swansont Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 That's just a description of what a laser IS... not what it DOES... and isn't very helpful unless you already understand what the words 'coherent'' date=' 'stimulated' and 'emission' mean in that context. For someone whose sig. claims to rail against one theocracy, you seem to be content to keep science at the level of a religion where only a chosen few understand the 'secret words'... with yourself, of course, being one of the chosen few. [/quote'] Yeah, because you can't possibly go out and educate yourself on these topics, because it's such a big secret. [rant]To me, complaints like this ring hollow. One can claim to want knowledge, but if you aren't willing to go out and learn some basics, and then all you do is complain about how the advanced knowledge isn't accessible to you, and complain about how someone won't spoon-feed you information because you aren't willing to get off your ass and do any work yourself, it's hypocrisy. Your desire to learn is not sincere.[/rant] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmileyUK Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 A significant number of lasers are not even monochromatic, I apologise, then... I was under the impression you had labled a laser as emitting "coherent" light which, as I understood it, means... "maintains a near-constant phase relationship" ... and it looked like you were contradicting yourself. Swansont... re-read the entire thread, then re-read your own post... then come back with an intelligent thought. x__heavenly__x... given the conditions, nothing happens to the light in the sphere. It'll just keep bouncing around inside the sphere until something changes the conditions... that could be as simple as 'opening' it... in which case almost all the 'stored' light will leave the sphere in less time than it would take for your brain to register the popping noise of you breaking the vacuum seal. If you want to know 'how much' light you can 'fit' into the sphere, then you'll have to... ... work out how big a photon is (something I neither know or wish to know)... ... work out how closely you can 'pack photons together' before they affect each other... ... find a way to 'force feed light' into a fixed volume faster than than it can escape... ... credit me on a few of the huge number of papers you, and your descendants, could write on this subject over the course of the next few hundred years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x__heavenly__x Posted May 10, 2004 Author Share Posted May 10, 2004 lolzzz....superb...i like the Q u raised and i want them ans by anuone IF possoble Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 I dont see the reason for building a shere to hold in light. Nor would it be a good idea for a patent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainMan Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 Well, solar power is used and converted into electricity to power (among other things) light bulbs. Trapping large amounts of light in a sphere would cut out the middle man, so to speak. If it was actually feasible, anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 10, 2004 Share Posted May 10, 2004 That depends on how much light you can put in a sphere.And how big do we want to make the sphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x__heavenly__x Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 So to know that we gotta expariment rite?....like to know the behavior of light or anything like this... I think we can put as much light we want but the sphere will start to heat up in an exponential rate and we can see what happenes when high energy laser is used insted of plain light Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical Edward Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 I apologise' date=' then... I was under the impression you had labled a laser as emitting "coherent" light which, as I understood it, means... "maintains a near-constant phase relationship" ... and it looked like you were contradicting yourself. [/quote'] no problem then x__heavenly__x... given the conditions, nothing happens to the light in the sphere. It'll just keep bouncing around inside the sphere until something changes the conditions... that could be as simple as 'opening' it... in which case almost all the 'stored' light will leave the sphere in less time than it would take for your brain to register the popping noise of you breaking the vacuum seal. as I pointed out, the light would just get absorbed by the material making up the sphere and the spehere would warm up slightly. ... work out how big a photon is (something I neither know or wish to know)... you should want to know the important length of a photon is its wavelength. If a photon has a wavelength of 20cm, it isn't going to fit into a 5cm sphere. ... work out how closely you can 'pack photons together' before they affect each other... photons do not interact with one another, so this isn't so much of a problem. The only force carrier that does interact with itself is the gluon. The biggest problem is interactions with the walls of the container, and the material inside the container (assuming there is any) which will begin to react in a nonlinear manner. ... find a way to 'force feed light' into a fixed volume faster than than it can escape... it's called a laser ... credit me on a few of the huge number of papers you, and your descendants, could write on this subject over the course of the next few hundred years sadly it looks like it has all been done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmileyUK Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Ahh... but 'given the conditions' means including the non-existant 'perfect reflective surface'... which I think everyone agrees doesn't/can't exist. This is just a way around losing any stored photons that interact with the surface material used in the sphere... iirc it's called Compton Scattering, but I could be wrong. The sphere was originally 5 inches, or about 12 1/2 cm (1.25x10^-2 m)in diameter... and as the initial inquiry was about storing light, then the photons would be from the visible spectrum with wavelengths between 380 and 760 nm (3.8 to 7.6x10^-7 m)... easily large enough. My saying the photons will bounce around forever isn't based on any experiment I could cite... but M31 "The Andromeda Galaxy" is the most distant visible object in the night sky, and that's over 2 million light years away... so photons from that source have been around longer that humans, so I figure any proof to contradict me won't happen until WAY after I'm too dead to care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x__heavenly__x Posted May 11, 2004 Author Share Posted May 11, 2004 se...reflected light may not get absorbed so fast by the surface...there may be some delay and in that delay the amount of photons stored in sphere may be increased...OR the whole sphere can be droped. Using a "closed-from-both-ends" optic cable with light alredy inside(we can find a way to do that) may do something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 Ahh... but 'given the conditions' means including the non-existant 'perfect reflective surface'... which I think everyone agrees doesn't/can't exist. This is just a way around losing any stored photons that interact with the surface material used in the sphere... iirc it's called Compton Scattering' date=' but I could be wrong.[/quote'] Compton scattering happens with free electrons (must happen - free electrons can't absorb photons), or with bound electrons where the photon energy is much higher than the ionization energy (so the electron "looks" free to the photon) Visible light is much too low in energy - red light won't even ionize atoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 11, 2004 Share Posted May 11, 2004 at best you`ll be constructing a fast leakage photon capacitor on a macro scale, there are FAR MORE efficient ways to do this, and NON of them require lasers OR internaly mirrored spheres with a semi-permeable apature. it`s basicly a waste of time [edit] is "Mirrored" a word? LOL ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainMan Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 A waste of time!?!? Pfffffffft... I could collect light that reflected off famous people and sell it in spheres as a novelty item! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 [edit] is "Mirrored" a word? LOL ) Mirrored is a word. The definition is : To reflect in or as if in a mirror Anyway I dont think anyone needs anything like a light resevoir right now. Maybe in the future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 A waste of time!?!? Pfffffffft... I could collect light that reflected off famous people and sell it in spheres as a novelty item! LOL cool idea, we could even market a flat version!, pehaps call it something like "Photon Graph" or something similar? ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 12, 2004 Share Posted May 12, 2004 A waste of time!?!? Pfffffffft... I could collect light that reflected off famous people and sell it in spheres as a novelty item! Or you could store that info in an emulsion or charge-coupled device, and print the likeness out on a sheet of paper. Nah, it'd never sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x__heavenly__x Posted May 12, 2004 Author Share Posted May 12, 2004 You read my mind Brainman!!!! I was just thinking of that....lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x__heavenly__x Posted May 14, 2004 Author Share Posted May 14, 2004 what will happen to gamma radiation if it is locked in a lead sphere??? will it turn into something or decay further or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 it will decay, as the lead will absorb the stray rays and nothing will become of it. many isotopes are stored in lead recepticles for this reason in a nutshell, nothing at all will happen to the isotope that wouldn`t happen in fresh air Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 it will decay' date=' as the lead will absorb the stray rays and nothing will become of it.many isotopes are stored in lead recepticles for this reason in a nutshell, nothing at all will happen to the isotope that wouldn`t happen in fresh air [/quote'] Not quite true. The rays will be absorbed by the lead, but this means that the lead nuclei will become excited, releasing radiation of its own (and hence making it warm). It's why we bury these containers a few miles underground under vast quantities of concrete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YT2095 Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 I was thinking Lab stored isotopes in the lead pots yes heat is a factor on a huge scale, I didn`t consider that, good point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Not quite true. The rays will be absorbed by the lead, but this means that the lead nuclei will become excited, releasing radiation of its own (and hence making it warm). It's why we bury these containers a few miles underground under vast quantities of concrete. Chances are the gammas would ionize electrons rather than excite the nuclei, though the nucleus will recoil slightly when the atom is ionized. The electrons then cause secondary ionizations and emit Bremsstrahlung as they scatter, all the while any given electron has less and less energy. But you're right in that it all eventually shows up as an increase in temperature. Plus, lead attenuates according to an exponential; you wouldn't shield all of the original radiation. Some would escape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted May 14, 2004 Share Posted May 14, 2004 Hey, I only did A-level physics, can't get it all right I was thinking some of that as I posted it, but couldn't really be bothered changing it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now