Curse

Martyr of Divinity · Aug 17, 2005, 06:11 PM // 18:11

My question is as follows:

Omega Complex · Aug 17, 2005, 06:28 PM // 18:28

Is your emmission source omni-directional or mono-directional?

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 06:28 PM // 18:28

I was a physicist in a previous life - the simple answer is "No."
Let me explain:
Light will disperse - always - that's an immutable fact. If light behaved completely like particles of photons it might work. But light behaves as a "wave-particle duality" and you'll find yourself running smack into the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Even a laser will disperse over distance as a consequence of that law. So your beam won't perpetuate.

But good to know people out there are thinking - keep it up!

Omega Complex · Aug 17, 2005, 06:34 PM // 18:34

But, this is theoretical, you can apply the Heisenberg all you want, but light, in a vacuum, reflected of theoretically "perfect" mirrors. Its true that its a wave/particle, some people will argue with you about that but thats beside the point. Ahhh

Revelation *lightbulb over head*

It will disperse, so you would never be able to remove the source. Since light is a wave partical duality, you can use the wave end of it to explain. With any frequency of light or EM radiation, you have frequency degredation. This happens with radio signals, IR device signals, ect... Therefor if you use that principle, you will never be able to have "infinite" light with no source.

If you use the particle end, then theoretically it might be possible but thats streching it. Even the particles streamed through an accellerator degrade over time, hence why they cant just keep speeding them up.

I need to find some of my cyclical algebra questions, those can get fun....

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 06:38 PM // 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega Complex

But, this is theoretical, you can apply the Heisenberg all you want, but light, in a vacuum, reflected of theoretically "perfect" mirrors. Its true that its a wave/particle, some people will argue with you about that but thats beside the point. Ahhh

Revelation *lightbulb over head*

It will disperse, so you would never be able to remove the source. Since light is a wave partical duality, you can use the wave end of it to explain. With any frequency of light or EM radiation, you have frequency degredation. This happens with radio signals, IR device signals, ect... Therefor if you use that principle, you will never be able to have "infinite" light with no source.

I believe I just said that.
And I believe you mean "amplitude degredation" rather than "frequency degredation" which is entirely different.

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 06:40 PM // 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega Complex

If you use the particle end, then theoretically it might be possible but thats streching it. Even the particles streamed through an accellerator degrade over time, hence why they cant just keep speeding them up.
..

I don't understand what particle decay has to do with his idea. It doesn't.

Omega Complex · Aug 17, 2005, 06:48 PM // 18:48

Hey, I wasn't a physicist in my other life, so quit with the bashing on me. I took a wild guess.

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 06:49 PM // 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Omega Complex

Hey, quit with the bashing on me. I took a wild guess.

OK OK *puts club away*

I just get a little sensitive when someone's dancing on my turf...

You can do the same to me if I ever venture to have an opinion on networks or object-oriented database design.

peace.

Omega Complex · Aug 17, 2005, 06:53 PM // 18:53

Woot! Pulls out club........*waits patiently*

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 06:56 PM // 18:56

*frantically reviews dog-eared copy of "Database Design for Dummies"*

midnyte13 · Aug 17, 2005, 07:29 PM // 19:29

the traveling light would bounce, refract and collide with each other in nano seconds, the theory is void.

Martyr of Divinity · Aug 17, 2005, 07:43 PM // 19:43

Ok, so what refracts it, the collision of the original source beam with itself within the inverse of the square? Even if the beam does cross its own path inversely, does that somehow distort/manipulate/insert adjective the beam?

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 07:47 PM // 19:47

Crossing beams isn't a problem. diffraction comes only from the propagation of light across any distance.

Esprit · Aug 17, 2005, 07:57 PM // 19:57

The light particles/photons will hit each other and scatter, in random directions, that is why you need a coned mirror to give light some kind of direction in a flash light or a lamp, etc...

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 08:04 PM // 20:04

even a parabolic mirror (which is what I think you're describing) will give a beam that diffracts (or spreads) - it doesn't matter how perfect it is. That's an effect of Heisenberg.
A normal light "beam" isn't so "dense" with photons that they'd collide into each other to make much of a difference.

elenna · Aug 17, 2005, 09:04 PM // 21:04

Yes, the intensity of the light will diminish. It will disperse and not all the light will hit the mirrors to be reflected back.

Squizzard45 · Aug 17, 2005, 09:14 PM // 21:14

Everyone should listen to Xue Yi Liang; he's hit the nail on the head.

Let's say that you could do all this theoretically in a vacuum (thus rendering it not a vacuum by definition, but thats just being technical) light will always diffract to some extent. Light behaves, to some certain degree, as a wave-particle duality. This is, I believe, postulized by Einstein, and later verified and put into law by Maxwell (I could be wrong about some of this).

Anyway, the theories go like this:
Light was originally believed to behave like waves, kinda similar to how sound waves acted, but Einstein proved this wrong in his explanation of the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect demonstrates that "photons" exist as a quanta energy that behave like particles. All of this is correlated by Maxwell's equations

That being said, to answer your question: No, it's not possible to remove the light source and have a constant stream of light. The light will remain a beam for quite a ways, but the continual diffraction (due to wavelike properties) will result in the light losing its intensity. The particlelike aspect of light is what allows the beam to continue in a straight line, sorta.

I hope this wasnt too confusing and answered your question, or at least supported Xue's; I'm just a lowly engineering student who barely gets this stuff anyways.

And Xue, man, I wish you coulda helped me out on some of my physics exams; and judging from your location, that wouldnt have been too hard as I go to UC Davis (I think you should know where this is?).

Martyr of Divinity · Aug 17, 2005, 09:15 PM // 21:15

Thanks all for your insight, back to the drawing board (kinda).

Xue Yi Liang · Aug 17, 2005, 09:20 PM // 21:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squizzard45

And Xue, man, I wish you coulda helped me out on some of my physics exams; and judging from your location, that wouldnt have been too hard as I go to UC Davis (I think you should know where this is?).

LOL- You're talking to a UC Berkeley grad. Also did research at Lawrence Berkeley Labs - I would have been happy to help. But the physics students have nothing on you engineers - guess which one gets employment after graduation.

Squizzard45 · Aug 17, 2005, 09:27 PM // 21:27

Oh man, that labs got some cool stuff. My physics class took a field trip their last quarter. But yeah, I guess being an engineer won't be too bad-still, that modern physics class was rough