Producing High Frequency Waves in Labs - YoctoHertz Limitations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the feasibility of producing high-frequency waves in laboratories, particularly in the YoctoHertz range. Participants explore the theoretical limits of frequency generation, suggesting that while current technology has constraints, physics may not impose a fundamental upper limit, potentially linked to Planck time. The energy of individual entities, such as photons, is crucial in determining frequency, with high-energy gamma rays being a significant focus. Methods like matter-antimatter reactions and Compton scattering are mentioned as potential ways to achieve higher energy photons. Overall, while laboratory capabilities are limited, the conversation highlights the vast potential of theoretical physics in frequency generation.
trini
Messages
216
Reaction score
1
Ok topic was rather unscientific i know, but yes, i want to know, what are the highest frequency waves that are laboratory producable? also, what are the limiting factors in designing devices capable of reaching upwards of the YoctoHertz range for example. how are the frequencies generated in the first place?

also let's just be hypothetical here, no need to come crashing down on me with a "it can't be done because of XXX limitation in currently known technology". let's just assume that we have access to an infinite selection of materials, capable of performing any required task, what are the variables which must be manipulated to achieve higher and higher level frequencies?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In currently accepted physics, there's no known higher limit on frequency, but there are reasons to believe that there might be a fundamental limitation around something of the order of 1/Plancktime. This would correspond to something like 10^44 Hz.

The thing that determines frequency is essentially the energy of individual entities: for electromagnetic radiation, that's the energy of a photon.
 
the problem is not as much generating the frequency, its measuring it
you don't know what you have unless you can quantify it

dr
 
I don't know if you realize but you are talking about gamma rays. The photon energy of hard gamma rays is very high. To get enough energy into one photon you have to use matter antimatter reactions. And those also produce other field excitations, not just the gamma rays. We are limited by our colider powers, nature isn't, and regularly showers the Earth with cosmic rays that are much stronger than anything we can produce on earth.
 
0xDEADBEEF said:
I don't know if you realize but you are talking about gamma rays. The photon energy of hard gamma rays is very high. To get enough energy into one photon you have to use matter antimatter reactions. And those also produce other field excitations, not just the gamma rays. We are limited by our colider powers, nature isn't, and regularly showers the Earth with cosmic rays that are much stronger than anything we can produce on earth.
Did you ever hear of Compton scattering of laser light off of high energy electrons? If you shoot 2-eV photons at a 20 GeV electron (gamma = 40,000), you get a scattered photon coming back with an energy of about gamma-squared times 2 eV = 3 GeV. Nice way to produce high energy photons. No antimatter required.
Bob S
 
Thread 'Motional EMF in Faraday disc, co-rotating magnet axial mean flux'
So here is the motional EMF formula. Now I understand the standard Faraday paradox that an axis symmetric field source (like a speaker motor ring magnet) has a magnetic field that is frame invariant under rotation around axis of symmetry. The field is static whether you rotate the magnet or not. So far so good. What puzzles me is this , there is a term average magnetic flux or "azimuthal mean" , this term describes the average magnetic field through the area swept by the rotating Faraday...
Back
Top