Talk:Ultra-high-energy gamma ray
Latest comment: 5 years ago by J Mark Morris in topic Ultimate Energy Gamma Ray
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Ultimate Energy Gamma Ray
editThe table contained an ultimate gamma ray that had energy higher than the Planck energy. I believe the reason for that error is that the Planck wavelength used was incorrect. The originator of that entry assumed the Planck wavelength was equal to the Planck length. I believe the Planck wavelength is 2*pi*Planck_length. Using this modified wavelength, the Planck energy is the result. I've included the original row and my modified row.
| energy | energy | energy | frequency | wavelength | comparison | properties | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| eV | eV | Joules | Hertz | meters | |||
| Very-high-energy gamma rays | 76,711 YeV | 7.6711 × 1028 | 12.290 GJ | 1.85487 × 1043 Hz | 1.61623 × 10-35 m | wavelength = Planck Length | |
| 12,206 YeV | 1.2206 × 1028 | 1.956 GJ | 2.95210 × 1042 Hz | 1.01552 × 10-34 m | wavelength = 2*pi*Planck Length |
J Mark Morris (talk) 20:13, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
- Do we have a reliable source which covers this subject? We need to be very careful to not wander down into original research here. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is a good question that you ask. I have searched and so far turned up nothing. However, the idea of the hightest energy photon was already listed on this page without a reference, and I saw that the photon energy was 2 pi times the Planck Energy, which seems to violate the idea of the Planck units. So, I think my change is better than what was there before. However, still your question remains. I suggest we wait and see if we get more discussion here on the talk page. J Mark Morris (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
- The big danger is that we end up with a circular reference, where someone makes an edit here, and some (less-than-careful) author or editor picks up the factoid from here and publishes it. At which point someone else cites that new publication, and it becomes established fact. That's happened several times before - something mentioned as fact in an otherwise reliable publication, which is later tracked down to having been made up on Wikipedia. When it involves names of obscure species, it's merely embarrassing, when it involves physical law, it could be worse. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again a very good point. I see several issues. 1. There is quite a bit of equivocation about whether the Planck units have a physical manifestation. 2. There is a redirect page from Planck wavelength to Planck length, as if they are the same thing. 3. Using Planck length = Planck wavelength leads to an inconsistency which is what triggered my edit. What do you think of the idea of deleting the highest energy photon concept (we haven’t found any scientific reference) AND deleting the redirect from Planck wavelength to Planck length (which also doesn’t seem to be scientifically supported)? That would leave us with this amicable discussion for others to build upon in the future.J Mark Morris (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like a good move. I could find no reliable references on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Ok. Removed discussion of maximum energy gamma ray. I’ll look into how to handle the redirect page from Planck wavelength. Thanks for the discussion. J Mark Morris (talk) 14:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- It sounds like a good move. I could find no reliable references on the topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Again a very good point. I see several issues. 1. There is quite a bit of equivocation about whether the Planck units have a physical manifestation. 2. There is a redirect page from Planck wavelength to Planck length, as if they are the same thing. 3. Using Planck length = Planck wavelength leads to an inconsistency which is what triggered my edit. What do you think of the idea of deleting the highest energy photon concept (we haven’t found any scientific reference) AND deleting the redirect from Planck wavelength to Planck length (which also doesn’t seem to be scientifically supported)? That would leave us with this amicable discussion for others to build upon in the future.J Mark Morris (talk) 05:28, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- The big danger is that we end up with a circular reference, where someone makes an edit here, and some (less-than-careful) author or editor picks up the factoid from here and publishes it. At which point someone else cites that new publication, and it becomes established fact. That's happened several times before - something mentioned as fact in an otherwise reliable publication, which is later tracked down to having been made up on Wikipedia. When it involves names of obscure species, it's merely embarrassing, when it involves physical law, it could be worse. Tarl N. (discuss) 21:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
- It is a good question that you ask. I have searched and so far turned up nothing. However, the idea of the hightest energy photon was already listed on this page without a reference, and I saw that the photon energy was 2 pi times the Planck Energy, which seems to violate the idea of the Planck units. So, I think my change is better than what was there before. However, still your question remains. I suggest we wait and see if we get more discussion here on the talk page. J Mark Morris (talk) 22:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)