Jump to content
fredreload

Create visible light from magnetic field or antenna

Recommended Posts

So I want to create a device that would emit visible light as a source of electromagnetic radiation. I am thinking of having two electromagnets either attracting or opposing charges that given a strong enough current would generate a strong enough opposing or attracting magnetic field to generate a light source in between. Either that or an antenna that is amped up from radio wave to create visible light waves. Which is more plausible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fredreload said:

Which is more plausible?

How about neither. (Mainly because of the frequency of visible light)

What is wrong with the existing methods of generating light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fredreload said:

So I want to create a device that would emit visible light as a source of electromagnetic radiation. I am thinking of having two electromagnets either attracting or opposing charges that given a strong enough current would generate a strong enough opposing or attracting magnetic field to generate a light source in between. Either that or an antenna that is amped up from radio wave to create visible light waves. Which is more plausible?

 

The Kerr effect is fast enough to be used to measure the speed of (visible) light.

You might be able to reverse engineer one of the magneto-optical effect, such as the Surface Kerr Effect, (SMOKE)  to achieve your objective.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magneto-optic_Kerr_effect

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, fredreload said:

So I want to create a device that would emit visible light as a source of electromagnetic radiation. I am thinking of having two electromagnets either attracting or opposing charges that given a strong enough current would generate a strong enough opposing or attracting magnetic field to generate a light source in between. Either that or an antenna that is amped up from radio wave to create visible light waves. Which is more plausible?

The normal way of using an antenna gives EM radiation that’s of order the size of the antenna, so we’re talking smaller than a micron. An alternate way that would work would be to heat up the antenna so it becomes incandescent.

Why would electromagnets generate visible light?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, swansont said:

The normal way of using an antenna gives EM radiation that’s of order the size of the antenna, so we’re talking smaller than a micron. An alternate way that would work would be to heat up the antenna so it becomes incandescent.

Why would electromagnets generate visible light?

Because it's got an opposing or attracting magnetic field. A magnetic field is consisted of photons and a conflicting magnetic field is likely to generate EM radiation in between, I am not sure what tesla strength you need though. Well, technically speaking it's the field conflicting with the opposite pole

You guys sure came a long way @@

4 hours ago, Strange said:

How about neither. (Mainly because of the frequency of visible light)

What is wrong with the existing methods of generating light?

Black body radiation hmm, I think it is less effective in generating the amount of light I need? Not sure on that @@. It could be plausible

Moderator Note

Which, obviously, we are not going to tell you.

 

 

 

 

This is from the k-40 post, very funny Strange = =

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Because it's got an opposing or attracting magnetic field. A magnetic field is consisted of photons

No

36 minutes ago, fredreload said:

and a conflicting magnetic field is likely to generate EM radiation in between,

No, again

36 minutes ago, fredreload said:


Black body radiation hmm, I think it is less effective in generating the amount of light I need? Not sure on that @@. It could be plausible

You never said how much you need. This works for incandescent light bulbs, though it is indeed inefficient.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

E=mc^2

C=D/T=3*10^8m/s

sqrt(E/m)/(3*10^8)=1m/s

plug in my weight 108kg for a distance contraction of 2 meters to solve for E

sqrt(E/108)/(3*10^8)=2

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fredreload said:

E=mc^2

C=D/T=3*10^8m/s

sqrt(E/m)/(3*10^8)=1m/s

plug in my weight 108kg for a distance contraction of 2 meters to solve for E

sqrt(E/108)/(3*10^8)=2

What does this mean?

What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? 

What are C, D, T? (We can assume e and m are energy and mass).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Strange said:

What does this mean?

What does this have to do with the subject of the thread? 

What are C, D, T? (We can assume e and m are energy and mass).

Come on, just because you do not understand does not mean you defame me yo.

Here is the proof by Goku(4:06).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=063Pzii3bqk

Expert note: Goku got too much energy at a stationary point(thanks Twice) and result in length contraction (4:06) because of energy(momentum)/space. After contracting the entire length of the universe he began to time travel. And then he loops past the Big bang back to his current time line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🤣 that took a turn to non-seriousness faster than I expected

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are giving you the benefit of their experience and their time to answer questions. I would appreciate it if the discussion were the result of a sincere inquiry rather than having my chain yanked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fredreload said:

Come on, just because you do not understand does not mean you defame me yo.

Asking you to explain is not defamation. Maybe you need to invest in a new dictionary app.

If you don't care enough to explain what you are talking about, I can request this is closed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, swansont said:

People are giving you the benefit of their experience and their time to answer questions. I would appreciate it if the discussion were the result of a sincere inquiry rather than having my chain yanked.

My bad, I meant not to challenge your authority but I cannot find a .org source to support my claim. Well I appreciate the kind explanation except my reputation went from a -6 to a -9 is that even normal in this thread = =?

Quote

This works for incandescent light bulbs, though it is indeed inefficient.

Well this is helpful information, I would like a more credible light source enough to achieve the energy needs.

Quote

If you don't care enough to explain what you are talking about, I can request this is closed.

Allow me to explain. The idea about energy causing space contraction is from this idea.

https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-bend-space-time

And from the response of Eric Pepke, works at Cisco.

"It's a very tiny effect, practically negligible for any purposes.

Theoretically, yes they do, but it's in a very strange way.

The thing that distorts space-time isn't mass or energy. It's energy/momentum, energy and momentum taken together. This is usually represented as a funny kind of vector, though quaternions work as well. The rest mass is a scalar, which is the absolute value of this energy/momentum construct. When the momentum is zero, a lot of terms in the calculation become zero, which is where we get E=mc². For something like a star or planet, a bunch of mass in a ball just sitting there, just using the mass and the Schwarzschild solution is good enough. You can ignore all those other terms based on how things are moving.

However, with a photon, since the rest mass is zero, all those nice scalar terms drop to zero. The only thing that's left are all those terms you normally neglect.

To say that two photons will experience a gravitational attraction (to each other) is an oversimplification. However, let's say that you have two photons in opposite directions passing each other. That will be equivalent (for a very short time) to a particle with a rest mass the same as the sum of their energies. A photon going nearby will follow a geodesic just as if it had passed some mass."

 

Using this idea I looked back at E=mc^2

C is a velocity = 3*10^8m/s = Distance/Time

Plugging in the necessary elements and create a contraction for 2 meters using my mass in kg would net me the amount of energy requires to achieve the 2 meter distance contraction with energy. I know you guys are not big on non-classical physics = =, this is more of a show off on my part, I apologize. I can go back to how to generate an energy source with light required for (6*10^8)^2*108 joules. Also to emphasize the part that Japanese are smart and anime are cool.

P.S. And this also goes to a time machine lol, you guys can put this in theoretical science, I would not mind.

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Using this idea I looked back at E=mc^2

C is a velocity = 3*10^8m/s = Distance/Time

That is why it was confusing: the speed of light is c not C. Plus you didn't say what D and T were.

16 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Plugging in the necessary elements and create a contraction for 2 meters using my mass in kg would net me the amount of energy requires to achieve the 2 meter distance contraction with energy.

You are using the wrong equation. In the wrong way.

It looks (from the previous part of your answer) as if you are thinking about the effect of gravity (space-tie curvature in the presence of mass-energy) on length. In which case you would need to use general relativity to calculate the effects. These would be different in the radial direction from the other directions. And, to be honest, I don't know if lengths would increase or decrease; it is too complicated for me to work out.

But also, it seems like you are trying to generate light with the equivalent energy to your mass. Apart from the fact this inevitably means you are mixing up energy and power, have you though about how much energy that is:

E = mc2

For m = 108 kg, that is about 1019 joules https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=108+kg+*+c^2

That is just slightly less than the total electricity consumption of the USA for an entire yearhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Strange said:

That is why it was confusing: the speed of light is c not C. Plus you didn't say what D and T were.

You are using the wrong equation. In the wrong way.

It looks (from the previous part of your answer) as if you are thinking about the effect of gravity (space-tie curvature in the presence of mass-energy) on length. In which case you would need to use general relativity to calculate the effects. These would be different in the radial direction from the other directions. And, to be honest, I don't know if lengths would increase or decrease; it is too complicated for me to work out.

But also, it seems like you are trying to generate light with the equivalent energy to your mass. Apart from the fact this inevitably means you are mixing up energy and power, have you though about how much energy that is:

E = mc2

For m = 108 kg, that is about 1019 joules https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=108+kg+*+c^2

That is just slightly less than the total electricity consumption of the USA for an entire yearhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)

 

 

I see, that explains the nuke, you think 1 gram of potassium-40 would generate enough energy through gamma rays? Do I multiply mol by something?

P.S. Btw length increment is not possible with negative distance, I think

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I see, that explains the nuke, you think 1 gram of potassium-40 would generate enough energy through gamma rays? Do I multiply mol by something?

1 g of K40 results in about 3 billion joules (roughly the energy of a tank full of gas/petrol). https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(avogadro+number+%2F40)+*+1.32+MeV and https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Potassium_40.htm

But, with a half life of over a trillion years, this would be an average power output of less than a mW (enough to light a very, very small LED).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Strange said:

1 g of K40 results in about 3 billion joules (roughly the energy of a tank full of gas/petrol). https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(avogadro+number+%2F40)+*+1.32+MeV and https://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Potassium_40.htm

But, with a half life of over a trillion years, this would be an average power output of less than a mW (enough to light a very, very small LED).

I see, guess I have to think of an alternative method, thanks for the heads up. As you can see I am trying to focus enough photon energy on a "spot" to create length contraction. Fitting the photon energy into the E=mc^2 equation E=photon energy. I really don't think alternate universe exist. You can ignore this statement.

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, fredreload said:

I see, guess I have to think of an alternative method, thanks for the heads up. As you can see I am trying to focus enough photon energy on a "spot" to create length contraction. Fitting the photon energy into the E=mc2 equation E=photon energy.

But if you think about the relationship between mass and energy, it would be much more efficient to just put the equivalent mass there. The energy density of mass is much greater (by a factor of c2 or 100,000,000,000,000,000).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Strange said:

But if you think about the relationship between mass and energy, it would be much more efficient to just put the equivalent mass there. The energy density of mass is much greater (by a factor of c2 or 100,000,000,000,000,000).

Yes, but then you wouldn't be able to focus it on a spot(2 centimeter of high energy photons sheet for 2 meters of length contraction), but to pass through the entire planet length (1*10^8m) to achieve a length contraction of 2 meters(2 meters of length contraction). Unless you have something extremely dense, like the Superman's key to his base in the size of 2 centimeter built from the mass of a star. Btw, someone teleported something into my stomach, I think it is harmless. You can ignore this statement.

P.S. That is the point of this idea, you are using a 2 centimeter high energy photon sheets to create a portal in 2 centimeters for a 2 meters length. Passable by me 108kg or anyone 108kg and below. So when you pass through this 2 centimeters you essentially traveled 2 meters. Based on the high school teacher, an element is not supposed to be found on earth is found on earth's crust because of length contraction, this is my only proof.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Length_contraction

P.S. An analogy would be, if earth exploded, or is gone, you would be somewhere in the space on top due to length contraction going back to normal.

P.S. Base on #9

P.S. For not pissing people off you can put this in theoretical science @@

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, fredreload said:

Yes, but then you wouldn't be able to focus it on a spot(2 centimeter of high energy photons sheet for 2 meters of length contraction), but to pass through the entire planet length (1*10^8m) to achieve a length contraction of 2 meters(2 meters of length contraction). Unless you have something extremely dense, like the Superman's key to his base in the size of 2 centimeter built from the mass of a star.

1. Your "calculations" of length contraction are nonsensical.

2. You can get far more energy in a spot as mass than you can in the form of light.

Let's assume a 1cm cube of osmium (the densest elements). That weighs about 23 g which is equivalent to roughly 1014 joules. But light keeps moving, so in order to have that much energy in the same space, you would need to keep shining light on it. It would take about 3 picoseconds for that light to pass through the 1cm space, so you would to illuminate the 1cm code with 6 x 1025 W of light. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(22.59+g+*+c^2)+%2F++(1+cm+%2F+c)

That is more than the "estimated total power output of a Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale" (that might mean more to you than it does to me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#1015_to_1026_W

So maybe easier to go to a specialist supplier and buy a gram of osmium. Actually, osmium is pretty expensive and lead is nearly as dense and much cheaper. But both are cheaper than building and running a 1025 W laser. (That is about 1 billion times larger than the largest laser on Earth).

 

I'll tell you what, though: it is much more fun actually working these things out than just making stuff up. You should try it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Strange said:

1. Your "calculations" of length contraction are nonsensical.

2. You can get far more energy in a spot as mass than you can in the form of light.

Let's assume a 1cm cube of osmium (the densest elements). That weighs about 23 g which is equivalent to roughly 1014 joules. But light keeps moving, so in order to have that much energy in the same space, you would need to keep shining light on it. It would take about 3 picoseconds for that light to pass through the 1cm space, so you would to illuminate the 1cm code with 6 x 1025 W of light. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=(22.59+g+*+c^2)+%2F++(1+cm+%2F+c)

That is more than the "estimated total power output of a Type-II civilization on the Kardashev scale" (that might mean more to you than it does to me) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(power)#1015_to_1026_W

So maybe easier to go to a specialist supplier and buy a gram of osmium. Actually, osmium is pretty expensive and lead is nearly as dense and much cheaper. But both are cheaper than building and running a 1025 W laser. (That is about 1 billion times larger than the largest laser on Earth).

 

I'll tell you what, though: it is much more fun actually working these things out than just making stuff up. You should try it.

That is if you converted osmium to pure energy, it is a rock.

P.S. If you are not happy about my post just put it in theoretical science. I am taking a break for tonight.

Edited by fredreload

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, fredreload said:

That is if you converted osmium to pure energy, it is a rock.

You don't have to convert it to energy. (There is no such thing as "pure energy"). It has exactly the same effect on space-time as the equivalent energy. With the added advantage that it stays still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fredreload said:

My bad, I meant not to challenge your authority but I cannot find a .org source to support my claim. Well I appreciate the kind explanation except my reputation went from a -6 to a -9 is that even normal in this thread = =?

It's not that you are challenging my authority (I don't think you are). It's that you post a physics question, and then as support/justification/application of it, you post fiction. Where physics need not work. You also post nonsense, which leaves us to figure out what you're talking about. You are wasting peoples' time when you reject a legitimate answer because you couldn't be bothered to properly frame your question. It's rude.

 

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

Well this is helpful information, I would like a more credible light source enough to achieve the energy needs.

You did not describe your energy needs. One item of many that you need to do up front, before asking these questions, if you are going to then disregard the answers. You must provide context.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

Allow me to explain. The idea about energy causing space contraction is from this idea.

https://www.quora.com/Do-photons-bend-space-time

And from the response of Eric Pepke, works at Cisco.

"It's a very tiny effect, practically negligible for any purposes.

Theoretically, yes they do, but it's in a very strange way.

The thing that distorts space-time isn't mass or energy. It's energy/momentum, energy and momentum taken together. This is usually represented as a funny kind of vector, though quaternions work as well. The rest mass is a scalar, which is the absolute value of this energy/momentum construct. When the momentum is zero, a lot of terms in the calculation become zero, which is where we get E=mc². For something like a star or planet, a bunch of mass in a ball just sitting there, just using the mass and the Schwarzschild solution is good enough. You can ignore all those other terms based on how things are moving.

However, with a photon, since the rest mass is zero, all those nice scalar terms drop to zero. The only thing that's left are all those terms you normally neglect.

To say that two photons will experience a gravitational attraction (to each other) is an oversimplification. However, let's say that you have two photons in opposite directions passing each other. That will be equivalent (for a very short time) to a particle with a rest mass the same as the sum of their energies. A photon going nearby will follow a geodesic just as if it had passed some mass."

I can't see the connection between this and generating visible photons from an antenna. If you're asking about gravitational effects from photons, who cares where they came from? Who cares if they are in that narrow range we call visible light? "visible photons from an antenna" are two specific criteria that seem important, but since you have other motivations here, you need to explain why this is important.

 

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

Using this idea I looked back at E=mc^2

C is a velocity = 3*10^8m/s = Distance/Time

Plugging in the necessary elements and create a contraction for 2 meters using my mass in kg would net me the amount of energy requires to achieve the 2 meter distance contraction with energy.

No, that's not how this works.

 

1 hour ago, fredreload said:

 P.S. And this also goes to a time machine lol, you guys can put this in theoretical science, I would not mind.

Physically impossible things do not go in mainstream threads. They go in speculations, if you are proposing something (where you are expected to provide a model and/or evidence), or they go in the trash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, fredreload said:

I see, guess I have to think of an alternative method, thanks for the heads up. As you can see I am trying to focus enough photon energy on a "spot" to create length contraction. Fitting the photon energy into the E=mc^2 equation E=photon energy.

Length contraction happens any time you travel anywhere at any velocity. You don't need to 'create' it. Length contraction only becomes noticeable at very high velocities however.

Think of the distance you want to cross as a spring. The closer your velocity is to c, the more the spring is compressed. While you still have to cross the whole distance, there is less of that distance for you.

 

Bit dated but this covers Relativity really well. Read it when I was younger and learned a lot from it. Happily online for free now.

https://archive.org/details/TheUniverseAndDrEinstein/mode/2up

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.