"Phineas T Puddleduck" <phineaspuddleduck@googlemail.com> wrote...
in message news:phineaspuddleduck-6119DC.20042325012007@alt.teranews.com...

In article <jbSth.812967$QZ1.209804@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
"Painius" <starswirlernosp@maol.com> wrote:

Maybe, maybe not...

The present spectrum of gamma rays goes from
about 10^-11 to 10^-16 meters. So the lowest
energy gamma rays, the "soft" gamma rays, have
wavelengths that are about 100,000 times the
wavelengths of the highest energy gamma rays.

The Planck length is about 1.6 x 10^-35 meters.

So the highest energy gamma rays have very
short wavelengths, and yet these wavelengths
are still...

1 x 10^19 or,
10,000,000,000,000,000,000 or,
10 quintillion times the Planck length

Isn't this plenty of room for there to be some
kind of as yet unknown-to-science radiation
energy *below* the wavelengths of gamma rays
and yet *above* the Planck wavelength?

And why wouldn't it still be EM?

Why would it have to be EM, Phineas? The way i
see it, EM is an energy derived from spatial energy.
EM energy, as well as nuclear strong and weak
energies are less dense than matter, and matter is
less dense than spatial energy, so we must be
prepared for the distinct probability that spatial
energy is not EM energy. It's energy in some other
form. And just as the low frequencies can be EM
or sonic forms of energy, there may be more than
one form of spatial energy, as well as an entire
range of wavelengths.