From: Day Brown on
On 05/24/2010 02:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:
> Correct, like a Planck or quantum string wavelength is very short,
> whereas a gravity wavelength is very long.
Like absolute zero, Planck offered a minimum distance. Which is
therefore a minimum wavelength. has anyone figured out what the
resulting maximum frequency mite be?

Wouldnt that also indicate the maximum temperature?
From: Sam Wormley on
On 5/26/10 8:47 PM, Day Brown wrote:
> has anyone figured out what the resulting maximum frequency mite be?

c/λ


From: Brad Guth on
On May 26, 6:47 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On 05/24/2010 02:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:> Correct, like a Planck or quantum string wavelength is very short,
> > whereas gravity wavelengths are very long.
>
> Like absolute zero, Planck offered a minimum distance. Which is
> therefore a minimum wavelength. has anyone figured out what the
> resulting maximum frequency mite be?
I think Sam Wormley has that one nailed as c/ë

>
> Wouldnt that also indicate the maximum temperature?

Correct about maximum temperature, although I have no idea how hot or
cold photons get.

~ BG
From: Sam Wormley on
On 5/27/10 8:54 AM, Brad Guth wrote:
> On May 26, 6:47 pm, Day Brown<dayhbr...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 05/24/2010 02:14 PM, Brad Guth wrote:> Correct, like a Planck or quantum string wavelength is very short,
>>> whereas gravity wavelengths are very long.
>>
>> Like absolute zero, Planck offered a minimum distance. Which is
>> therefore a minimum wavelength. has anyone figured out what the
>> resulting maximum frequency mite be?
> I think Sam Wormley has that one nailed as c/�
>
>>
>> Wouldnt that also indicate the maximum temperature?
>
> Correct about maximum temperature, although I have no idea how hot or
> cold photons get.
>
> ~ BG

E = h�
From: Edward Green on
sci.physics.relativity has degenerated into a conversation mainly
between ineducable morons...

just felt like throwing something cheery into the mix.