# Is there a Hertz limit to alternating current?



## Depth (Feb 9, 2012)

Random thought turned into a brain itch.


As you know Hertz are cycles per second. More energy is needed to increase this, as shown in the case of voltage and current in overclocking.

We're moving into quantum physics here and obviously nothing man-made can produce billions of Yottahertz but I was wondering if there are any theoretical limitations here or if this curve can increase to infinity








*Shameful original post edit: *


Depth said:


> I apologize again for my vague questioning, I was wondering if the speed of electrons in an AC current with an infinitely increasing hertz would be limited at the point electrons would have to either break the speed of light or be in two places at once.


----------



## entropy13 (Feb 9, 2012)

Well, since the amount of energy in the universe is finite, therefore there would be a theoretical limitation, which would be the number of hertz when all of the energy in the universe is "used".


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 9, 2012)

Gamma rays have a frequency in excess of 10 exahertz.  I don't know if science has been able to establish a theoretical maximum or not.


----------



## radrok (Feb 9, 2012)

I think the limit is in the material of the body that has to carry such frequency.

EDIT : Sorry I didn't read it accurately, I though that you asked if there was a limiting factor on achieving high Hz rates.


----------



## Sasqui (Feb 9, 2012)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Gamma rays have a frequency in excess of 10 exahertz.  I don't know if science has been able to establish a theoretical maximum or not.



I think the difference too, is if you're talking about radio waves vs. electrons?  I don't think there's any way to produce "artificial" gamma rays, through any electrical circuit means... it always comes from nuclear interactions.  But, perhaps we just haven't gotten there yet?

"Gamma radiation, like X-radiation, can be produced by a variety of phenomena. For example, when high-energy gamma rays, electrons, or protons bombard materials, the excited atoms within emit characteristic "secondary" (or fluorescent) gamma rays, which are products of temporary creation of excited nuclear states in the bombarded atoms (such transitions form a topic in nuclear spectroscopy). Such gamma rays are produced by the nucleus, but not as a result of nuclear excitement from radioactive decay."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray


----------



## jsfitz54 (Feb 9, 2012)

radrok said:


> I think the limit is in the material of the body that has to carry such frequency.



Is the OP asking about real world needs?  Alternating current is man made, used to harness usable power, safely.  The machines used to produce and carry that current would be the limiting factor.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 9, 2012)

Depth said:


> Random thought turned into a brain itch.
> 
> 
> As you know Hertz are cycles per second. More energy is needed to increase this, as shown in the case of voltage and current in overclocking.
> ...



Fundamental misunderstanding of the concept here.

The reason more energy is required to increase the frequency on a CPU is not because of some magical frequency limitation.  Remember, the entire CPU is DC based, and thus does not run of an AC frequency.

The timing on a chip is set by a base clock, which is generally a crystal forced to oscillate at a given frequency.  All components use this frequency, so their communications can happen in a set order.  Overclocking increases the effective frequency of the base clock (either by multiplier or base clock alteration).  Energy losses increase because rapid switching in the transistors of the CPU leads to substantial leakage losses (physical property of the semi-conductors).

All of this side-steps the fact that voltage "frequency" is something entirely differently than frequency in general.  As others have said, the electromagnetic frequency covers everything from gamma radiation to UV light.  AC phases (commonly incorrectly referred to as frequency) could, functionally be limitless assuming a large enough generation system.  The frequency of AC power is a misnomer, and that is why this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept.


----------



## Depth (Feb 9, 2012)

I was wrong to have pulled that DC comparison in, you're right. And I was talking about electric current.

Isn't there a relationship between the speed of an electron in a current and the amplitude of hertz applied, as the electron needs to travel both forwards and backwards?


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2012)

Found this nugget that might be helpful.  Can't say I completely understand it though.

Wikipedia - Metallic Bond.



> As these phenomena involve the movement of the atoms towards or away from each other, they can be interpreted as the coupling between the electronic and the vibrational states (i.e. the phonons) of the material. A different such electron-phonon interaction is thought to cause a very different result at low temperatures, that of superconductivity. Rather than blocking the mobility of the charge carriers by forming electron pairs in localized bonds, Cooper-pairs are formed that no longer experience any resistance to their mobility.


----------



## stupido (Feb 9, 2012)

Depth said:


> Random thought turned into a brain itch.
> 
> 
> As you know Hertz are cycles per second. More energy is needed to increase this, as shown in the case of voltage and current in overclocking.
> ...



Warning: does not compute!

I think you messed by jumping from definition of Hertz to quantum physics... (totally ballistic) what was actually your question?


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2012)

stupido said:


> Warning: does not compute!
> 
> I think you messed by jumping from definition of Hertz to quantum physics... (totally ballistic) what was actually your question?


I just read the other posts.

If you want to take the "idea" of A/C and ramp it up to some crazy high frequency, I don't know if you necessarily have to get into QM.  I mean, pretty much everything on that level is determined by QM - no "classical mechanics" on the atomic level.  But you can probably avoid talking about it directly.

I think that's why he specified AC in particular, since in that case you just have electrons moving back and forth with alternating polarity.  Theoretically, you should be able to ramp that up to 10x, 100x, whatever-x the normally frequency we use (60 hertz).  He just wants to know what the limit is.  

That's why I posted that snippet from the description of metallic bonds. One of the things that will determine when the flow of current will stop is disturbances in the metal lattice caused by phonons, induced currents and whatnot.  Unfortunately I don't understand what's going on well enough to be of much help.


----------



## Depth (Feb 9, 2012)

lilhasselhoffer was right I was completely misunderstanding

I apologize again for my vague questioning, I was wondering if the speed of electrons in an AC current with an infinitely increasing hertz would be limited at the point electrons would have to either break the speed of light or be in two places at once.


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2012)

Depth said:


> lilhasselhoffer was right I was completely misunderstanding
> 
> I apologize again for my vague questioning, I was wondering if the speed of electrons in an AC current with an infinitely increasing hertz would be limited at the point electrons would have to either break the speed of light or be in two places at once.
> 
> Edit: Drift speed explains it all, feel a bit stupid for not remembering


Electrons are always in 2 places at once.  Well, technically, they're in an infinite number of places at once - all that wave-partical duality voodoo.

I swear to god.  That shit may as well be magic.


----------



## Depth (Feb 9, 2012)

So conventional physics prevents it and quantum mechanics allow it. Neat.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 9, 2012)

Depth said:


> lilhasselhoffer was right I was completely misunderstanding
> 
> I apologize again for my vague questioning, I was wondering if the speed of electrons in an AC current with an infinitely increasing hertz would be limited at the point electrons would have to either break the speed of light or be in two places at once.



Photons, not electrons, function as a packet of waves.  While certain properties of an electron are... interesting using quantum mechanics... electrons generally have too much mass to get extremely high frequencies.  

Frequency does not mean anything in relation to the speed of light or the velocity of a particle.  It relates to the energy of a particle, and the way we perceive it.  Much higher frequencies are generally hard radiation, and there are very few particles that are capable of garnering that much energy.  


As far as the overall question, the theoretical limit to the frequency of a photon would be the photon having all the energy in this universe.  We cannot figure out the mass of this universe accurately (though we have guesses), so giving an actual limit is not possible.  As far as existing in two places at once, there are two mutually exclusive answers.  Yes, a particle can exist everywhere until observed.  No, functionally limitless frequency does not allow a particle to exist in two places at once.

I personally ascribe to the latter belief.  You could argue causation and correlation aren't validly linked, but that's another very long debate.  Welcome to the misery of quantum mechanics for macroscopic entities.  Understanding this crap is a head ache on the best of days.


----------



## Drone (Feb 9, 2012)

Depth said:


> I was wondering if there are any theoretical limitations here or if this curve can increase to infinity



The *shortest* possible length (one of the bulding blocks of space-time) is the *Plank length* 1.61 * 10^-35 m

So if we have a wave (let's say beam of photons) with this length then you can find the highest possible frequency. 

frequency = velocity / length

Let's divide c / Plank Length

3*10^ 8 m /s     /   1.61*10^-35 m 

It's something 1.86 * 10^43 Hz


Yes 10^43 is a really fucking big number



lilhasselhoffer said:


> Photons, not electrons, function as a packet of waves



Wrong. Even heavy protons act as wave


----------



## twilyth (Feb 9, 2012)

Drone said:


> The *shortest* possible length (one of the bulding blocks of space-time) is the *Plank length* 1.61 * 10^-35 m
> 
> So if we have a wave (let's say beam of photons) with this length then you can find the highest possible frequency.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, that method has the unenviable distinction of being phenomenally wrong.  When you use that method to calculate the Casimir effect, you get a value that is 120 orders of magnitude off - not a multiple mind you, but off by 10^120.

Here's what the CalPhysics Institute says about it:


> Thus zero-point energy would appear to be identical with the mysterious dark energy, but unfortunately if the energy spectrum does continue up to the Planck frequency, there may be 120 orders of magnitude more energy per cubic centimeter than the observations of cosmic acceleration permit. Indeed, this amount of zero-point energy, interpreted this way, would have accelerated the universe into oblivion in microseconds.


http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html


----------



## Steevo (Feb 9, 2012)

The electron itself is not the cause of the current as we use it today, the lack of electron is the energy we use. 

All else being equal the fastest a electron could travel according to theory is the speed of light, and as such all you would need to do is to as yourself what distance at what amplitude? If we are only measuring the width of the electron it is that distance at the speed of light. we are only limited by the size of a circut, and our abikity to measure.


----------



## Drone (Feb 9, 2012)

*twilyth* to be exact I actually was talking about Plank Frequency. That's angular frequency of *natural units* (quantums of space-time which can't be ever detected, at least not today). 



> Indeed, this amount of zero-point energy, interpreted this way, would have accelerated the universe into oblivion in microseconds.


There can be many other unknown factors that can hold everything together. I'm sure String Theory one day will find the truth, I mean the *TRUTH*.


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Feb 9, 2012)

String? Pfff! We're up to membrane theory now.


----------



## lilhasselhoffer (Feb 9, 2012)

Drone said:


> Wrong. Even heavy protons act as wave



Perhaps there was a misunderstanding.  Electrons have certain wave properties, but they do not function in the same way a photon does.  Having wave like properties, and functioning as a packet of waves, are two separate ideas.


Only in situations where they might act like a wave do they act like a wave.  In the situation of frequency, or vibration due to energy, they act as a particle with mass.  Anything with mass has inertia, and will therefore be difficult (read require much more energy) to put into extremely high frequencies.  

The OP wants to know if there is a theoretical limit to the frequency of something.  As frequency is determined by the energy something has, the only thing that would be able to have extraordinarily (read, the maximum) high frequencies is a mass less particle.  As the only particle we currently understand to be mass less, the photon is the only choice for this thought experiment.  

As you quoted:


> Photons, not electrons, function as a packet of waves.



While protons, electrons, and neutrons do function like waves under quantum theory, they cannot be a viable answer to the OP's question.




Edit:



Drone said:


> There can be many other unknown factors that can hold everything together. I'm sure String Theory one day will find the truth, I mean the *TRUTH*.



And I'm *sure* that I'm going home to a super model who dispenses blow jobs while printing currency with her butt cheeks.  Until you can give me something concrete all you're doing is making a wild assumption.  Come back to me and gloat whenever you have anything concrete, rather than the logic hole riddled theory that is current string theory.


----------



## ZenZimZaliben (Feb 9, 2012)

You all are trying to make this so hard and scientific. Yet, hertz is just another man-made way of measuring time. So yes. Infinite Hertz is possible. And easy to do....  ∞Hz. See how easy.


----------



## Drone (Feb 9, 2012)

lilhasselhoffer said:


> As the only particle we currently understand to be mass less, the photon is the only choice for this thought experiment.


Not the only one. Gluon is massless too. Maybe graviton is massless as well. Anyway _anything_ can be massless if Higgs Field is "turned off"  




> And I'm *sure* that I'm going home to a super model who dispenses blow jobs while printing currency with her butt cheeks.


Um what?


----------

