# Violet Lasers Are The Most Powerful

## Recommended Posts

What I learned in physics about visible light is that the shorter the wavelength the more energy it has, thus red which has the longest wavelength is the outermost color on the rainbow because it bends the least, colors with longer wavelengths bend less and also have less energy. Likewise, violet has the shortest wavelength and that's why its the innermost color on the rainbow, because it bends the most with its short wavelength. Also since it has the shortest wavelength it has the most energy so therefore violet lasers are the most powerful.

So this being the case I would like to say that Samuel Jackson is smart. Samuel Jackson who played Mace Windu wanted a purple lightsaber. George Lucas said he could have blue or green but Jackson insisted on purple so Lucas gave him what he wanted. So Samuel Jackson was smart to want purple since violet has the most energy and violet lasers are the strongest, so Samuel Jackson AKA Mace Windu has the strongest lightsaber.

##### Share on other sites

Is there something you wanted to actually discuss?

I will point out that the power of a laser (power having a meaning in physics) is largely uncoupled from the wavelength. You can have a very powerful red laser and a not very powerful violet laser. Generally speaking, the shorter the wavelength is the harder it is to make the laser, and the harder it is to make a powerful laser.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, swansont said:

Is there something you wanted to actually discuss?

I will point out that the power of a laser (power having a meaning in physics) is largely uncoupled from the wavelength. You can have a very powerful red laser and a not very powerful violet laser. Generally speaking, the shorter the wavelength is the harder it is to make the laser, and the harder it is to make a powerful laser.

My post was supposed to be humorous and not taken too seriously, that's why I posted it in The Lounge but for some reason it's been moved to the Physics section.

##### Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Photon Guy said:

My post was supposed to be humorous and not taken too seriously, that's why I posted it in The Lounge but for some reason it's been moved to the Physics section.

Well, it discussed physics.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Well, it discussed physics.

True, but the part about Samuel Jackson playing Mace Windu and using a purple bladed lightsaber was obviously not meant to be taken seriously, unless lightsabers are real, (and sadly they aren't.)

##### Share on other sites

You underestimate how seriously people take Star Wars.

Trying to apply any physics to Star Wars is not going to go well, it's all space magic. You'd get more mileage out of something like The Expanse, but being more realistic that doesn't have llight sabres either.

##### Share on other sites

It doesn’t matter. Your question’s been answered. You can decide which folder to host the discussion in when you manage and moderate your own site, but at SFN that too has already been answered.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

Trying to apply any physics to Star Wars is not going to go well, it's all space magic.

That doesn't stop people from trying. Applies to Star Trek, too.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Prometheus said:

You underestimate how seriously people take Star Wars.

Trying to apply any physics to Star Wars is not going to go well, it's all space magic. You'd get more mileage out of something like The Expanse, but being more realistic that doesn't have llight sabres either.

As a Star Wars fan myself I will say that yes people do take Star Wars very seriously but we all know its pretend. As for applying physics to Star Wars I know its not going to go well what with Star Wars being pretend and all, so that's why I posted in The Lounge.

##### Share on other sites

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Applies to Star Trek, too.

Oh no, you didn't ...

Unlike Star Wars, and the 'force', at least Star Trek gives a nod to accepted Physics, and mentions such things as 'inertial dampeners' and 'Heisenberg compensators' to deal with problems like accelerations and transporters. They just don't explain how these things work.

But if they did it wouldn't be fiction.

##### Share on other sites

Except where they didn't. Like the beings on Star Trek who could move so fast you could not see them, but somehow avoided making sonic shock waves, or the creatures who could eat several cubic meters of solid rock and turn it into a small puff of smoke.

I admit to looking forward to the next season of the Expanse, hoping it won't be so "soapy" though. I feel like an "Elysium" or "Blade Runner" space presence is more likely, but I wouldn't mind being a beltalowda.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Oh no, you didn't ...

Unlike Star Wars, and the 'force', at least Star Trek gives a nod to accepted Physics, and mentions such things as 'inertial dampeners' and 'Heisenberg compensators' to deal with problems like accelerations and transporters. They just don't explain how these things work.

But if they did it wouldn't be fiction.

Dude, both are fantasy.

##### Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MigL said:

Oh no, you didn't ...

Unlike Star Wars, and the 'force', at least Star Trek gives a nod to accepted Physics, and mentions such things as 'inertial dampeners' and 'Heisenberg compensators' to deal with problems like accelerations and transporters. They just don't explain how these things work.

But if they did it wouldn't be fiction.

A high-school friend was the science consultant for ST:TNG. I have some inside insight.

Yes, they gave a nod to accepted science. But they also ignored it if they had a storyline they liked.

Not explaining how they worked is because they couldn’t. Star Wars doesn’t explain how lightsabers work, which is the same non-explanation of the unphysical.

## Create an account

Register a new account