Why is the ionizing power of gamma rays very low?

[Klaynos]

what is the ref index of a diamond?

 

in comparison to the He gas for dual noble gas maser?

 

Off the top of my head I do not know.

 

STP shares that the molar scale of the mass is relevant. You just don't see it that way.

 

i know and the STP and mass of the gas is absolutely relevant to the differences.

so is bringing up STP and suggestin the mass of the gas is no mass to observe

 

As I stated go look up teh values you will see they do not vary with just the mass of the gas.

 

or even this line

 

***One of them interacts many many times, one of them does not interact at all.****

 

in which you share nothing of evidence to any of the statements

 

If a gamma ray got absorbed it would ionise the material and therefore not be re-emitted.

 

not neccessarily

 

Yes, absorbed and re-emitted many many times. Your link provides nothing that states this is not true. If the photons did not get absorbed and re-emitted the refractive index would be 1.

 

see this item on polarizers and a patent in the works

 

http://www.freshpatents.com/-dt20090702ptan20090168172.php

 

 

 

i am, the mass is most relevant and you just don't like that

 

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's wrong, I've given you a trivial way to go and look up something that shows you that the dependence is not mass related.

[swansont]

what is the ref index of a diamond?

 

in comparison to the He gas for dual noble gas maser?

 

 

Last time I checked, diamonds were not gaseous, so this is a non-sequitur.

 

If you look at the refractive index of gases, you will see that it does not depend on mass.

http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/general_physics/2_5/2_5_7.html

 

Note, for example, that Oxygen has a smaller index than Nitrogen, even though it is more massive. Argon's index is also smaller. Heck, even water is smaller than Oxygen, and water contains Oxygen!

[Bishadi]

Off the top of my head I do not know.

each element has a different refractive index

 

http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

 

the STP for each is just the bench to measure from

 

i am getting the impression that you are suggesting, if the STP of the system is the same, that no matter the element; the refraction would be the same; i disagree

 

the wheels STP in this case are dead

 

As I stated go look up teh values you will see they do not vary with just the mass of the gas.

provide link

 

If a gamma ray got absorbed it would ionise the material and therefore not be re-emitted.

wrong.... the mass can change the wavelength and re-emit. (think of what 'heat' is)

 

Yes, absorbed and re-emitted many many times. Your link provides nothing that states this is not true.

i never said that was NOT TRUE either..... i said "not necessarily"

 

but the pub shared how the mass, can change the orientation and filter as the em is exchanged

 

If the photons did not get absorbed and re-emitted the refractive index would be 1.

what?

 

not absorbed and yet 're-emitted'.............????

 

It's not that I don't like it, it's that it's wrong, I've given you a trivial way to go and look up something that shows you that the dependence is not mass related.

 

common sense tells you ANY exchange with em is mass related

 

you are arguing for nothing and i have yet to figure out why

 

The STP thing in itself was rediculous....

 

 

you have been trying to suggest the mass, environment, etc.... has nothing to do with why gamma rays ionizing mass

 

the reason gamma and the so called gamma bursts are so scary is because it 'easily' ionizes mass of living mass and is throught to cause cancer.....

(a whole lot BETTER than radio, visible, vhf...etc of the em spectrum)

 

the gamma is a hammer and i say the reason is that some mass in some environments can capture it better than others.

 

kind of like a radio being tuned in to KMET (twiddle-dee to heaven 94.7 KMET, twiddle deee)

[ydoaPs]

It's nothing like that, when visible photons pass through glass they are absorbed and re-emitted many many times.

 

That's what I was thinking. IIRC, it's more to do with the fact that photons are uncharged.

[swansont]

each element has a different refractive index

 

http://interactagram.com/physics/optics/refraction/

 

the STP for each is just the bench to measure from

 

i am getting the impression that you are suggesting, if the STP of the system is the same, that no matter the element; the refraction would be the same; i disagree

 

the wheels STP in this case are dead

 

No, that's not what is being suggested at all. All that has been stated is that index is not a function of mass, and your link bears this out. Higher mass can mean higher index or it can mean lower index. That is not the same as saying it is a constant.

 

provide link

 

Already done in my post and in your own post.

 

wrong.... the mass can change the wavelength and re-emit. (think of what 'heat' is)

 

If it ionizes the electron then it's not the same photon — it has a lower energy. Unlike a photon that passes through a material.

 

 

i never said that was NOT TRUE either..... i said "not necessarily"

 

but the pub shared how the mass, can change the orientation and filter as the em is exchanged

 

what?

 

not absorbed and yet 're-emitted'.............????

 

 

 

common sense tells you ANY exchange with em is mass related

 

you are arguing for nothing and i have yet to figure out why

 

The STP thing in itself was rediculous....

 

 

you have been trying to suggest the mass, environment, etc.... has nothing to do with why gamma rays ionizing mass

 

the reason gamma and the so called gamma bursts are so scary is because it 'easily' ionizes mass of living mass and is throught to cause cancer.....

(a whole lot BETTER than radio, visible, vhf...etc of the em spectrum)

 

the gamma is a hammer and i say the reason is that some mass in some environments can capture it better than others.

 

kind of like a radio being tuned in to KMET (twiddle-dee to heaven 94.7 KMET, twiddle deee)

 

I think you are using "mass" in a different way than everyone else, confusing it with "matter." Mass is a property of matter. It is not the atoms themselves. "gamma rays ionizing mass" is wrong. Gamma rays ionize matter.

[Klaynos]

My points would echo Swansont here, I'd also suggest using luxpop for finding refractive indices of materials, as it cites sources, gives wavelength dependence, states temperatures and gives the real and imaginary parts!

 

http://www.luxpop.com/