You could certainly have changing electromagnetic fields, but it’s debatable whether it can really be considered a wave, in the sub-one-cycle regime. You’d be in what’s called the near-field regime, not the wave regime, and the behavior of the fields wouldn’t really be described by a wave equation.
And about the Planck scale, we don’t actually know that that’s an upper limit for the energy of a photon. It might be that there is no limit. It might be that there’s a limit, but it’s at some other level. If there’s a limit, the Planck scale is our best guess as to approximately where it would be, but it’s only that, a guess. The answer varies in different models of quantum gravity, and we really have no clue which model of quantum gravity is correct, or even if any of the models we’ve come up with are correct.
Let’s not confuse the wavelength of a photon with it’s size. I think the author of that Wikipedia article is stretching things a bit. Perhaps we can have photons more energetic than the Planck mass, but not confineable to a Planck scale volume.
In the absence of a theory that extends quantum electrodynamics (QED) to the Planck limit, we can only say that we do not know if there is a limit on the frequency of a photon. It is clear that QED will have to be modified, but we don’t know how.
No but you seemed to understand what I was saying. Super gamma, by my definition, would be a wave that is short enough to no longer have any of the traditional EM effects like a magnetic envelope, nor would it produce a photon when traversing space because it would be too short to excite any electrons. Does such a wave exist? I say yes because both neutrons and protons contains energy and therefore must also contain waves. Motion can’t be “stopped” or destroyed just moved from place to place and it does so as a wave. So it makes sense that waves within a proton that don’t excite any of the electrons present in the atom would have no EM effect. But lack of detection doesn’t preclude existence, does it? I would call them super-g, for lack of an existing standard of definition.
The Planck constant refers to an energy threshold below which a wave is not propagated through “space”. If we have an ocean of little balls floating a few millimeters from each other one would have to push one of the balls at least a few millimeter to contact any other ball and “propagate” any energy. So, like I said it depends on the granularity of the medium through which one attempts to propagate a wave. If the balls were closer together the Planck constant would be smaller. Perhaps it is somewhere … else?
In other words, I agree. But that constant has not been established to my knowledge and would certainly not limit waves to EM effects only. There must be ambient radiation in space that produces no EM effect and is therefore not measured by an traditional cosmological devices.
The interior of a proton is more than large enough to accommodate what I call a super-g wave. While there may not be any easy way to measure such a wave I think it does exist or there would be no way for a subatomic particle to exist or accelerate outside the proton when the proton is devastated. I also suspect there are “temporal” particles within a proton that cannot exist without the proton itself. I would call such a particle a “Uunion” and a particle that can exist outside the proton an Anion as it would be stable without the proton.
But I digress…
I must have missed the discussion on the Planck constant. In any case it seems the question *was *answered. Surry…
I can’t seem to edit my post so I’ll say I’m wrong in that there is a known theoretical Planck Constant and since the question was “How high can EM radiation go and what limits it?” I’m off topic to bring up any super-g postulation here. I was thinking of the shortest possible wave that can propagate space, not the shortest EM wave and I misread the thread title.