/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #13371856

238KiB, 1920x1080, CD Color Youtube.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Extremes of Electromagnetic Radiation

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 14:40:18 2021 No.13371856 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>13371897 >>13371908 >>13372276 >>13372296 >>13372787 >>13372999 >>13375492 >>13376944 >>13377356 >>13377526 >>13379998 >>13381089 >>13383800

What is the longest and shortest possible wavelength of electromagnetic radiation?

Specifically what is the lowest and highest energy that can theoretically exist, and what are the limits on what humans can meaningfully interact with (detect, transmit, be biologically effected by etc.)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 14:42:44 No.13371862 Report

Quoted By: >>13371893

Would an EM wave with a wavelength equal to the width of the universe be possible?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 14:56:35 No.13371893 Report

Quoted By: >>13371903 >>13371947 >>13383800 >>13384906

>>13371862
I don't think it would be physically possible because the universe is expanding, meaning the wavelength would have to change. I suppose you could argue that the light could travel through some medium with an index of refraction that changes such that the wavelength of the light changes to accommodate a wavelength the size of the expanding universe, but that's some hand-wavy bullshit.

From a theoretical standpoint, we use wavelengths of infinite length all the time to describe DC values in Fourier series.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 14:58:26 No.13371897 Report

Quoted By: >>13371936 >>13376944

>>13371856
Infinite and 0

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 14:59:56 No.13371903 Report

Quoted By: >>13371926 >>13371947

>>13371893
>universe is expanding, meaning the wavelength would have to change
The expansion of the universe does change the wavelength of light, that's why the energy density of radiation is 1/d^4 instead of 1/d^3

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:01:57 No.13371908 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
the planck spectral function has endpoints as you take the limit as wavelenght goes to zero and infinity. there are no exact endpoints

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:07:39 No.13371926 Report

Quoted By: >>13371947

>>13371903
Source?

It sounds weird enough to be true, but the idea that a photon with lambda = 13bn LY generated at the edge of the universe now, propagating towards the current location of the opposite edge, would have a greater wavelength than the current observable universe is pretty startling.

Especially since it would imply that the direction of light relative to the edges of the universe would alter the rate of wavelength change.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:13:09 No.13371936 Report

Quoted By: >>13371947

>>13371897
/thread

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:18:00 No.13371947 Report

Quoted By: >>13371953 >>13371987 >>13372034

>>13371893
>>13371903
>>13371926
Does redshift from objects moving away due to the expansion of the universe have anything to do with what you guys are talking about?

>>13371936
Read the second question please. I would not have made this thread if zero and infinity were the answers I was looking for.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:20:49 No.13371953 Report

Quoted By: >>13371984

>>13371947
>Specifically what is the lowest and highest energy that can theoretically exist
theoretically, 0 and infinity

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:30:05 No.13371984 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371953
The thread's not over just cause you answered the no-brainer question, anon please!

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:30:18 No.13371987 Report

Quoted By: >>13371989 >>13372047 >>13372136

>>13371947
Redshift is a similar effect, but different. Resist depends only on relative velocity whereas energy density decreasing depends on expansion of space and the amount of space between the two objects, not the velocities.
As for not accepting 0 and infinite, then what is the actual criteria you are using? Detect by human eye: visible light about [400nm, 800nm]
Detect by reading detector: (0, infinite)
Detect by interaction with the body that could be felt: whatever the thermal detection range is
Detect by setting effects on the human body: [whatever energy is the most fragile bond exposed to direct light, infinite)

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:31:19 No.13371989 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371987
>Resist depends only on relative velocity
Meant redshift obviously

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:45:09 No.13372034 Report

Quoted By: >>13372067 >>13372157

>>13371947
Redshift is basically the light version of the Doppler effect. When you hear the sound of a siren on an ambulance or whatever change pitch as it approaches you then change again as it drives away, you're hearing the change in relative wavelength between you and the ambulance.

Redshift and blueshift are the same. Blueshift occurs when the object is moving towards you and redshift occurs as it moves away. Basically, it makes the wavelength of emitted light appear longer/shorter.

So we can use the redshift and blueshift of starts to gauge whether they're moving towards/away from us. I'm not sure what the metric is that astronomers use, but I'd assume the overwhelming number of visible galaxies are redshifted, indicating that they're spreading away from us (or we're spreading away from them, I suppose).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:48:03 No.13372047 Report

Quoted By: >>13372067

>>13371987
>Detect by reading detector: (0, infinite)
We have detectors that can detector infinite wave lengths? What?!
>Detect by interaction with the body that could be felt: whatever the thermal detection range is
>Detect by setting effects on the human body: [whatever energy is the most fragile bond exposed to direct light, infinite)
Biologically active! You can't feel gamma rays but you will get cancer!

These questions are more relevant for long wavelengths, but you didn't even respond to the question of how high energy EMR we can emit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 15:53:54 No.13372067 Report

Quoted By: >>13372104 >>13372214

>>13372034
Thanks anon I'm aware or what redshift is, my confusion is that I thought redshift was the primary way light lost its energy when traveling through an expanding universe.
>>13372047
>detectors that can detector
should be "detectors that can detect"

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:02:19 No.13372104 Report

Quoted By: >>13372109 >>13372110 >>13372136

>>13372067
You clearly do not understand red shit. It a phenomenon that is independent of the energy contained in a photon. Redshift does not cause a loss of energy. The energy of a photon, to my knowledge, cannot be altered by the movement of bodies around the photon. To do so would violate the law of conservation of energy.

For a more complete explanation, see
"Redshift and Energy Conservation" by Alistair McLeod,

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:03:17 No.13372109 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372104
>You clearly do not understand red shit
Have you tried consulting your GP?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:03:21 No.13372110 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372104
*redshift

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:08:45 No.13372136 Report

Quoted By: >>13372195

>>13371987
>energy density decreasing depends on expansion of space and the amount of space between the two objects, not the velocities.
Wait, are you saying that the wave/particle is losing energy due to the expansion of the universe stretching out it's wavelength? I'm sorry I'm having a hard time parsing this.
>>13372104
>Redshift does not cause a loss of energy.
If you say so. When light hits a detector it still contains the same amount of energy even though the (detected) wavelength is longer? Clearly I need to read more about it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:19:26 No.13372157 Report

Quoted By: >>13372300

>>13372034
And how the parasitic jew knew there was red shift in effect and it wasn't the natural color of the thing?

Are all losses of an object propagating light in many directions and maybe being affected by other obstacles well known in such huge scale?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot.png, 27KiB, 599x466

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:41:28 No.13372195 Report

Quoted By: >>13372217 >>13374505

>>13372136
OK, so I was trying to answer my own questions. This article says that the energy "lost" due to redshift goes into the expansion of the universe so the energy is conserved.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/14/is-energy-conserved-when-photons-redshift-due-to-the-expanding-universe/?sh=54ba00563efa
Still don't understand radiant energy density though (assuming that's what everyone was talking about).

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:49:13 No.13372214 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372067
Redshift depends only on the relative velocity of the observer, nothing to do with its actual meditation between source and observer

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 16:51:40 No.13372217 Report

Quoted By: >>13372276 >>13372412

>>13372195
Would like to see the actual physics behind pic. If that is from Forbes then I'm not taking anything they say seriously since they don't know the meaning of the physics jargon

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot.png, 37KiB, 623x269

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 17:19:45 No.13372276 Report

Quoted By: >>13372310 >>13372368 >>13372596

>>13371856
>>13371934
So an anon in the stupid questions thread linked to an article that lists the highest energy detected gamma rays, and it said that the there have been reports of Gamma rays at frequencies above 10^29 Hz
http://teacherlink.ed.usu.edu/tlnasa/reference/imaginedvd/files/imagine/docs/ask_astro/answers/970412e.html

and Wikipedia says that there have been frequencies detected higher than 2.42 * 10^28 Hz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray

So I guess that answers the question of what HAS BEEN detected, but what I really wanted to know is what COULD BE detected. I realize now that part of the problem with my questions is that these numbers don't really mean much to me as I can't intuitively understand just how much energy that actually is other than a vague "a lot".

>>13372217
Anon if you actually clicked the link you would have seen that they got a contributor with a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 17:30:34 No.13372296 Report

Quoted By: >>13372310 >>13372341 >>13372372 >>13372596 >>13375506 >>13375701 >>13380856

>>13371856
>Specifically what is the lowest and highest energy that can theoretically exist

The energy of a photon is inversely proportional to its wavelength. The formula for the energy of a single photon is:

E = hc/lambda

Where h is Planck's constant, c is the speed of light (in meters per second) and lambda is the wavelength of the light.

Photons, which are simply the quantum of the EM field, carry a MINIMUM energy of 6.62607015×10^?34 Joules, which is also Planck's constant.

The minimum wavelength of light, which correlates to the HIGHEST possible energy, is constrained by the Planck length, which is (1.616255)×10^?35 m. This means maximum energy a photon can carry is also constrained by the Planck Temperature, which is 1.229×10^10 Joules.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 17:32:52 No.13372300 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372157
Is light affected by fields caused by the obstacles (gravity or whatever the fuck)?

If it is, how would it distort the omnidirectional propagation of light from the source until it hits the observer?

What are other possible interferences?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 17:37:36 No.13372310 Report

Quoted By: >>13372341 >>13372596 >>13375701 >>13380856 >>13382525

>>13372276
See: >>13372296

The minimum and maximum energies are directly related to Planck's constant, specifically the Planck Length and the Planck Temperature.

Knowing those, you can get a minimum energy of a photon at 6.62607015×10^?34 Joules and a maximum energy of 1.229×10^10 Joules.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 17:58:10 No.13372341 Report

Quoted By: >>13372479 >>13372596

>>13372296
>>13372310
Thank you, this was much more helpful than those anons just posting zero and infinity. If I could ask, were did you get this information from? I always like to verify anything I read on here with a source. The stuff I keep finding through Google about the Planck constant is too technical for me to understand.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 18:08:05 No.13372368 Report

Quoted By: >>13372389

>>13372276
>Anon if you actually clicked the link you would have seen that they got a contributor with a Ph.D. in astrophysics.
Clicked it, scanned through it, only math I saw was E=mc^2. Looking for more in depth than description by analogy.
>The kicker, though, is that any photon — or particle of light — has its energy defined by its wavelength
False, it is defined by the frequency. Yes I know the relationships between them, just stop lying to me

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 18:10:03 No.13372372 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372296
>Photons, which are simply the quantum of the EM field, carry a MINIMUM energy of 6.62607015×10^?34 Joules
Citation required

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 18:16:41 No.13372389 Report

Quoted By: >>13372412

>>13372368
Dude it's a science communication article, it's not supposed to be technical because it's explaining complex science to a layman audience (ME). If you want a more in depth discussion than go find it yourself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 18:31:35 No.13372412 Report

Quoted By: >>13372419

>>13372389
Hence
>>13372217
Don't pretend like clicking your link is addressing the issue

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 18:35:19 No.13372419 Report

Quoted By: >>13372479

>>13372412
What are you trying to prove here? Quit wasting your time arguing with me and go find an in depth paper you want to read and post it here for like minded anons to read.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 19:10:14 No.13372479 Report

Quoted By: >>13372489 >>13379997

>>13372419
You are all gay and this guy is straight:
>>13372341

I didn't understand why the spectrum propagates on vacuum on the lower end and doesn't on the higher end, and other similar stuff, but it's unrelated.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 19:14:14 No.13372489 Report

Quoted By: >>13372642 >>13379997

>>13372479
Or the electromagnetic spectrum isn't the same as the spectrum for any shit vibrating (ultrasound, sound, infrasound, ...).
I never cared to look for it.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot.png, 9KiB, 705x110

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:07:15 No.13372596 Report

Quoted By: >>13372609 >>13372617 >>13372665 >>13375701

>>13372296
>>13372310
>>13372341
I've tried really hard to verify this, different sources contradict each other over whether the shortest wavelength a photon can have is the Planck length or if a photon's wavelength can be arbitrarily small.

The top answer here is written by someone who seems to know what he's talking about and according to his profile is a theoretical physicist.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28720/how-to-get-planck-length
and Wikipedia confirms his credentials
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubo%C5%A1_Motl

Wikipedia even cites his post in the article about Planck length
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length#cite_ref-13
(though admittedly it says that a better source is needed)

But in the Ultra-high-energy gamma ray article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray
(which I already linked here >>13372276 )
In the chart it claims that the Planck energy is the maximum proton energy, but it lacks a specific citation (though I have not read the three citations the article does have so maybe the info is in there? the chart itself contains no citations).

Personally I'm leaning towards a proton's wavelength being arbitrarily small, but I'm obviously not qualified to say for sure.
And since I mentioned the Ultra-high-energy gamma ray Wikipedia article, here's the corresponding low energy article plus the EMS article where I found it for good measure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_low_frequency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:12:11 No.13372609 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372596
sorry the second to last link was supposed to be to "extremely low frequency" not "ultra low frequency"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:17:33 No.13372617 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372596
>maximum proton energy
>proton's wavelength being arbitrarily small
dammit I meant photon

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:27:11 No.13372642 Report

Quoted By: >>13379997

>>13372489
I think my question is: how electromagnetic waves propagate and it's different from other waves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:33:52 No.13372665 Report

Quoted By: >>13372674

>>13372596
>Personally I'm leaning towards a proton's wavelength being arbitrarily small, but I'm obviously not qualified to say for sure.

It's not really up for debate if you subscribe to the quantum mechanical framework of the universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 20:36:24 No.13372674 Report

Quoted By: >>13372771

>>13372665
>It's not really up for debate if you subscribe to the quantum mechanical framework of the universe.
What do mean? Is the shortest wavelength a photon can have Planck length or can a photon's wavelength be arbitrarily small?

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 21:12:43 No.13372771 Report

Quoted By: >>13372849 >>13375701

>>13372674
Quantum mechanics states that the shortest wavelength for electromagnetic radiation is equal to the Planck length. The Planck length is for all intents and purposes already "arbitrarily small".

But saying that anything is smaller than the Planck length simply doesn't really have any meaning or relevancy. There is no mathematical term for "arbitrarily small", so while you can technically claim that you believe all that to be true, you cannot meaningfully show in math, so it doesn't carry a lot weight or meaning. Your only other option is really claim that it's infinitely small or infinitely large, but you can't really prove that.

Using the Planck constants to answer your question is the most meaningful and usable explanation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 21:18:11 No.13372787 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
Shortest: big bang
Longest: heat-death

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 21:42:44 No.13372849 Report

Quoted By: >>13373283

>>13372771
I mean okaaay. Mathematically (as in pure mathematics) you could have a value smaller than Planck length so I don't know why you said there is no mathematical term for it, you would just define it as a ratio to something else - like Planck length i.e. 1/2 Planck length.

It would be helpful if you could link to something that would explain your position further as I've already done a lot of searching and that is what led me to tentatively conclude (possibly erroneously) that a photon's wavelength could be smaller than Planck length. It would just be nice to have a source on this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Jul 2021 22:43:38 No.13372999 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
shortest possible would be the planck length, to hazard a guess

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 00:52:45 No.13373283 Report

Quoted By: >>13373300 >>13375701

>>13372849
You are completely failing to understand the significance of Planck units in Physics. You seem rather determined to reach a conclusion that pleases you the most, rather than what's accurate or has a place in science. Good luck with your quest.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 01:07:05 No.13373300 Report

Quoted By:

>>13373283
Just post a source bro, I don't have a strong opinion about it either way, and why should I? I'm not physicist.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1602572981003.jpg, 39KiB, 665x574

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 12:47:26 No.13374505 Report

Quoted By: >>13374525 >>13374617

>>13372195
Assuming that the Forbes article is correct, and the energy of a photon lost due to redshift goes into the expansion of the universe, wouldn't it form a positive feedback loop, further accelerating the expansion of the universe? As stars move farther apart, the light emitted from them would redshift more, thus pouring more energy into the expansion.

If this is true (BIG IF) I wonder how it would relate to dark energy, could you calculate the energy lost due to redshift and compare it to the rate that the universe is accelerating? if you did, would it account for that acceleration or would you still need dark energy to explain it?

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 12:54:48 No.13374525 Report

Quoted By: >>13374617 >>13375330

>>13374505
Doesn't sound right to me. In GR energy is conserved in an inertial reference frame, and locally that would be true, there would be no redshift of the photon in that reference frame. So energy would be conserved. On larger scales I believe you'd need more than one reference frame. I'm no expert though.
Try having a look at this article:
https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO screenshot.png, 132KiB, 603x860

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 13:34:45 No.13374617 Report

Quoted By: >>13374632

>>13374505
DISREGARD see pic related

>>13374525
I'm sorry I re-read the the Forbes article and realized I misinterpreted what he said. I'll check out what you posted later.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 13:39:57 No.13374632 Report

Quoted By: >>13374664

>>13374617
I still think he's wrong. He's just speculating really. We have no clue what the source of the dark energy is. His analogy doesn't really explain why it would be continuing to accelerate.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO https _blogs-images.forbes.com_s (...).jpg, 49KiB, 960x486

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 13:57:40 No.13374664 Report

Quoted By:

>>13374632
He never really talked about dark energy, *I* did and I was wrong. Read the article here and decide for yourself:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/08/14/is-energy-conserved-when-photons-redshift-due-to-the-expanding-universe/?sh=6fb01ca63efa

I get so excited about an idea and I want to make a post about and I don't stop to check if I actually understand what I'm talking about. What confused me is the metaphors being used. It's not universe stretching causing more stretching, its more like gas pushing on its container.

And to preempt anyone who might get confused, The Forbes article is about Cosmological redshift not Doppler redshift.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_redshift

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 14:00:35 No.13374671 Report

Quoted By:

the shortest possible wavelength is Planck length, the longest wavelength is the length of the universe

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO LOL.png, 111KiB, 905x397

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 17:52:56 No.13375330 Report

Quoted By: >>13375642

>>13374525
AYRT, I finally got around to reading the paper you posted.

Okay, so I concede that my conception of a rubber spacetime being stretched out is wrong, the problem I have in understanding the paper is that I'm not sure what mental model the authors expect us to replace it with. So objects that ARE bound by gravity are not being pulled apart, but objects that are NOT bound are still moving away from us. So the universe gets bigger - the space between objects not bound by gravity gets larger - but the universe does not "stretch" like it's made of rubber.

As for the Forbes article, if cosmological redshift is instead thought of as a series of tiny relativistic Doppler redshifts, then (I think?) the photon is still losing energy with every "step" so I'm not sure if the paper actually contradicts the central idea of the article; that in an expanding universe it is not clear if energy is conserved, and that a photon's energy lost due to redshift might go into the expansion of the universe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 18:51:26 No.13375492 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
Shortest is Plank lenght

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 18:56:33 No.13375506 Report

Quoted By: >>13380856

>>13372296
Wait a moment, how can the minimum energy be measured in J•s and energy in J?
That part is wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 19:42:41 No.13375642 Report

Quoted By:

>>13375330
General relativity is what's used to model the universe in this case, and globally 'energy' is not a thing that's conserved. As for how you should think about the expanding universe, just as how it's described. A semi-Riemannian manifold. It's the metric that's changing with expansion.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Planck length photon wavelength (...).png, 233KiB, 731x1009

Anonymous Fri 09 Jul 2021 20:07:21 No.13375701 Report

Quoted By: >>13377356 >>13380856

>>13372296
>>13372310
>>13372771
>>13373283

Just in case you are still here (for whatever reason) I decided to try to find a source for what you said again. This time I searched for "Planck length photon wavelength" on the search engine DuckDuckGo. I have provided links to the search and the first three pages that showed up for your convenience. To prove that I have not cherry picked the results I have provided a screenshot of the search results in this post.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=Planck+length+photon+wavelength&ia=web

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/273888/can-a-photon-have-a-wavelength-less-than-the-planck-length
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/185939/is-the-planck-length-the-smallest-length-that-exists-in-the-universe-or-is-it-th
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/hand-wavy-discussion-planck-length/

I will also include the answer by string theorist Luboš Motl that was cited by Wikipedia in their article on Planck length that I linked in my previous post. >>13372596

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/28720/how-to-get-planck-length

If you think the information provided in the linked pages is incorrect, I ask again that you please cite a credible source that supports your position that the Planck length is the minimum wavelength a photon can have. If you fail to do this I will continue to believe that a photon's wavelength could theoretically be smaller than the Planck length as I believe that to be the correct position based on the information I have provided.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 07:26:36 No.13376944 Report

Quoted By: >>13377057

>>13371856
>>13371897
Planck length is the smallest measure for with non-zero mass.
The Planck length limits the electromagnetic-wave and as such can only get soo small.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 08:25:34 No.13377057 Report

Quoted By: >>13377090 >>13377150

>>13376944
so what happens when something emitting radiation at ur imaginary minimum wavelength is approaching you at a significant velocity? if the photon can't be blue shifted then will they just speed up instead? or maybe all the dogma you've memorized out of text books is fake, maybe bill nye to soience goy was just lying

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 08:41:38 No.13377090 Report

Quoted By:

>>13377057
>>13377057
I don't fucking know, it's not like we have tested it.
Maybe the amount of energy in it would create particle-antiparticle pairs to lose energy and change the length of the wave.

>so what happens when something emitting radiation at ur imaginary minimum wavelength is approaching you?
Vaporized instantly.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 09:19:16 No.13377150 Report

Quoted By: >>13378180

>>13377057
Your last point is correct. All these misconceptions stem from popular science accounts of things.
The Planck length only applies to proper distance measures in a rest frame. There's no minimum wavelength.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 11:17:39 No.13377356 Report

Quoted By: >>13377526 >>13380856 >>13384806

>>13371856
What I've learned so far:
Minimum and maximum wavelengths of a photon:

Theoretically Possible:
Zero, and infinite.

Because the relative velocity between the source of the photon and the receiver of the photon can change the frequency of that photon, due to the relativistic Doppler effect, any minimum or maximum value you assign to the wavelength of that photon could theoretically be blueshifted (made shorter) by the objects moving towards each other, or redshifted (made longer) by the objects moving away from each other, so it does not make sense to attempt to assign a minimum or maximum wavelength to a photon.

Theoretically Detectable:
Planck length, and greater than the radius of the observable universe, possibly infinite.

The minimum detectable wavelength is very likely the Planck length, to quote Wikipedia: "To measure a Planck length distance would require another particle with the Planck energy, approximately four quadrillion times greater than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of."

A photon's frequency is independent from the distance (not motion) between the source of the photon and the receiver of the photon, so it does not make sense to assume that a detected photon's wavelength could only be as long as how far we can see.

My information largely comes from here >>13375701 as well as any relevant Wikipedia articles.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 13:03:05 No.13377526 Report

Quoted By: >>13384806

>>13371856
>what are the limits on what humans can meaningfully interact with (detect, transmit, be biologically effected by etc.)

Since very few people attempted to answer this part of the question (because lets face it, its boring) I thought I'd share my thoughts.

At that point we are exiting the realm of theoretical physics questions and entering the boring reality of things that actually happened, so the answer to those questions would likely be within these ranges:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_low_frequency

What would the exact frequencies be? I don't care anymore. My monkey brain can't comprehend an intuitive meaning behind those those values and it's not fun to debate, so I'm willing to leave the questions behind without having an exact answer.

So I guess what I'm saying is that from my perspective, as the OP, the thread is over, unless someone else wants to get more specific about those frequencies, or if anyone can disprove or clarify any part of what I posted here >>13377356

But, as addendum to that post, I don't actually know how the wavelength of a photon is precisely measured, so maybe it is possible that you could measure a photon's energy and extrapolate a wavelength shorter than Planck length without actually measuring a distance smaller than Planck length, but I don't know, it sounds like a weird loophole what shouldn't be possible based on my limited understanding of Planck length, but that assumes that you could even find a material what would interact with a gamma ray that powerful so it might be a pointless distinction.

As for the longer wavelengths, the constants to measuring those is largely due to the antenna size, so whatever the theoretical "biggest antenna" is would determine what you could detect. Check the extremely low frequency Wikipedia article for more information.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 17:22:13 No.13378180 Report

Quoted By: >>13378503

>>13377150
>Waves can't be in rest frame
Explain how they can't be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 10 Jul 2021 19:36:45 No.13378503 Report

Quoted By: >>13379981

>>13378180
I only talked about the planck length in terms of rest frames. But to answer your question anyway, a photon doesn't have a rest frame, if it did the wavelength would be 0.
Only some theories of quantum gravity claim that the planck length has a physical meaning, that's where this idea of it being the minimum length of things comes from.
The wavelength can get arbitrarily small but it won't get to 0.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 07:38:07 No.13379981 Report

Quoted By: >>13379997

>>13378503
I have been doing some reading and it seems that you might be right that the waves can be any data but your explanation is shit.
From what I have gathered is that photons are quantized, however the electromagnetic field is not and as such can have any value, and as such any wave length.
Is this correct?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 07:45:20 No.13379997 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372479
>>13372489
>>13372642
>>13379981
> From what I have gathered is that photons are quantized, however the electromagnetic field is not and as such can have any value, and as such any wave length.
GRUG NO UNDERSTAND

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 07:46:14 No.13379998 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
Electric Universe (2019)
https://mega.nz/folder/HaIzgAAK#JgetaQf8XbJ_X2M8qTt3zQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 14:36:52 No.13380856 Report

Quoted By: >>13381104 >>13382165 >>13382323

>>13372296
>>13372310
I did the math.

Speed of light
c = 299792458 m/s

Planck constant
h = 6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz

Planck length
1.616255*10^?35 m

Planck energy
1.9561*10^9 J

Planck frequency
1.8549*10^43 Hz

Photon energy = Planck constant * Photon frequency
E = h * f
Photon frequency = Planck frequency

(6.62607015*10^-34 J/Hz) * (1.8549*10^43 Hz)
= 12290697521 J

Photon energy = Planck constant * Speed of light / Photon wavelength
E = h * c / ?
Photon wavelength = Planck length

(6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz) * (299792458 m/s) / (1.616255*10^?35 m)
= 12290423585 J

Photon frequency = Photon energy / Planck constant
f = E / h
Photon energy = Planck energy

(1.9561*10^9 J) / (6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz)
= 2.952126910*10^42 Hz

Photon wavelength = Planck constant * Speed of light / Photon energy
? = h * c / E
Photon energy = Planck energy

(6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz) * (299792458 m/s) / (1.9561*10^9 J)
= 1.015513449*10^-34 m

Used Qalculate! Be sure to right click answer, press do no use any prefixes in result.

It should be obvious, but just because you can copy some numbers and an equation off of Wikipedia does not mean that you understand them nor that the surrounding information is correct. See this >>13375701 and >>13377356

>>13375506
Yes he is incorrect, Planck constant is given in Joules per second not Joules alone. Furthermore, Planck temperature ( 1.416784*10^32 K ) is measured in Kelvin. It is not an exaggeration to say that almost everything in that post is wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 14:57:40 No.13381089 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
The highest frequency would be related to the quantum world. Perhaps plank scale or the size of a photon? I'm not sure but I remember hearing about it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 14:59:09 No.13381104 Report

Quoted By: >>13382165 >>13382323 >>13382525

>>13380856
My bad, you should also click scientific in the numerical display drop down.

Photon energy = Planck constant * Photon frequency
E = h * f
Photon frequency = Planck frequency

(6.62607015*10^-34 J/Hz) * (1.8549*10^43 Hz)
= 1.229069752*10^10 J

Photon energy = Planck constant * Speed of light / Photon wavelength
E = h * c / ?
Photon wavelength = Planck length

(6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz) * (299792458 m/s) / (1.616255*10^?35 m)
= 1.229042359*10^10 J

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 16:57:38 No.13382165 Report

Quoted By: >>13382177 >>13382234 >>13382265 >>13382323

>>13380856
>>13381104
I didn't show the relationship between Planck wavelength and Planck frequency, so here's that.

Speed of light
c = 299792458 m/s

Planck length
1.616255*10^?35 m

Planck frequency
1.8549*10^43 Hz

Photon frequency = Speed of light / Photon wavelength
f = c / ?
Photon wavelength = Planck length

(299792458 m/s) / (1.616255*10^?35 m)
= 1.854858658*10^43 Hz

Photon wavelength = Speed of light / Photon frequency
? = c / f
Photon frequency = Planck frequency

(299792458 m/s) / (1.8549*10^43 Hz)
= 1.616218977*10^-35 m

It's pretty close, I don't know why the relationship of Planck energy to Planck wavelength/frequency is off be an order of magnitude, if I made a mistake in my calculations somewhere please let know. I still don't really understand the significance of Planck units or how they relate to each other.

Source on equations and values:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Photon_energy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#History_and_definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units#Derived_units

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 17:01:09 No.13382177 Report

Quoted By:

>>13382165
That should Planck length not wavelength.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 17:18:09 No.13382234 Report

Quoted By:

>>13382165
Planck length comes from a thought experiment Planck did. Based on our current understanding of quantum mechanics and general relativity, particles that are closer together than the Planck length should collapse into black holes so there's no real meaning to measuring lengths smaller than that because things cannot exist at such small distances. I know the derivation of Planck's length but that's it so that's my understanding of it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 17:19:47 No.13382240 Report

Quoted By:

Ever since I learned about what Planck's length actually means I always got pissed at shitty science articles that talk about Planck's length being the "universe's pixel".

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 17:30:01 No.13382265 Report

Quoted By: >>13382323

>>13382165
also links to Planck constant and speed of light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

I am so fucking confused by this discrepancy. I'm begging anyone out there, please check my math, equations, and values.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 17:51:15 No.13382323 Report

Quoted By: >>13384812

>>13380856
>>13381104
>>13382165
>>13382265

I USED THE WRONG PLANCK CONSTANT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_constant#Value
WHY IS THIS SO HARD

CORRECTED:

Speed of light
c = 299792458 m/s

Planck constant (CORRECTED)
h = 1.054571817*10^?34 J/Hz

Planck length
1.616255*10^?35 m

Planck energy
1.9561*10^9 J

Planck frequency
1.8549*10^43 Hz

Photon energy = Planck constant * Photon frequency
E = h * f
Photon frequency = Planck frequency

(1.054571817*10^?34 J/Hz) * (1.8549*10^43 Hz)
= 1.956125263*10^9 J

Photon frequency = Photon energy / Planck constant
f = E / h
Photon energy = Planck energy

(1.9561*10^9 J) / (1.054571817*10^?34 J/Hz)
= 1.854876044*10^43 Hz

Photon energy = Planck constant * Speed of light / Photon wavelength
E = h * c / ?
Photon wavelength = Planck length

(1.054571817*10^?34 J/Hz) * (299792458 m/s) / (1.616255*10^?35 m)
= 1.956081665*10^9 J

Photon wavelength = Planck constant * Speed of light / Photon energy
? = h * c / E
Photon energy = Planck energy

(1.054571817*10^?34 J/Hz) * (299792458 m/s) / (1.9561*10^9 J)
= 1.616239850*10^-35 m

Photon frequency = Speed of light / Photon wavelength
f = c / ?
Photon wavelength = Planck length

(299792458 m/s) / (1.616255*10^?35 m)
= 1.854858658*10^43 Hz

Photon wavelength = Speed of light / Photon frequency
? = c / f
Photon frequency = Planck frequency

(299792458 m/s) / (1.8549*10^43 Hz)
= 1.616218977*10^-35 m

I had to ask a family member for help...

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1596547913456.jpg, 138KiB, 980x1040

Anonymous Sun 11 Jul 2021 19:03:30 No.13382525 Report

Quoted By:

>>13372310
>maximum energy of 1.229×10^10 Joules.
>>13381104
>= 1.229069752*10^10 J

OH MY GOD he made the same mistake I did I'm fucking dying!

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jul 2021 03:51:21 No.13383800 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371856
smallest =plank length
largest=infinity
>>13371893
waves with length increasing in time exist, just play a string on a guitar while sliding up the neck

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jul 2021 13:01:43 No.13384806 Report

Quoted By: >>13384812 >>13384867

>>13377356
>>13377526
What I've learned so far UPDATE:

The theoretical minimum and maximum wavelength of a photon that could EXIST is zero and infinity, but a photon's wavelength cannot BE zero or infinity.

The theoretical minimum wavelength of a photon that could be DETECTED is very likely the Planck length. The maximum wavelength theoretically detectable might be greater than the radius of the observable universe but definitely less than infinity.

Because the relative velocity between the source of the photon and the receiver of the photon can change the frequency of that photon, due to the relativistic Doppler effect, any minimum or maximum value you assign to the wavelength of that photon could theoretically be blueshifted (made shorter) by the objects moving towards each other, or redshifted (made longer) by the objects moving away from each other, so it does not make sense to attempt to assign a minimum or maximum wavelength to a photon.

To quote Wikipedia: "The Planck length does however provide practical limits on current physics. To measure a Planck length distance would require another particle with the Planck energy, approximately four quadrillion times greater than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of."

A photon's frequency is independent from the distance (not motion) between the source of the photon and the receiver of the photon, so it does not make sense to assume that a detected photon's wavelength could only be as long as how far we can see.

Detection of short wavelengths requires suitable materials capable of interacting with gamma rays in ways that can be converted to an electric signal. Detection of longer wavelengths requires an antenna with a length that is a large fraction of the length of the wave itself.

Ultra-high-energy gamma rays have wavelengths shorter than 1.24*10^-20 meters. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic radiation is defined as having wavelengths between 10,000 and 100,000 kilometers, or 10^7 to 10^8 meters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jul 2021 13:02:45 No.13384812 Report

Quoted By:

>>13382323
>>13384806
CONTINUED

The Planck constant is the value that is used to convert between the energy of a photon and its frequency. It is 6.62607015*10^?34 J/Hz or 1.054571817*10^?34 J*s in its reduced form (divided by 2pi). It does NOT refer to a "minimum photon energy" because it is a unit of angular momentum and a "minimum energy" would be expressed in ONLY joules or another unit of energy.

Planck units are units of measurement. A photon containing Planck energy will have a wavelength that is equal to the Planck length and a frequency equal to the Planck frequency, because those Planck units all refer to the same value expressed in different units.

Be careful when dealing with values containing angular frequencies, velocities, or momentum (like the Planck constant), if it says hertz or per second, watch out, check to see if the value needs to be multiplied or divided by 2pi before sticking it in your equation.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jul 2021 13:26:11 No.13384867 Report

Quoted By:

>>13384806
For comparison, Planck length is 1.616255*10^?35 meters, and the observable universe has a radius of 4.4*10^26 meters.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 12 Jul 2021 13:36:54 No.13384906 Report

Quoted By:

>>13371893
>universe is expanding
The universe is not expanding it only appears to be expanding to us because our galaxy is falling into a super massive black hole.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches