=================
What is a maximum frequency limit for light quanta
in respect to its constant velocity: c=1?
================

"socratus" wrote in message
ups.com...
=================
What is a maximum frequency limit for light quanta
in respect to its constant velocity: c=1?
================

As far as regular physics is concerned, there is no theoretical limit .. it
is limited only by how much energy you can put into it.

There is the Planck frequency, the frequency at which its wavelength is the
Planck length.

What happens if a photon goes beyond that frequency is not clear.

If a plank frequency photon was coning toward you and you took a step toward
it, then the Doppler effect says you've just increased its frequency. I'm
not sure if doing that would somehow make the photon cease to exist for you
... but strange things happen at Planck scales with quantum physics

Another comment .
===========
Let me try:
We know that
E=hv
v=E/h
Now, h is a constant so it is directly proportional to energy E.
Let me further classify this equation.
We also know that E=0.5kT
Putting it into the above equation v=(0.5kT)/h
Now, 0.5 and k are also constant.

So, we can say that frequency is
directly proportional to Temperature.

I don't know if my answer is right or not because my answer
has not been able to calculate the maximum frequency.

lakshya_micheal

On Aug 17, 10:06 am, socratus wrote:
Another comment .
===========
Let me try:
We know that
E=hv
v=E/h

This relates the energy of a photon to the frequency
of the associated EM radiation.

Now, h is a constant so it is directly proportional to energy E.
Let me further classify this equation.
We also know that E=0.5kT

This relates the average kinetic energy of a
molecule to temperature in Kelvin.

Putting it into the above equation v=(0.5kT)/h

What are you modeling that involves equating the
average KE of a molecule in a gas with the energy of
a photon?

- Randy

"socratus" wrote in message
ups.com...
:
: Another comment .
: ===========
: Let me try:
: We know that
: E=hv

E = h(nu)


: v=E/h
: Now, h is a constant so it is directly proportional to energy E.

nu (frequency) is directly proportional to E.

: Let me further classify this equation.
: We also know that E=0.5kT
: Putting it into the above equation v=(0.5kT)/h
: Now, 0.5 and k are also constant.
:
: So, we can say that frequency is
: directly proportional to Temperature.

So colour is proportional to temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame


:
: I don't know

You should now.

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
oups.com...
: On Aug 17, 10:06 am, socratus wrote:
: Another comment .
: ===========
: Let me try:
: We know that
: E=hv
: v=E/h
:
: This relates the energy of a photon to the frequency
: of the associated EM radiation.
:
: Now, h is a constant so it is directly proportional to energy E.
: Let me further classify this equation.
: We also know that E=0.5kT
:
: This relates the average kinetic energy of a
: molecule to temperature in Kelvin.
:
: Putting it into the above equation v=(0.5kT)/h
:
: What are you modeling that involves equating the
: average KE of a molecule in a gas with the energy of
: a photon?
:
No, you idiot, he's just proven colour is proportional to
temperature, as you've been told before.

Some more comment.
=================
According to general relativity any energy over the Plank energy
becomes a black hole. The wave length equals the black hole
Swartchild radius of its mass equivalence. Einstein and more
recently Hawking speculate this might have created gazillions of black
holes early in the big bang. Einstein showed how quantum theory would
prevent such black holes from forming.

It is clear that the maximum frequency is below 10 to the 34th cycles
per second. The distance between two adjacent quantum states is about
10 to the minus 35th meter. No smaller distance is allowed by any
means, black hole or not. At light speed and frequency greater than
the the Plank energy would define a distance less than the Plank
length and invalidate quantum mechanics.

But, the Plank energy is enough to blow up a house. It is the energy
equivalent of a spec of dust. Long before we reach the Plank energy
we see particle generation, or patters generated that travel below the
speed of light. The energy density of the vacuum determines a maximum
energy it can transmit at light speed. If you believe the vacuum can
match an infinite energy, as is often approximated, then the Plank
energy is the maximum photon or a frequency around 10^34.

Based on a reasonable estimate of vacuum energy or equivalently the so
called Higgs particle, I would expect an actual maximum value of about
150 GeV as a practical maximum energy for a photon at light speed but
have not converted that to frequency.

You would explode if a Plank energy photon hit you. If you were
walking toward it, by the Doppler effect you would implode into a
black hole.
/ Jim Whitescarver /

"socratus" wrote in message
ups.com...
: Some more comment.
: =================
: According to general relativity

You can stop right there.

GR is based on SR and SR is based on
"we establish by definition that the ``time'' required by light to travel
from A to B equals the ``time'' it requires to travel from B to A" because I
say so. -- Einstein.

However, "we" does not include me, I'm sane and Einstein was not so please
take your general relativity drool and shove it you know where.

In the book:
"The problems of rationality in science and its philosophy."
Page 136.
/ Edited by Jozef Misiek.
Kluwer Academic Publishers /
I read:
"The extinction theorem of Ewald and Ossen states that
the incident wave extinguishes exponentially and its
amplitude is reduced e ( e=2,71...) times after
a distance X equal wavelength / 2pi(n-1 ) where
wavelength is the wavelength of the incident wave.
This distance is known as the extinction length.
It follows that the incident wave, with velocity c,
practically vanishes after few extinction lengths
The extinction theorem permits easy calculation of the
extinction lengths for any refracting medium.
For instance, for glass............X=2 . 10^-5cm.
For the air...........X=0,04cm. "
=============.
Is it possible that the incident wave, with velocity c ( c=1),
practically vanishes ...... .........the wave disappears.....
but according the " dualism of wave and particle"........
and " The Law of conservation and transformation energy "
if wave disappears .....
........... the particle cannot disappear...........the particle must
be....
..........and then the particle moves straight not making waves ?
Am I mistaken?
===============.

"socratus" wrote in message
ups.com...
: In the book:
: "The problems of rationality in science and its philosophy."
: Page 136.
: / Edited by Jozef Misiek.
: Kluwer Academic Publishers /
: I read:
: "The extinction theorem of Ewald and Ossen states that
: the incident wave extinguishes exponentially and its
: amplitude is reduced e ( e=2,71...) times after
: a distance X equal wavelength / 2pi(n-1 ) where
: wavelength is the wavelength of the incident wave.
: This distance is known as the extinction length.

It's too long for Sagnac applications and non-existent for vacuum.
Extinction DOES apply to air and to a greater extent, water (glass,
diamond etc.).
The obvious observation of extinction in air is the red sunset
and blue sky, where lower frequencies penetrate and higher
frequencies are scattered. Air includes dust particles, of course,
easily visible in sun rays entering a darkened room or with a laser.
I doubt we need to know what the value of e or pi are.

: It follows that the incident wave, with velocity c,


It follows that the incident ray has velocity c+/-v,
where v is the relative velocity between source and detector,
as per Einstein:
But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v
and as per Doppler
c+/-v
f' = f ---------
c


: practically vanishes after few extinction lengths
: The extinction theorem permits easy calculation of the
: extinction lengths for any refracting medium.


Vacuum is not a medium.



: For instance, for glass............X=2 . 10^-5cm.
: For the air...........X=0,04cm. "

I question the value for air.


: =============.
: Is it possible that the incident wave, with velocity c ( c=1),
: practically vanishes ...... .........the wave disappears.....
: but according the " dualism of wave and particle"........
: and " The Law of conservation and transformation energy "
: if wave disappears .....
: .......... the particle cannot disappear...........the particle must
: be....
: .........and then the particle moves straight not making waves ?
: Am I mistaken?

If you scatter light then you change its velocity. Obviously
it doesn't move in a straight line when deflected.
It only "disappears" because it cannot be observed, not
entering your eye.
Where are "The problems of rationality in science and its philosophy."
that you mentioned?