured energy level. It's true that in most normal radioactive decay the X-Rays produced occupy a lower energy (frequency) level on a spectrum chart, but that is not always the case. Some X-Rays can be more energetic than some Gamma Rays, in fact there is no upper limit to X-Ray energy.

We consider Gamma Rays as coming from the nucleus of the daughter of a parent which has undergone radioactive decay. X-Rays come from electrons shells, and free electrons emit Bremsstrahlung Rays. Electron-Positron annihilation photons are Annihilation Radiation (Rays) and occur in matched pairs, 511 keV being the normal energy for each.

I don't quite understand all this. I do understand looking at the ENTIRE spectrum and identifying the nature of the source. That is what we do when we look at the emission spectrum, for example. However, detecting just a particular photon energy/frequency/wavelength does NOT tell you of the nature of the source. A photon is a photon, is a photon!

For example, if I give you a 3.3 keV photon (x-ray range), can you actually identify that as coming from a potassium Kα state, or from an undulator in a synchrotron ring?

By the way Cosmic Rays are not photons, but particles.

George Dowell

Not necessarily.

https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-gamma-ray-energy-record-shattered-by-high-altitude-observatory/
Cosmic ray is particles or photons of non-terrestrial origin. So yes, high energy gamma rays from galactic sources, for example, have been called as "cosmic rays".

Zz.

 

[sophiecentaur]

For example, if I give you a 3.3 keV photon (x-ray range), can you actually identify that as coming from a potassium Kα state, or from an undulator in a synchrotron ring?

As an amateur Gamma Ray Spectrometrist,

I think there's a hint here that the Context is important and the whole spectrum could be the clue. To be honest, there's not a lot that a single photon, arrive in the Lab, can tell us about anything at all. We don't normally let that inhibit us from coming to conclusions in an experiment / measurement.
If a whole bunch of different photons arrive from some source then there could be many clues about the probable origin of one particular photon.

 

[geoelectronics]

I think there's a hint here that the Context is important and the whole spectrum could be the clue. To be honest, there's not a lot that a single photon, arrive in the Lab, can tell us about anything at all. We don't normally let that inhibit us from coming to conclusions in an experiment / measurement.
If a whole bunch of different photons arrive from some source then there could be many clues about the probable origin of one particular photon.

Correct. A single 3.3 photon from a distant source is just that, a photon. We don't know if it was once a higher energy Gamma Ray that has interacted with matter through 3 main mechanisms and has lost energy each time, or a very high energy X-Ray that has done the same and is now only 3.3 keV.
The better your measurement instruments are, the higher can be your confidence.Heavier Elements with several shells can be measured and you can differentiate not only the electron shell of the Ka, Kb, La, Lb and M shell X-Ray but tell which other shell gave up an electron to fill the hole.

That's the basis of the X-Ray Fluorescence Spectroscopy or XRF branch of element identification science. Each electron in every shell of every atom has a unique binding energy.

George Dowell

 

[geoelectronics]

https://physicsworld.com/a/cosmic-gamma-ray-energy-record-shattered-by-high-altitude-observatory/[/URL]

"Cosmic ray is particles or photons of non-terrestrial origin. So yes, high energy gamma rays from galactic sources, for example, have been called as "cosmic rays"."Zz.

I use the definition from NASA:
https://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/toolbox/cosmic_rays1.html
"Cosmic Rays

Cosmic rays provide one of our few direct samples of matter from outside the solar system. They are high energy particles that move through space at nearly the speed of light. Most cosmic rays are atomic nuclei stripped of their atoms with protons (hydrogen nuclei) being the most abundant type but nuclei of elements as heavy as lead have been measured. Within cosmic-rays however we also find other sub-atomic particles like neutrons electrons and neutrinos."

Neutrons at rest are not stable and have a half-life of only 15 minutes unless bound in a nucleus (free neutrons decay into a proton plus some particles). For a free neutron to be found in true Cosmic Rays they were probably either locally produced by high energy nuclei collisions, or it was traveling at a significant speed to dilate time (relativistic speeds).

When a Cosmic "Ray" massive charged particle like a proton reaches earth, it will collide with an atomic nucleus in the high atmosphere, disintegrating into a "Cosmic Ray Air Shower", while a cosmogenic photon of high energy will do the same but is called a "Gamma Ray Air Shower".

What we detect down here at sea level are the high energy muons from this shower. They only have a half-life of 2.2 microseconds so shouldn't survive the trip through the ever thickening atmosphere, but are traveling at relativistic speeds, so for them time moves at a slower rate.
When they arrive at the surface, they still retain enough energy to penetrate deep down into the earth.

Muons are not Cosmic Rays, but a secondary emission caused by Cosmic Rays. Still we call our earthbound and subterranean devices "Cosmic Ray Detectors".

George Dowell

 

[mfb]

Also we consider a "radioactive decay" as one which transforms the parent element into a different element. The new element is usually 1 step up or 2 steps down on the Periodic Table, depending if a Beta Particle or Alpha particle is emitted. The new element is the atom that emits a Gamma Ray, from the newly formed nucleus, in the process of attaining its most stable state.

Or one step down for beta+ decays. Or it stays the same element for gamma decays and neutron emission.

By the way Cosmic Rays are not photons, but particles.

Photons are particles, and they are usually considered to be part of cosmic rays. The NASA page doesn't exclude that, it just focuses on other parts.

 

[geoelectronics]

"Or one step down for beta+ decays. Or it stays the same element for gamma decays and neutron emission. "
Correct. I did not include SF (Spontaneous Fission), or B+ decay (positron emission) and probably other not so common decay modes unknown to me (like Neutron Emission "Decay" -does not change the Z #, but does change the A#, same element but different isotope. We call this IT - Isotopic Transistion it works when more energy than a common Gamma Ray needs to be released, the rest mass energy equiv. of a neutron is ~939.6 million electron volts). As an amateur in this field I am limited to a short list of allowed sealed source, exempt quantity isotopes (NRC Shedule B Exempt Quantity Isotopes)
Gammas are not decays in my book (does not change the Z #, it is an isotopic transition IT)
They are remnants of excess energy released by the daughter element or atoms neutron rich (probably others?) and can be nearly immediate or delayed (metastable).

In my study, photons are massless energy, quanta yes but particles no, but can be converted to mass in the presence of certain forces and under certain energy limitations (i.e. >1022 keV Gamma Ray in the proximity of a nucleus' forces yields 1 electron and 1 positron). Of which the positron will eventually annihilate with a different electron, producing two 511 keV X-Rays at 180 degree opposition.

Because of poor wording in many texts, it is not widely recognized by students that positron do not necessarily annihilate immediately. In air they can be directed by magnets and travel at least several inches beofore they drain of enough kineteic energy to annihilate. Fortunately for me there is at least one B+ isotope on the list of allowed (sodium-22).George Dowell

 

[geoelectronics]

"Photons are particles, and they are usually considered to be part of cosmic rays. The NASA page doesn't exclude that, it just focuses on other parts. "

Perhaps you are referring to the the "Wave-Particle Duality" of photons?

George Dowel

 

[mfb]

Gammas are not decays in my book

In my study, photons are massless energy, quanta yes but particles no

If you use words differently than everyone else, expect to be misunderstood - over and over again, especially in discussions with particle physicists.

Perhaps you are referring to the the "Wave-Particle Duality" of photons?

That is an outdated concept.
Photons are particles. Just like every other particle they behave according to quantum mechanics and not like classical particles.

 

[weirdoguy]

In my study, photons are massless energy

What? Energy is a property, not a thing itself. So assigning mass to it does not make sense. Mass (zero), energy, momentum, velocity, etc. - these are properties of photons.

 

[geoelectronics]

"especially in discussions with particle physicists. "

Good. I understand you have your perspective and I respect that. We in the Gamma Spectrometry game have a perspective too, as I have explained. It is Newtonian I suppose.
Let me ask the question I came here for, maybe you can answer it in small words and type slow so I can understand it:

When it was LEP Collider and electron-positron collisions were studied, was the final outcome of the physical particles a pair or 511 keV photons, or were they of a different energy level? I've looked at reports of the multitude of physical particles , but none mentioned the two ultimate photons. The reason I'm asking is I'm curious if they still must be at rest when they actually annihilate.
A simple reference to a report that mentions it will suffice.

Thank you.
George Dowell (a very old student)

 

[mfb]

When it was LEP Collider and electron-positron collisions were studied, was the final outcome of the physical particles a pair or 511 keV photons, or were they of a different energy level?

Just apply conservation of energy: A pair of 511 keV photons was impossible.

A pair of photons each carrying half the collision energy (up to ~200 GeV, so 100 GeV per photon) was among the results. Not very common but it happened.

The LHC now produces photons up to the TeV range.

I understand you have your perspective and I respect that. We in the Gamma Spectrometry game have a perspective too, as I have explained.

I doubt this is the general perspective in gamma spectroscopy.