What is the the highest frequency that can be generated?
Mystical
theoretically run if there was no physical barriers,ie the perfect
solution! This is where frequency came into the discussion.
Ok so we thought; what is the highest frequency in Hz possible and how
is it generated? Is there an absolue maximum, or is it infinate?
We thought about the speed of light, is this the max frequency? Does it
have a frequency? If so what is it in Hz......does it have a maximum
measurable frequency or is it just speed and wavelenght depending on the
spectrum?..Hmmmmmmmm
So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
Anyway hope someone with a PHD could answer this conundrum :)it caused a
few head scrathing with no answer!!
Regards
Martin
Sam Wormley
Why should hthere be a limit?
robert j. kolker
Mystical wrote:
> We were discusing the max speed of how fast processors could
> theoretically run if there was no physical barriers,ie the perfect
> solution! This is where frequency came into the discussion.
>
> Ok so we thought; what is the highest frequency in Hz possible and how
> is it generated? Is there an absolue maximum, or is it infinate?
Infinite frequency implies infinite energy.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Sam Wormley wrote:
>
> Why should hthere be a limit?
can there be infinite energy?
Bob Kolker
Old Man
"Mystical" <myst...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1b9b24553...@free.teranews.com...
> We were discusing the max speed of how fast processors could
> theoretically run if there was no physical barriers,ie the perfect
> solution! This is where frequency came into the discussion.
>
> Ok so we thought; what is the highest frequency in Hz possible and how
> is it generated? Is there an absolue maximum, or is it infinate?
>
> We thought about the speed of light, is this the max frequency? Does it
> have a frequency? If so what is it in Hz......does it have a maximum
> measurable frequency or is it just speed and wavelenght depending on the
> spectrum?..Hmmmmmmmm
>
> So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit. There
exists some unsupported guess work that the shortest possible
length might be what is called "Planck length" and "Planck time",
L_p = 1.6 x 10^(-35) meters
T_p = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
of Planck time:
F_max = 1 / T_p = 1.9 x 10(43) Hz
or, F_max = 0.02 Giga Giga Giga Giga Giga Hz
The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
or, F_proton = 0.0002 Giga Giga Giga Hz
[Old Man]
Garry
>
> There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit. There
> exists some unsupported guess work that the shortest possible
> length might be what is called "Planck length" and "Planck time",
>
> L_p = 1.6 x 10^(-35) meters
> T_p = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
>
> The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
> of Planck time:
>
> F_max = 1 / T_p = 1.9 x 10(43) Hz
>
> or, F_max = 0.02 Giga Giga Giga Giga Giga Hz
>
> The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
> energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
> annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
> annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
>
> F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
>
> or, F_proton = 0.0002 Giga Giga Giga Hz
>
> [Old Man]
>
>> Anyway hope someone with a PHD could answer this conundrum :)it caused a
>> few head scrathing with no answer!!
Let me dumb that down a bit. The Planck constant is the smallest size of
anything that there can be. This is the uncertainty principle, which states
that you can't know the exact position and momentum of a particle at a givin
moment. You can only make a statistical guess where the particle might be.
Now, as the wavelength gets smaller and smaller, it will reach a point where
if it does get smaller, it would be below the planck constant. If this
limit is reached, you will rip a hole in the space/time continum and cause a
chain of events that will lead to the extinction of the universe.
BllFs6
>Infinite frequency implies infinite energy.
>
>Bob Kolker
>
>
This reminds me of the old Fourier problem.....
Any? signal can be thought of as a combination of an infinite number of
frequencies spaning a frequency range of zero to infinity....
Does the mathematical construction of "Fourie thereom" (for lack of a better
description) REQUIRE this infinite number and range?
Because as the original poster asked....it certainly "seems possible" that
there would be an upper limit to frequency (as well as a lower)...or perhaps
just one of them is "really" a physical limit...
And to get even MORE picky....could you even have ANY particular frequency? ie
frequency might even be quantized to some extent...
Has anyone ever seen a Fourier construct that uses limits of frequency that are
NOT zero to infinity and/or the frequency size is quantized?
take care
Blll
roy
> We were discusing the max speed of how fast processors could theoretically
> run if there was no physical barriers,ie the perfect solution! This is
> where frequency came into the discussion.
>
> Ok so we thought; what is the highest frequency in Hz possible and how is
> it generated?
There is usually a crystal oscillator acting as source or fundamental
frequency. You can multiply that up to the desired working frequency
for example. It's possible to generate oscillations (RF) by other means
using other electronic circuits and principles.
> Is there an absolue maximum, or is it infinate?
There's no such thing as "no physical barriers" - or the wonderland
ideal situation you describe.
>
> We thought about the speed of light, is this the max frequency? Does it
> have a frequency? If so what is it in Hz......does it have a maximum
> measurable frequency or is it just speed and wavelenght depending on the
> spectrum?..Hmmmmmmmm
You should aquaint yourself with basic physics. You will understand
what is going on then instead of mixing up units like you have.
>
> So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
Cosmic rays?
mme...@cars3.uchicago.edu
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
me...@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Old Man
"Garry" <gma...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:xBcYc.12818$0c....@read1.cgocable.net...
Not really. Planck's constant, h = 6.6 x 10^(-34) J s, the
empirical backbone of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle, is really in a separate ballpark from Planck
length, L_p, and Planck time, T_p. Planck speed is also the
speed of light,
Planck speed: v_p = L_p / T_p = c = speed of light
Planck quantities can be expressed in terms of, the universal
gravitational constant, G, the speed of light, c, and Planck's
constant, hbar = h / 2 pi. for instance,
Planck mass: M_p = sqrt( hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg
is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, It has a radius
of one Planck length, and it decays in one Planck time.
[Old Man]
hanson
"Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
news:1v-dndcUIqx...@prairiewave.com...
> > >
> > > There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit.
> > > There exists some unsupported guess work that the
> > > shortest possible length might be what is called
> > > "Planck length" and "Planck time",
> > > :: T_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^5)] = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
> > > The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
> > > of Planck time:
> > > The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
> > > energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
> > > annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
> > > annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
> > > :: F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
>
Your caveat of "guess work" is well placed. Is there actually
any **experimental** indication that these Planck domain
expressions are **more** than just merely quaint measuring
units, and more than just artificial, intellectual constructs?
It is true that one can make all kinds of wonderful mind games
and phantasms with them in the lands of i-physics.
>
[Garry]
> > The Planck constant is the smallest size of anything that there can
> > be. This is the uncertainty principle, which states that you can't
> > given moment. You can only make a statistical guess where the
> > Now, as the wavelength gets smaller and smaller, it will reach a
> > point where if it does get smaller, it would be below the planck
> > constant. If this limit is reached, you will rip a hole in the space/time
> > continum and cause a chain of events that will lead to the extinction
> > of the universe.
>
> Not really. Planck's constant, h = 6.6 x 10^(-34) J s, the
> empirical backbone of quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg
> uncertainty principle, is really in a separate ballpark from Planck
> length, L_p, and Planck time, T_p. Planck speed is also the
> speed of light,
> :: Planck speed: v_p = L_p / T_p = c = speed of light
> Planck quantities can be expressed in terms of, the universal
> gravitational constant, G, the speed of light, c, and Planck's
> constant, hbar = h / 2 pi. for instance,
> :: Planck mass: M_p = sqrt( hbar*c / G) = 2.2 x 10^(-8) kg
> is the mass of the smallest possible black hole, It has a radius
> of one Planck length, and it decays in one Planck time.
>
Let's illuminate your interesting take from a yet another pov, the HUP,
to make Gary happy with his uncertainty question: Let
:: hbar =< /_\ E * /_\ t , with /_\ being Delta, or
:: hbar =< /_\ (m*c^2) */_\ t , and now we set such
that m becomes the Planck mass, M_p, and since the Planck speed
is supposed to be c, we substitute /_\ t = /_\ l / c, and write
:: hbar =< M_p*c*/_\ l , or
:: /_\ l =< hbar / (M_p*c) , which then becomes
:: /_\ l =< sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) , or L_p ......
......ahahaha...it's the fucking Planck length, L_p again, ahahaha....
the kicker being that according to these phantasms the uncertainty
range suddenly disappears, and at these very small distances, in
the Planck domain, everything is fixed and deterministic, or strictly
Newtonian again, YET with the Planck mass, m_pl or= M_p, being
very macroscopic, weighing some fat 0.02 milligrams, 2 hundredths
of a milligram, a size that is routinely handled by analytical balances.
== How come we have never weighed or handled any these heavy
Planck masses? .........Well, they are so small that , at their radius
of 1.6 x E-33 cm radius, they would fall thru the atomic structures of
the weighing contraption, being normally some 1E-8 cm apart. To boot
they can't because they disappear, like old man said, just after 5E-44
seconds, long before any weighing contraption could react, measure
and indicate their presence......ahahahaha.........
Now, there are even wilder and more entertaining mind games
possible in the domains of Planck, hinting that there are indeed
simple connections from there to our "stable" macro world, but NOT
for the stuffy morons who believe and think that the N_A-mole thing
only describes a specific amount of mass of C12 carbon......,
because ........ahahaha...........the Planck length, for instance our
::: *** l_pl = sqrt (hbar*G/c^3) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
can be written as in the following fashion
::: *** l_pl = r_H * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)^(-1) = 1.62E-33 cm ***
... suggesting that 1 mole amount (N_A) of Planck length units (l_pl) is
nothing more than the measurable Bohr radius of the Hydrogen atom.
So, a bottle of Hydrogen gas obeying the smooth PV= RT law,
shows granularity one N_A step further down in it's luminous emissions
(i.e Faraday = N_A*e) and then again another N_A step further down it
is manifest again in a finer granular event, again N_A times smaller, at
the Plank unit level... so, here is the expanded set of "Planck-mole sizes"
or "Planck domain to gross world conversions via Avogadro's Number N_A":
::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck time units = 1 atomic time unit
::: *** r_H / l_pl = a^(0) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of Planck length units = 1 H-Bohr radius
::: *** m_pl / m_e = a^(1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
1 mole of electron masses = 1 Planck mass
::: *** r_e / l_pl = a ^(2) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3)
1 mole of Plank length units = 1 classical el-radius
......and then "naturally" the next N_A step further down into
::: *** l_a = m_e*G*pi*a*sqrt(3)/c^2 = 2.68E-57 cm ***
shows l_a length unit that is so small that it takes 1 mole of these
l_a length units do produce 1 miserly Plancklength of 1.62E-33 cm
......and hence the Plancklength may NOT be the smallest possible
length unit construct by far...
..........so, is this casual observation, that from our daily scale of
views we see heavenly objects the size of ~ one mole step UP, up
from a handful of sand, and that the atoms we measure are ~ 1 mole
step size DOWN from it, .... and that the Plank domain becomes
manifest (which will not be accessible with the current state of the art)
only after 2 such mole steps DOWN from the scale from our daily world
experience ........just as in the same mysterious way as when we climb
up 2 such mole steps in our observations/measurements on this Avogadro
ladder and we do reach the limits of the observable universe (which is
equally inaccessible with the current state of the art,)........is all this
because nature is fundamentally SELF SIMILAR on all scales?...and is it
perhaps one of the chief reasons why we keep on probing.....no matter
how far...no matter how long and ......no matter how heavy.......
BUT, fuck enviros!
ahahahahaha.........ahahahanson
PS: Dirac in his LNT was fiddling with this notion long time ago......
Old Man
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> was Re: What is the the highest frequency that can be generated?
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:1v-dndcUIqx...@prairiewave.com...
> > "Garry" <gma...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> > > >> So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
> > > >
> [Old Man]
> > > > There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit.
> > > > There exists some unsupported guess work that the
> > > > shortest possible length might be what is called
> > > > "Planck length" and "Planck time",
> > > > :: L_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^3)] = 1.6 x 10^(-35) meters
> > > > :: T_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^5)] = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
> > > > The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
> > > > of Planck time:
> > > > :: F_max = 1 / T_p = [sqrt(c^5/(G*hbar))] = 1.9 x 10(43) Hz
> > > > The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
> > > > energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
> > > > annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
> > > > annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
> > > > :: F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
> >
> [hanson]
> Your caveat of "guess work" is well placed. Is there actually
> any **experimental** indication that these Planck domain
> expressions are **more** than just merely quaint measuring
Nope. No emperical justification. Not even a hint.
> It is true that one can make all kinds of wonderful mind games
> and phantasms with them in the lands of i-physics.
Yes. The hypothetical decay of black holes utilizes Planck
quantities (via Hawking). There is empirical evidence for
black holes, but none for their decay.
Another utilization is in the beginning of the Bug Bang.
> [Garry]
Neat stuff, hansen. Rather ingenious. Certainly no more
speculative, but maybe even more audacious, than Planck
quantities.
Great Balls of fire, hanson. hansen illuminates Dirac,
maybe even blows him to bits !!!
[Old Man]
Old Man
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:SwLYc.2925$w%6....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Old Man" <nom...@nomail.net> wrote in message
> news:1v-dndcUIqx...@prairiewave.com...
> > "Garry" <gma...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
> > > >> So what is the fastest frequency possible known to man?
> > > >
> [Old Man]
> > > > There is no theoretical or observed empirical limit.
> > > > There exists some unsupported guess work that the
> > > > shortest possible length might be what is called
> > > > "Planck length" and "Planck time",
> > > > :: L_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^3)] = 1.6 x 10^(-35) meters
> > > > :: T_p = [sqrt(G*hbar/c^5)] = 5.4 x 10^(-44) seconds
> > > > The highest possible frequency would then be the reciprocal
> > > > of Planck time:
> > > > :: F_max = 1 / T_p = [sqrt(c^5/(G*hbar))] = 1.9 x 10(43) Hz
> > > > The highest energy gamma rays (photons) observed in high
> > > > energy accelerator labs come from proton, anti-proton
> > > > annihilation. Proton mass is 932 MeV / c^2 and the associated
> > > > annihilation gamma ray has an electromagnetic wave frequency:
> > > > :: F_proton = m c^2 / h = 2.3 x 10^(23) Hz
> >
> [hanson]
> Your caveat of "guess work" is well placed. Is there actually
> any **experimental** indication that these Planck domain
> expressions are **more** than just merely quaint measuring
Nope. No emperical justification. Not even a hint.
> It is true that one can make all kinds of wonderful mind games
> and phantasms with them in the lands of i-physics.
Yes. The hypothetical decay of black holes utilizes Planck
quantities (via Hawking). There is empirical evidence for
black holes, but none for their decay.
Another utilization is in the beginning of the Bug Bang.
> [Garry]
Neat stuff, hansen. Rather ingenious. Certainly no more
speculative, but maybe even more audacious, than Planck
quantities.
> ::: *** tau / t_pl = a^(-1) * (N_A*pi*sqrt3) ****
Great Balls of fire, hanson. hansen illuminates Dirac,
Tom
energy.If I generate a signal from an oscillator at 1kHz and then double it
to 2kHz the power required is the same.If I increase the amplitude the power
required goes up of course.
Tom