From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Why is it paradoxical that higher-energy photons have shorter wavelengths? — Unsigned, by: Trmyers / talk / contribs 03:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree; that seems very much in line with expectations, because a shorter wavelength means more peaks and troughs over a specific distance, which means that the proton is moving more, and that equates to more energy. There is no paradox here. To add to that, though, I take issue with the assertion that there is no theoretical upper bound to the energy of the photon. The smallest distance allowable is the Planck Length, generally understood to be the shortest measurable distance. This would seem to mean that no wave could have a distance between peak and trough shorter than that distance, effectively placing an upper bound on the energy of the wave. Any wave having a peak and trough shorter than the Planck Length would be immeasurable, and would appear to either have a longer wavelength/lower frequency, or just an irregular waveform. According to Wikipedia:

The limit for long wavelengths is the size of the universe itself, while it is thought that the short wavelength limit is in the vicinity of the Planck length, although in principle the spectrum is infinite and continuous.

You can claim there is no "known" upper bound, but there is very clearly a theoretical upper bound. *edit* I apologize, because I was doing the unthinkable, and using the wrong definition of "theoretical" in there. Ther is no "theoretical" upper bound, because particle-wave theory doesn't place an upper bound on the frequency, however if it is true that the Planck Length is the smallest measurable distance, there is an effective upper bound, and it is generally considered a factually accurate upper bound. Reverend Lucifer (talk) 21:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)