Notices
Results 1 to 23 of 23

Thread: How short of a wavelength is possible?

  1. #1 How short of a wavelength is possible? 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    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?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    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?
    Ever heard of Planck length?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    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?
    Ever heard of Planck length?

    Thats no limit. So far what we know there is no limit.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    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?
    Ever heard of Planck length?

    Thats no limit. So far what we know there is no limit.
    Interesting. How would you measure it, since the lowest measurable length is the Planck length?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Where did u read it?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Where did u read it?
    Here
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    "There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length" first sentence.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length" first sentence.
    When was proof introduced to science? I guess I missed the email.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "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."
    The way way I read the article, there is a theory that the Planck length may denote the smallest measurable length, but this is not taken as universally accepted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "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."
    The way way I read the article, there is a theory that the Planck length may denote the smallest measurable length, but this is not taken as universally accepted.
    Sure but this sets the marker for what could be the smallest measurable wavelength. That was my point.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    3,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "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."
    The way way I read the article, there is a theory that the Planck length may denote the smallest measurable length, but this is not taken as universally accepted.
    Sure but this sets the marker for what could be the smallest measurable wavelength. That was my point.
    Understood, but if one does not accept it, then there is no limit to the frequency of EM radiation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by exchemist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "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."
    The way way I read the article, there is a theory that the Planck length may denote the smallest measurable length, but this is not taken as universally accepted.
    Sure but this sets the marker for what could be the smallest measurable wavelength. That was my point.
    Understood, but if one does not accept it, then there is no limit to the frequency of EM radiation.
    agreed
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    "There is currently no proven physical significance of the Planck length" first sentence.
    When was proof introduced to science? I guess I missed the email.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post


    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.
    This makes no sense since the wavelength is very short, the frequency (hence the energy) is very high, so there should be no need for any transformation into another frame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    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 has to be a lower bound. If there wasn't, then the wave energy would be infinite and that is , well, unphysical.
    At the other end of the spectrum, you can have as large of a wavelength as you want, the only thing is that , as , its energy goes to zero.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post


    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.
    This makes no sense since the wavelength is very short, the frequency (hence the energy) is very high, so there should be no need for any transformation into another frame.
    He asked how short wave length can be. If someone claimed it was L then one can change to another frame in which its less than L disproving that L wasn't the shortest length. What about that are you having trouble understanding?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post


    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.
    This makes no sense since the wavelength is very short, the frequency (hence the energy) is very high, so there should be no need for any transformation into another frame.
    He asked how short wave length can be. If someone claimed it was L then one can change to another frame in which its less than L disproving that L wasn't the shortest length. What about that are you having trouble understanding?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    91
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark
    I have no trouble, I simply pointed out that your changing frames makes no sense.
    On the contrary. It makes perfect sense. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark
    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.
    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.

    That's why you're wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by physicist View Post
    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.
    Of course he didn't, this is not a Doppler measurement, "physicist".

    once you find the shortest wavelength then there is none that can be measured which are shorter.
    ...meaning that you are getting more and more unphysical in your reasoning, as , the wave energy goes to infinity.....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    193
    Physicist is right, Roark is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    ...meaning that you are getting more and more unphysical in your reasoning, as , the wave energy goes to infinity.....
    So?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    1,774
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Physicist is right, Roark is wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Roark View Post
    ...meaning that you are getting more and more unphysical in your reasoning, as , the wave energy goes to infinity.....
    So?
    So, this is unphysical, there is nothing in nature having infinite energy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    KJW
    KJW is online now
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    1,553
    Quote Originally Posted by Gere View Post
    Physicist is right
    I agree.
    There are no paradoxes in relativity, just people's misunderstandings of it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Frequency and Wavelength
    By Muon321 in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 1st, 2013, 06:48 PM
  2. Is a wavelength actually a spiral?
    By Bene in forum Physics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: March 3rd, 2011, 11:33 PM
  3. Photon wavelength
    By Zwirko in forum Physics
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: January 1st, 2011, 12:52 PM
  4. de brogile wavelength
    By ayush garg in forum Physics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: November 5th, 2010, 01:11 PM
  5. De Broglie Wavelength
    By martillo in forum Personal Theories & Alternative Ideas
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: April 10th, 2009, 07:43 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •