For electromagnetic waves gamma radiation seems to be the shortest wavelength, but is there some sort of limit on how short of a wavelength they can have?

For electromagnetic waves gamma radiation seems to be the shortest wavelength, but is there some sort of limit on how short of a wavelength they can have?
"There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length" first sentence.
but you quoted the sentence incompletely, you left out : ".....it is, however, a topic of theoretical research. "
Also, the sentence following the first one is relevant:
"Since the Planck length is so many orders of magnitude smaller than any current instrument could possibly measure, there is no way of examining it directly."
Last edited by Howard Roark; September 5th, 2014 at 03:44 PM.
It's always been there. It's the laws of physics that can't be proven. However when one starts with propositions which are taken as axioms and one uses logic to arrive at a result then the result is called a theorem and it's said that this process "proves" that the theorem is correct. The same thing is done in math too.
Regardless of what the wavelength is, one can always transform to a new frame of reference in which the wavelength is theoretically shorter. Perhaps it can be measured somehow using its energy.
I have no trouble, I simply pointed out that your changing frames makes no sense. The measurement is done in the frame of the transmotter, in a frame moving wrt. the transmitter you can get any wavelength, so it makes no sense switching frames. This is why your "disproof" is invalid.
On the contrary. It makes perfect sense. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.Originally Posted by Howard Roark
That's wrong. The OP asked For electromagnetic waves gamma radiation seems to be the shortest wavelength, but is there some sort of limit on how short of a wavelength they can have? He didn't mention anything about a source. And if someone wants photons with a wavelength shorter than the one he can produce with a source of photons which at rest in his frame of reference then all he has to do is either change to a new frame of reference in which the source is firing photons in the direction of motion or place his source in motion in the direction in which the source is firing. Either method is possible but I only needed one to disprove that once you find the shortest wavelength then there is none that can be measured which are shorter.Originally Posted by Howard Roark
That's why you're wrong.
Of course he didn't, this is not a Doppler measurement, "physicist".
...meaning that you are getting more and more unphysical in your reasoning, as , the wave energy goes to infinity.....once you find the shortest wavelength then there is none that can be measured which are shorter.
« Gravity according to GR? Force? Geometry? Other?  Entanglement a result of the simulation hypothesis? » 