Well... supposing anti-photons were to exist, I don't know they would even cause an explosion. I always thought anti-particles and particles ahnihlated eachother releasing photons and energy. a photon and an anti-photon would more than likely follow the same pattern of ahnihlation, releasing particles we can't measure yet, and don't really know about, and again more energy. The question is when positrons jump energy levels, and release energy just the same way eectrons to. If that positron were to release an energy in the form of visible light would it be an anti-photon? Also, there are electromagnetic waves and forces like gravity that can attract light, so one would think there is a similar way to repel light, if you could focus that wave into a beam there should be a cylindar of what would appear to be heightened brightness along the beam, however the center of the beam would certainly appear black, as should a black dot appear on whatever object the beam is pointing at.
LPF Donation via Stripe | LPF Donation - Other Methods
Links below open in new window
ArcticMyst Security by Avery
Black lasers!
- Thread starter Freyth
- Start date
i just discovered this thread..
but
dude
i always thought of a kind of device that "created" or "projected" shadows onto a surface...it'd be awesome
although i cant find any use for it....other than minimizing the size of those big umbrellas u use on the beach (sorry idk the name of those
)
u could bother ur sister when she's trying to sunbathe lol.."shine the shadow" onto her face and voila..
but
dude
i always thought of a kind of device that "created" or "projected" shadows onto a surface...it'd be awesome
although i cant find any use for it....other than minimizing the size of those big umbrellas u use on the beach (sorry idk the name of those
)u could bother ur sister when she's trying to sunbathe lol.."shine the shadow" onto her face and voila..
Interesting... A black hole projector would be neat. Very different to the idea of a dark laser though.
A black laser is actually easy to do. You simply emit a beam of light that is the same frequency and anti-phase to the beam you want to nullify. Sadly, due to photons tending to ignore things that try to interfere with them, you could only do this by having it combine at the target, or by having it run exactly back along the beam you want to kill.
You won't find it working outside a lab, though - a standard non-laser light source changes phase randomly every few nanoseconds (no coherence) and if your phase is out, it either does nothing, or, most likely, makes it brighter!
A black laser is actually easy to do. You simply emit a beam of light that is the same frequency and anti-phase to the beam you want to nullify. Sadly, due to photons tending to ignore things that try to interfere with them, you could only do this by having it combine at the target, or by having it run exactly back along the beam you want to kill.
You won't find it working outside a lab, though - a standard non-laser light source changes phase randomly every few nanoseconds (no coherence) and if your phase is out, it either does nothing, or, most likely, makes it brighter!
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2007
- Messages
- 1,880
- Points
- 0
This is interesting reading, I understand a lot more advanced theoretical physics than most of 15 yr olds
Truth be told, there's an awful lot we don't know about this universe. If we have matter and photons... well, antimatter theoretically exists (has been produced for small amount of time? i dunno) so why not antiphotons? Now finding a way to generate them efficiently may be the hard part.
Truth be told, there's an awful lot we don't know about this universe. If we have matter and photons... well, antimatter theoretically exists (has been produced for small amount of time? i dunno) so why not antiphotons? Now finding a way to generate them efficiently may be the hard part.
Ahahaha! If you mention anything that resembles "efficiency" anywhere too close to a nuclear research center, nobody will take you serious!
We're talking about big problems creating them at all, not to mention in some sizeable amounts so one can even start to do experiments.
Using huge amounts of power to power (and cool!) a big bunch of huge cryomagnets to create twenty particles per second is kinda, well inefficient.
Besides that, your opinion describes just what I think. If you would have told anybody before Einstein's theory that time can be different, or lengs change with speed, as well as colours, he'd send you straight back to detox.
Bu today it has even become part of (almost) everyday life.
So to say "there is some weird stuff out there that might solve all our energy problems" is not necessarily wrong, and there probably (well, rather as a matter of fact) is still a lot to discover "out there", wherever that may be.
Still I don't believe in Antiphotons - for me that is like saying there is a negative zero, different from the positive one. But maybe one day I'll be proven wrong?
We're talking about big problems creating them at all, not to mention in some sizeable amounts so one can even start to do experiments.
Using huge amounts of power to power (and cool!) a big bunch of huge cryomagnets to create twenty particles per second is kinda, well inefficient.
Besides that, your opinion describes just what I think. If you would have told anybody before Einstein's theory that time can be different, or lengs change with speed, as well as colours, he'd send you straight back to detox.
Bu today it has even become part of (almost) everyday life.
So to say "there is some weird stuff out there that might solve all our energy problems" is not necessarily wrong, and there probably (well, rather as a matter of fact) is still a lot to discover "out there", wherever that may be.
Still I don't believe in Antiphotons
- for me that is like saying there is a negative zero, different from the positive one. But maybe one day I'll be proven wrong?
Switch
0
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2007
- Messages
- 3,327
- Points
- 0
360freak said:
It would cool things down depending on how much of the heat the object is getting from light shining on it. :-/ It would cool something taken of the stove....
It's not possible to have a different thing called an "anti-photon" than the regular photons you already get.
Take two photons that are apparently identical. Now reflect number 2 off a mirror to phase-change it by 180 degrees. You now have the anti-photon of the number 1 photon. Simply get them to collide in the correct way (so that they interact) and bingo, neither particle/wave packet ever existed.
You don't need to invent some other particle!
As for a cold laser in the way some people here are referring to it, well, it's not going to happen. No chance of it, as it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. The nearest you could get would be to have a supercooled "perfect absorber" thermos that simply absorbed all the incident photons. It would feel the same, and seem like a beam.
Take two photons that are apparently identical. Now reflect number 2 off a mirror to phase-change it by 180 degrees. You now have the anti-photon of the number 1 photon. Simply get them to collide in the correct way (so that they interact) and bingo, neither particle/wave packet ever existed.
You don't need to invent some other particle!
As for a cold laser in the way some people here are referring to it, well, it's not going to happen. No chance of it, as it is forbidden by the second law of thermodynamics. The nearest you could get would be to have a supercooled "perfect absorber" thermos that simply absorbed all the incident photons. It would feel the same, and seem like a beam.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2008
- Messages
- 1
- Points
- 0
Sorry BlueFusion, but you don't seem to know anything about antimatter. While it is true that electrons have a negative charge and protons have a positive one, they are not opposites as they have very differnt masses (electrons have about 1/1836 of a protons mass). An anti-electron would be a positron, having the same mass as an electron, but with a positive charge. There are also antiprotons and antinueutrons (antineutrons still have no charge, but are made up of antiquarks as opposed to quarks) but no antiphotons, as photons are massless bosuns.
In any case, building anything out of antimatter and keeping it stable in a universe made of normal matter is impossible, as far as i can tell, as antimatter and matter obliterate each other on contact, dispersing basically all their energy in high level radiation, like gamma. It wouldn't destoy the universe, just annihilate an equal amout of matter, and irradiate (and probably burn to a crisp) anything near by. Also, the only antimatter we've been able to detect come in the form of cosmic rays, and the antiparticles we make artificially in particle excelerators, neither of which lasts long.
For future reference, antimatter is organized the same way as normal matter... antineutrons and antiprotons in the nucleus of the atom, with the positrons (antielectrons) in the cloud, or shells around it. Only the charges (and therefore the spin of the quarks making up the particles) is different. It's all a bit more complex than you think it is.
It IS interesting, though.
In any case, building anything out of antimatter and keeping it stable in a universe made of normal matter is impossible, as far as i can tell, as antimatter and matter obliterate each other on contact, dispersing basically all their energy in high level radiation, like gamma. It wouldn't destoy the universe, just annihilate an equal amout of matter, and irradiate (and probably burn to a crisp) anything near by. Also, the only antimatter we've been able to detect come in the form of cosmic rays, and the antiparticles we make artificially in particle excelerators, neither of which lasts long.
For future reference, antimatter is organized the same way as normal matter... antineutrons and antiprotons in the nucleus of the atom, with the positrons (antielectrons) in the cloud, or shells around it. Only the charges (and therefore the spin of the quarks making up the particles) is different. It's all a bit more complex than you think it is.
It IS interesting, though.
