Is it possible to produce a "GASER"?

[Limecat]

Yes it is possible, theoretically. In reality, not so much. Unless you know of a supersecret material that has ~99 - 100% reflectivity for the Gamma Ray regime of the EM spectrum, assuming you were using that distinction between gamma rays and x-rays.

 

[Benm]

Making the cavity mirrors is just a practical hurdle, and strictly not even required to make a laser: supperradiant lasers work perfectly well without any cavity mirrors.

The problem is in the laSEr - it requires stimulated emission, and that is very difficult to achieve using current x-ray or gamma sources. The problem is you would need to have a nuclear reaction that is somehow stimulated by the same energy it produces. This is very diffrent from the typical energy generating fission reactions, where a slow neutron results in delayed emission of several photons and a couple of fast neutrons. For something like this to work, the exciting particle would have to be a photon, and the resulting output a photon of equal energy and phase.

 

[Limecat]

Making the cavity mirrors is just a practical hurdle, and strictly not even required to make a laser: supperradiant lasers work perfectly well without any cavity mirrors.

The problem is in the laSEr - it requires stimulated emission, and that is very difficult to achieve using current x-ray or gamma sources. The problem is you would need to have a nuclear reaction that is somehow stimulated by the same energy it produces. This is very diffrent from the typical energy generating fission reactions, where a slow neutron results in delayed emission of several photons and a couple of fast neutrons. For something like this to work, the exciting particle would have to be a photon, and the resulting output a photon of equal energy and phase.

I was going by the OP's presumed definition of a laser, that is, optical cavity, gain medium, etc etc. I know of the disposable nuclear pumped x-ray laser, but I highly doubt that that is what the OP was thinking of when he was thinking of a "GASER"

 

[HIMNL9]

Well, if you are not too "picky" (hope it's the right word ..... critic ?) in the choices, then technically (and a lot freely ) speaking, x-rays and gamma rays can be defined "stimulated emissions" too ..... one is the emission of an electrode stimulated from a flow of electrons, and the other is the emission of fissioning atoms stimulated from particle collisions ..... :crackup:

 

[Limecat]

Hah, no I'm mot picky. Just I too also conjure up optical cavity, gain medium and energy pump when I think of a laser. And also I wasnt even aware of the 'modern' distinction between gamma rays and x-rays either. So yeah I imagined OP also conjured up a non disposable device, which for these wavelengths would be hard to make, if we go by the gamma ray wavelength < x-ray wavelength definition of gamma rays,

 

[HIMNL9]

LOL, sorry ..... was saying this in reply to Benm, and forgot to refresh the page before post ..... my bad

 

[Benm]

Well, we need to be picky here to make a difference between lasers and, say, fluorescent tubes.

The key aspect of a laser is that a photon travelling through the gain medium somehow 'dislodges' additional photons of equal wavenlength and phase.

In a fluorescent tube you also see a state of radiant plasma, but there is not stimulated amplification going on at all - its just a bunch of electrically created ionized atoms falling a back to their ground states, regardless of what other atoms in the tube are doing.

To call something a *aser, it would be required that a photon of the output energy excites additional photons to be emitted at the same wavelength and phase. If this is not the case, the device is a lamp.

 

[mod101]

Im not sure that this is a reputable source, but on spike tv's 1000 ways to die, one of the ways was a gamma ray laser. technically wrong terminology but a gaser nun the less