20

As a first approximation, I don't see how a wavelength of less than 2 Planck distances could exist. The question is: Are there any other limits that would come into play before that?

For example:

  • Would the energy density cause the photon to turn into a black hole or something like that?
  • Would the energy of the photon exceed the total mass+energy of the universe?
ACuriousMind
  • 124,833
BCS
  • 1,229
  • In order to create a photon, You need some exited object which has the energy to radiate such a photon. – Georg Nov 01 '11 at 16:15
  • @Georg, the question isn't about creating the photon. OTOH, it's interesting to consider how you could do that (or how you could pump an exiting photon to that high an energy level). – BCS Nov 01 '11 at 18:00
  • 1
    My comment was thought to make You think of the fact, that the two reasons You name as possible limits would apply for that "emitter" first. And: of course the most energetic precursor is the upper limit for a photon. Photons dont emerge "from heaven" like Manna. – Georg Nov 01 '11 at 18:04

2 Answers2

13

The principle of relativity guarantees that the energy of a particle may always be boosted to a higher value, e.g. by looking at the same situation from a different inertial system. All the situations with 1 particle and arbitrary allowed energy (any number not smaller than the rest mass times $c^2$: the rest mass of the photon is zero) are physically equivalent.

That's why the wavelength (which is linked to the inverse momentum) of a photon, or any other particle, may be arbitrarily short, whether it's shorter than the Planck length or not. You can't produce a black hole just from one particle because it's fast. You only produce a black hole if a sufficient amount of mass is concentrated within the Schwarzschild radius from the center-of-mass reference frame.

There's a lot of misconceptions in popular science literature about the Planck length as the "minimum distance". The Planck length is only the minimum allowed distance of "proper distances measured in the rest/otherwise-natural frames" i.e. distances within a hypothetical nearly static object, measured at rest. But the wavelength associated with an arbitrary particle is just some difference of coordinates according to any frame and this quantity can't be constrained because of the principle of relativity.

So the answer to both questions of yours is a resounding No:

  1. No, a single particle with a vanishing or low rest mass can never turn into a black hole, regardless of the high energy, high momentum, and corresponding high frequency or short wavelength. You need to collide at least 2 particles of Planckian energies to produce a black hole. What matters is the center-of-mass energy (which is also zero for a single photon).

  2. No, a photon (or any other particle) whose wavelength is comparable to the Planck length carries the energy equal to the Planck energy which is $c^2$ times the Planck mass. The Planck mass is just 10 micrograms or so, extremely below the mass of the Universe. ;-) It's, in fact, 100 times lighter than a mosquito. It's a big energy if you concentrate it to a single particle – which is what particle physicists usually want to do (in their minds) with the Planck energy. But it is a negligible energy relatively to the latent energy of the macroscopic objects and surely the Universe as well.

Stephane Bersier
  • 127
Luboš Motl
  • 179,018
  • Note that with regards to point 1, The energy density I'm referring to is not that cause by relativistic speeds (if a photon had such, it would be infinitely heavy) but rather just the energy of the photon it's self. For example, what would happen if a single photon was emitted using the total matter/energy conversion of an entire super massive black hole (or an equivalent mass)? – BCS Nov 01 '11 at 15:34
  • @BCS: you can't emit just one photon from a black hole, but if a supermassive black hole would decay into two photons going in opposite directions, both photons would be indistinguishable from highly boosted supermassive black holes themselves, unless you chase them with impossible speed. All boosted matter is eventually indistinguishable from a boosted black hole experimentally for stationary observers. – Ron Maimon Nov 01 '11 at 19:07
  • I specifically left unspecified how the photon is generated and even what matter source is used to power the experiment. The only things I specified is the total amount of energy dumped into it. – BCS Nov 01 '11 at 23:01
  • Dear @Ron, I agree that the momentum conservation prohibits the emission of just one photon from a black hole; otherwise, nope. A photon is always distinguishable from a black hole. Its rest mass is zero; the rest mass of any black hole is always greater than the Planck mass (times a numerical constant of order one). – Luboš Motl Nov 03 '11 at 10:07
  • Dear @BCS, it is completely irrelevant how a photon was generated. Whatever the circumstances of the birth were, you may always boost the whole arrangement and get a photon of a shorter wavelength than before. There is no lower bound on the allowed wavelength. If you are uncertain what is allowed with "large energy densities", "short wavelengths" etc. and if it looks like a conflict of many infinities, try to find a reference frame in which the situation doesn't look too extreme. That's what relativity allows you to do. You will see that a single photon is never "less or more extreme". – Luboš Motl Nov 03 '11 at 10:10
  • @Lubos: The indistinguishability comes from collision experiments--- the photon will produce a black hole in any collision. As for the speed issue, if you have a Planck mass black hole with total momentum equal to 400,000 times the mass of the sun, how do you determine that it's not massless exactly? Is it possible in principle? – Ron Maimon Nov 03 '11 at 17:08
  • Well, @Ron, it's surely possible to distinguish them in principle, even though it may be hard. The simplest way is when you accelerate a whole laboratory to nearly the same velocity as the object so the relative momentum becomes manageable, and then you use e.g. the LHC calorimeters etc. to figure out whether it was a photon or something else. – Luboš Motl Nov 04 '11 at 11:45
  • @Lubos: Yes, of course, I understand this, but it doesn't sit well--- it seems that there is a universal boosted limit. The question of whether you have a boosted universal behavior is whether you can tell the two apart in an unboosted frame. If you look at a string falling into a black hole, there is Susskind's stretching and winding, as the string relaxes on the horizon. If you probe a boosted string, it looks stretched and generic. – Ron Maimon Nov 04 '11 at 15:10
  • "The Planck mass is just 10 micrograms or so" I think that's a typo – endolith Jul 08 '19 at 18:20
  • It's not a typo, it was an order of magnitude estimate. 20 micrograms is more accurate, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_mass – Luboš Motl Jul 09 '19 at 16:01
  • @Lubos Motl Is it possible that an object of some length shorter than the Planck length might be seen only through magnification energies exceeding all the energy in a locality's observable region? (For the benefit of other participants, I have to say that this question is slightly different from the OP's, but you seem so so close to answering it--with the simple "Yes" I'm hoping for--that I'm asking it in a comment along the lines of a "suggestion of improvements" to the original question.) – Edouard Jul 23 '19 at 18:15
  • Objects in their rest frame cannot be shorter than the Planck length... But even if you try to do things that are possible, it is indeed a possibility that the plan will fail due to the shortage of energy you mention. – Luboš Motl Jul 25 '19 at 04:42
3

A possible (short) non-existence argument for a minimum wavelength:

Observer A transmits a photon of "minimum wavelength" towards observer B who is approaching observer A. Due to the relative motion of B w.r.t. A, the photon will be blue shifted to a wavelength shorter than the "minimum". Contradiction.

q.e.d.

The only possible counter argument to this (on the off chance one exists) would amount to that the proximity of the observer's matter interacts with the photon to cause it to shed energy (e.g. via some hypothetical phenomenon akin to Cherenkov radiation). Even that however would only limit the minimum that can be observed in a given reference frame rather than an absolute minimum for it.

OTOH, if the energy gets high enough, the photon could only be observed briefly or indirectly as the very bright flash caused by the direct observer being totally obliterated.

BCS
  • 1,229
  • You are doing 'magic thinking' . 10 observers 10 realities ? – Helder Velez Nov 03 '11 at 02:13
  • (cont) Once you release the photon there it goes unperturbed until catched by one and only one observer. This observer will perceive it differently according to its motion, but to the photon nothing happens. The measure and only the measure change. – Helder Velez Nov 03 '11 at 02:26
  • @HelderVelez, good point: Close only counts in Horseshoes, Hand Grenades, and Tactical Nuclear Weapons. (OTOH that last one has an interesting relevance here.) – BCS Nov 03 '11 at 16:13