| Author |
Message
|
| Ghrasp |
 Posted: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:59 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
I,m not planning to take a sailing trip Just wondered if this effect would occur between two stars.
What happens in this respect if two lasers are pointed at each other. You sure won,t see a lightspot on both lasers of the opposite laser. So where does the energy go if there is (almost) nothing absorbent or reflective in between. Some interference ?
But why would there be more interference then compared with a reflected beam with same wavelength and frecquency ?
| Quote: |
| The only effect would be a tiny correction to the gravitational force |
Newtons formula is only about an attractive force.
On theoretical level 10 + (-3) is different then 7. Only the result can be the same.
Besides putting it away in the gravitational constant the force would be con rsidered as elated to the mass of the sun and the earth while it was assumed to be related to the energy of the sun and the reflective surface. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
I,m not planning to take a sailing trip Just wondered if this effect would occur between two stars.
What happens in this respect if two lasers are pointed at each other. You sure won,t see a lightspot on both lasers of the opposite laser. So where does the energy go if there is (almost) nothing absorbent or reflective in between. Some interference ?
But why would there be more interference then compared with a reflected beam with same wavelength and frecquency ?
| Quote: |
| The only effect would be a tiny correction to the gravitational force |
Newtons formula is only about an attractive force.
On theoretical level 10 + (-3) is different then 7. Only the result can be the same.
Besides putting it away in the gravitational constant the force would be con rsidered as elated to the mass of the sun and the earth while it was assumed to be related to the energy of the sun and the reflective surface. |
You would indeed see a light spot on each laser from the opposite laser. (You would not actually see it since lasers are pretty bright, but the photons from each laser would hit the other one.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghrasp |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 2:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
| Quote: |
| You would indeed see a light spot on each laser from the opposite laser. (You would not actually see it since lasers are pretty bright, |
So you would not see a lightspot then.
And how is this in the case of shing a laser in the mirror then. You would see a lightspot on the laser of it,s own light reflected from the mirror ?
If not why the difference ?
Also if you would see the lightspot on the laser. Do you assume one laser reflectant to the other or absorbent ? If it would be absorbent the light would disappear I assume, it would get dark if both lasers are indentical. So there must be a reflectancy then.
In that case it would also account for stars. and as the energy is supposed to be the same from the start of the universe and distances much shorter the effect becomes significant there.
With decrease of distance the energy is much more concentrated. Different then by a laser but with same result.
With two stars the relation of energy density would also be to the fourth of the distance I suppose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 1:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
| Quote: |
| You would indeed see a light spot on each laser from the opposite laser. (You would not actually see it since lasers are pretty bright, |
So you would not see a lightspot then.
And how is this in the case of shing a laser in the mirror then. You would see a lightspot on the laser of it,s own light reflected from the mirror ?
If not why the difference ?
Also if you would see the lightspot on the laser. Do you assume one laser reflectant to the other or absorbent ? If it would be absorbent the light would disappear I assume, it would get dark if both lasers are indentical. So there must be a reflectancy then.
In that case it would also account for stars. and as the energy is supposed to be the same from the start of the universe and distances much shorter the effect becomes significant there.
With decrease of distance the energy is much more concentrated. Different then by a laser but with same result.
With two stars the relation of energy density would also be to the fourth of the distance I suppose. |
PLEASE go take a physics course somewhere. Anywhere.
"That's not right. It's not even wrong." -- Wolfgang Pauli |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghrasp |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
Well well,
| Quote: |
| You would indeed see a light spot on each laser from the opposite laser. (You would not actually see it since lasers are pretty bright, |
You come up with a lightspot one would indeed see but actually would not see.
And then you come up with this pompous reply ?
Last edited by Ghrasp on Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:24 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
Well well,
| Quote: |
| You would indeed see a light spot on each laser from the opposite laser. (You would not actually see it since lasers are pretty bright, |
You come up with a lightspot I would indeed see but actually would not see.
And now you,re insulted or something ?
Or are you part of some religious "seeing the light sekt" making people read the good books to enlight themselves. |
OK, if you are really that stupid, go ahead and stare directly into a laser. You won't see the spot for long. You won't see much of anything for long.
WARNING: For the more intelligent readers -- don't look directly into a laser. It may permanently damage your eyes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghrasp |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
This baffles me, I was referring to two lasers all the time, in you,re quote it is also about two lasers so why would I look into a laserlight (in which case I wouldn,t even see a lightspot but more of a dark spot.)
You can direkt two lasers to each other just like towards anything. My question remains what would they do push each other away or maybe sideways due to an opposit momentum ?
(because the direction is opposed the momentum would oppose also) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
This baffles me, I was referring to two lasers all the time, in you,re quote it is also about two lasers so why would I look into a laserlight (in which case I wouldn,t even see a lightspot but more of a dark spot.)
You can direkt two lasers to each other just like towards anything. My question remains what would they do push each other away or maybe sideways due to an opposit momentum ?
(because the direction is opposed the momentum would oppose also) |
Of course they would. Light carries momentum. Light impinging on a rock tends to push it away. It doesn't matter if the light impinges on a rock or another laser. Momentum is still conserved.
It also doesn't matter if there are two lasers. Each laser emits light and that light impinges on another body, momentum will be transferred. A laser is just a body that emits light.
This also has nothing to do with lasing. You would get the same effect with two flashlights.
And BTW when you look into a laser you see a VERY bright spot, as it burns your retna. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Arcane_Mathematician |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Isotope
Joined: 21 Feb 2009
Posts: 2571
Location: San Jose, California
|
| DrRocket wrote: |
| WARNING: For the more intelligent readers -- don't look directly into a laser. It may permanently damage your eyes. |
Let's be more realistic and replace that "may" with a "will"...
Ghrasp, stare directly into a laser and tell us what you see!
_________________
I post here to spur conversation, instead of just looking up what I want to know
| Plato wrote: |
| Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something. |
| Idiocracy wrote: |
| Welcome to Costco, I love you |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Arcane_Mathematician wrote: |
| DrRocket wrote: |
| WARNING: For the more intelligent readers -- don't look directly into a laser. It may permanently damage your eyes. |
Let's be more realistic and replace that "may" with a "will"...
Ghrasp, stare directly into a laser and tell us what you see! |
No, it is a may. It depends highly on the specific laser. There are some lasers that are sufficiently low in power that you don't get permanent damage. But don't count on it.
Even so-called "eye safe" lasers can be pretty painful if you get one directly in the eye. Many available lasers, particularly stand-along laser pointers, are sufficiently high in power to be a concern.
There is sufficient variability among lasers that looking directly into one, except in exceptional circumstances, is pretty stupid. There is no point to it and the downside is severe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghrasp |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
You use the term impinge I suppose to avoid you have to choose between reflective and absorbent. Impinge is not satisfactory though because I suppose they choose reflective material for such sails because the reflective properties have a part of it.
So a laser would have to reflect the light of another laser.
In that case if a laser is pointed at a spot on a screen and another laser is pointed at the first opposing direktion but with slight angle, beside the spot of the first laser there would be a second spot for the second laser. You understand that doesn,t work. So impinge would mean absorbent then ?
But if two lasers would absorb the light of the other when pointed against each other they both would emit what they absorb and absorb what the other emits while both are identical and emit the same ? There would have to be some interference of there light in between them. That would mean loss of energy but it is not lost if it acts as a force.
Last edited by Ghrasp on Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:32 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
You use the term impinge I suppose to avoid you have to choose between reflective and absorbent. Impinge is not satisfactory though because I suppose they choose reflective material for such sails because the reflective properties have a part of it.
So a laser would have to reflect the light of another laser.
In that case if someone points a laser at a spot on a screen and another laser is pointed at the first beside the spot of the first laser there would be a second spot for the second laser. You understand that doesn,t work. So impinge would mean absorbent then ?
But if two lasers are pointed exactly to each other and each would absorb the light of the other they both would emit what they absorb and absorb what the other emits ? Makes no sense to me. |
No, I used "impinge" because I meant impinge. The difference between absorption and reflection, in this particular application, is a factor of 2 in the momentum that is gained by the object on which the beam impinges.
Whether a laser would absorb or reflect or partially reflect the incident beam from a second laser depends on the details of the construction of the laser.
PLEASE go learn some physics and stop spouting nonsense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Ghrasp |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Senior
Joined: 06 Dec 2006
Posts: 323
Location: Netherlands
|
| So you think it is possible to construkt a laser that (when active offcourse) reflects the light of another one on a screen ? When its off yes but on no way. It doesn,t work with a flashlight and it wont work with a laser either |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| MagiMaster |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Professor
Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1908
|
| What do you mean by "reflects something on a screen"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| DrRocket |
| Posted: Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Forum Radioactive Isotope
Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Posts: 3203
|
| Ghrasp wrote: |
| So you think it is possible to construkt a laser that (when active offcourse) reflects the light of another one on a screen ? When its off yes but on no way. It doesn,t work with a flashlight and it wont work with a laser either |
Flashlight reflectors will reflect the light of an incoming beam, and in the ususal design would concentrate that light on the filament of the bulb.
A solid rod laser would also reflect the light of an incoming laser, partially, as the design is normally a partiallly reflective mirror on the rod end.
As always, you have no idea what you are talking about.
The mirrors are the same whether the device is on or off. That is what determines reflection. It has nothing whatever to do with the emissions that may or may be involved in the operation of the device.
Are you faking this or is your knowledge of basic physics really that poor ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
