| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Pascal Damian" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2004 10:24:34 AM |
| Object: |
Radiation above gamma ray? |
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
.
|
|
| User: "John T Lowry" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
18 Oct 2004 12:45:35 PM |
|
|
"Pascal Damian" <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com...
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
No limit. As long as there's some sufficiently energetic
process/mechanism to produce them. Well I suppose the total energy of
the universe would set a limit!
John Lowry
Flight Physics
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 12:00:06 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, John T Lowry
<jlowry100@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:45:35 GMT
<3jTcd.300$%h1.59@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Pascal Damian" <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com...
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
No limit. As long as there's some sufficiently energetic
process/mechanism to produce them. Well I suppose the total energy of
the universe would set a limit!
John Lowry
Flight Physics
I wish I could verify it, but my understanding is that there's
a far lower upper limit, namely sqrt(h * c^3 / G), where h is
Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the
(Newtonian) constant of gravitation.
For the standard units this works out to 1.95609390954 * 10^9 J,
or about a half-ton of TNT -- a nice stealth weapon but it's probably
very unwieldly to generate such pellets.
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 02:33:40 AM |
|
|
In article <ufhe42-3ir.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>, The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> writes:
In sci.physics, John T Lowry
<jlowry100@earthlink.net>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:45:35 GMT
<3jTcd.300$%h1.59@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
"Pascal Damian" <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com...
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
No limit. As long as there's some sufficiently energetic
process/mechanism to produce them. Well I suppose the total energy of
the universe would set a limit!
John Lowry
Flight Physics
I wish I could verify it, but my understanding is that there's
a far lower upper limit, namely sqrt(h * c^3 / G), where h is
Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the
(Newtonian) constant of gravitation.
Not really. There may be a limit there but there is no extant theory
saying that there is a limit there.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pascal Damian" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 05:43:30 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ufhe42-3ir.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>...
I wish I could verify it, but my understanding is that there's
a far lower upper limit, namely sqrt(h * c^3 / G), where h is
Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the
(Newtonian) constant of gravitation.
For the standard units this works out to 1.95609390954 * 10^9 J,
or about a half-ton of TNT -- a nice stealth weapon but it's probably
very unwieldly to generate such pellets.
Could you give an explanation behind that equation? (which theory/law and why?)
Regards,
Pascal Damian
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
21 Oct 2004 01:00:07 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Pascal Damian
<pascaldamian@icqmail.com>
wrote
on 19 Oct 2004 03:43:30 -0700
<6bd4a4d3.0410190243.7cdc66aa@posting.google.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ufhe42-3ir.ln1@sirius.athghost7038suus.net>...
I wish I could verify it, but my understanding is that there's
a far lower upper limit, namely sqrt(h * c^3 / G), where h is
Planck's Constant, c is the speed of light, and G is the
(Newtonian) constant of gravitation.
For the standard units this works out to 1.95609390954 * 10^9 J,
or about a half-ton of TNT -- a nice stealth weapon but it's probably
very unwieldly to generate such pellets.
Could you give an explanation behind that equation?
(which theory/law and why?)
Not sure regarding the theory, but the computation is also
called "Planck's Energy", if I'm not totally mistaken.
With my luck I mistranscribed something;
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/PlanckEnergy.html
suggests it's something totally different. Ow, my brain.
Still a nasty (if theoretical) weapon, though. :-)
Regards,
Pascal Damian
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Ciszek" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
18 Oct 2004 08:16:48 PM |
|
|
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
According to one source, any photon with more than 100keV of energy is
a gamma ray--whether it can be observed or not. If anyone has coined
a term for a higher energy region of the electromagnetic spectrum, I
have not heard of it. So, by default everything from some lower bound
on upward is called a gamma ray, and there is by definition no such
thing as "radiation above gamma rays".
--
Please reply to: | "When you are dealing with secretive regimes
pciszek at panix dot com | that want to deceive, you're never going to
Autoreply is disabled | be able to be positive." -Condoleezza Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pascal Damian" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 05:47:23 AM |
|
|
(Paul Ciszek) wrote in message news:<cl1ptv$ml$1@reader1.panix.com>...
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
According to one source, any photon with more than 100keV of energy is
a gamma ray--whether it can be observed or not. If anyone has coined
a term for a higher energy region of the electromagnetic spectrum, I
have not heard of it. So, by default everything from some lower bound
on upward is called a gamma ray, and there is by definition no such
thing as "radiation above gamma rays".
Ah, thanks for the clear-up. So similarly there's no "lower than radio waves".
Regards,
Pascal Damian
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Ciszek" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 10:00:26 AM |
|
|
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410190247.765c07e3@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in message
news:<cl1ptv$ml$1@reader1.panix.com>...
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
According to one source, any photon with more than 100keV of energy is
a gamma ray--whether it can be observed or not. If anyone has coined
a term for a higher energy region of the electromagnetic spectrum, I
have not heard of it. So, by default everything from some lower bound
on upward is called a gamma ray, and there is by definition no such
thing as "radiation above gamma rays".
Ah, thanks for the clear-up. So similarly there's no "lower than radio waves".
There are systems that use audio (and lower?) frequency EM waves for
comunication. The people who design, build, or use these systems might
have specific names for parts of the spectrum below what is usually
considered radio waves.
--
Please reply to: | "When you are dealing with secretive regimes
pciszek at panix dot com | that want to deceive, you're never going to
Autoreply is disabled | be able to be positive." -Condoleezza Rice
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory L. Hansen" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 10:30:05 AM |
|
|
In article <cl3a6a$e5n$1@reader1.panix.com>,
Paul Ciszek <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410190247.765c07e3@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
nospam@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in message
news:<cl1ptv$ml$1@reader1.panix.com>...
In article <6bd4a4d3.0410180724.2bb1ce45@posting.google.com>,
Pascal Damian <pascaldamian@icqmail.com> wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
According to one source, any photon with more than 100keV of energy is
a gamma ray--whether it can be observed or not. If anyone has coined
a term for a higher energy region of the electromagnetic spectrum, I
have not heard of it. So, by default everything from some lower bound
on upward is called a gamma ray, and there is by definition no such
thing as "radiation above gamma rays".
Ah, thanks for the clear-up. So similarly there's no "lower than radio waves".
There are systems that use audio (and lower?) frequency EM waves for
comunication. The people who design, build, or use these systems might
have specific names for parts of the spectrum below what is usually
considered radio waves.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Super_low_frequency
ULF - Ultra Low Frequency, 300 Hz to 3000 Hz
SLF - Super Low Frequency, 30 Hz to 300 Hz
ELF - Extremely Low Frequency, 3 Hz to 30 Hz
Power line emissions are SLF. Submarines can use ELF to transmit while
under water, but it's slow going.
I guess the radio spectrum isn't considered to go lower than 3 Hz.
--
"The polhode rolls without slipping on the herpolhode lying in the
invariable plane." -- Goldstein, Classical Mechanics 2nd. ed., p207.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
18 Oct 2004 01:33:31 PM |
|
|
Pascal Damian wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Obtaining any frequnecy down to the inverse Planck interval is only a
matter of will and budget.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pascal Damian" |
|
| Title: Re: Radiation above gamma ray? |
19 Oct 2004 12:31:39 AM |
|
|
Uncle Al <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message news:<41740C7B.77D072B8@hate.spam.net>...
Pascal Damian wrote:
Is electromagnetic radiation with wavelength shorter than the gamma
band impossible theoretically, or is it just because we cannot observe
them?
Obtaining any frequnecy down to the inverse Planck interval is only a
matter of will and budget.
This is because at the moment we know that photon is an elementary
particle, am I correct? Suppose at some high energy level, photon
"breaks down" into other more elementary particles, then that would be
the limit?
Regards,
Pascal Damian
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
