Since 7, I always have a weird idea in mind As light can be in any colors, then why not black Later at 15, I understand that black = absence of (visible) light (photons) but would it be cool if we have a lamp that shines darkness? I once have discussed this idea with my physics teacher before. Original idea: Something that acts like light (I'll call them Dark photons), that is the opposite of light, when the two collide, they aniliate each other, rendering the result area dark, so it'll look like a lamp that project darkness but my physics teacher said this does not work as 1. The antiparticle of photon is itself 2. It violates the conservation of energy Instead he modified my idea a bit and propose a new proposal New idea: Instead of acting like EM waves, why not have a stream of particles (or even quasiparticles) that radiated from a source in all directions which converts all visible photons that collided with them into IR (simply like a frequency modifier), as IR is invisible to humans, it can produce the same dimming effect. He also think the dark emitters, if possible can have a wide variety of applications At that moment i thought it'll be a good idea, but after some careful thoughts, i think it (the new idea) will pose radiation hazard to organisms (e.g. overheating, Sunburns etc.) (including humans) Guys what do you think of it and is it possible to produce a dark emitter that is safe, using known laws of physics? P.S. I'm not sure whether the above idea/fabrication is considered as a crank or not
What if I just want a certain region to be dark Turning off the lights does not make that area very dark (as the are light sources nearby) What I was looking for is something that can make a particular region very dark without any sort of cover or cloak in that region and with the presence of other light sources In other words, a "focused beam of darkness" @pincho black hole has gravity problems, thus it is unsafe, and only the event horizon look black, but not the area around it
Do you stay in the room or leave as you turn the light off? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
. . . weren't there some posts from a guy a couple of months ago regarding "dark photons"? . . . . and wasn't he denigrated and insulted by members for his oulandish speculations?
A black surface will absorb photons and not allow them to reflect. What we see is the reflected light or in this case the absence of reflected light. A white surface reflects all photons while a green surface will only reflect green but absorb all others. A dark emitter would not output dark photons, but would need to output matter which can absorb or block light. If ever looked at a thunderstorm cloud it gets very black; The black tornado cloud is less about emitting black light as it is emitting matter than can absorb or block all visible light frequencies. We can made a black emitter, using smoky fire in a room. Even with light on, ti will get very dark due to blocking, scattering and absorbance. Engineers see solutions not problems.
That guy's (forgot name) post once caught my attention because the term "dark photon" he used is part of my scifi settings However after reading that, I realise it is not the "light that is black" that I'm looking for. However as my understanding of cosmology is quite limited, I cannot contribute to that thread as I cannot determine whether it is crank or valid This is similar to what my physics teacher originally suggest (Check the OP). Upon closer analysis, I find this mechanism problematic because 1. From my knowledge, particles, unlike light, will scatter, spread etc., thus making it less controllable Question: Is there any substance in known physics that behaves similar to light, that it travels in straight lines (In case someone talk about relativity, light travels in a curved path because space is bent) with minimal scattering 2. Particles, since they are matter, will pile up around the emitters (In the case of smoke, you get your room filled with soot) but light does not Question: Is there anything that can imitate the requirements of a "light that is black" but does not affect us or other objects nearby?
The opposite to light probably isn't black, and I think that this is where you are going wrong. I think that a neutrino is close to the opposite of light, and it is invisible.
No you have mistaken This thread is looking for a way to make something that "shines darkness" using known laws of physics (I know the absence of photons = dark/black or that all colors absorbed=object is black, but I think it will be interesting if there is "a beam of shadow" to play with) This thread is never aimed at looking fro the opposite of light (which can be dark or invisible as what you siad)
Dark Suckers Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light. The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark sucker. lA new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again. Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of dark can be utilized to mans advantage. We can collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its way. Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet. In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb remember that it is indeed a dark sucker. Author Unknown
Assume this theory is correct Observation: if you take a bucket and scoop up some dark from the depth of the ocean and leave the bucket for some time (it will as it has mass and as the theory mentioned it will be slowed down by friction or similar), you should able to see pitch black in the bucket (since based on this theory dark sinks to the bottom, and the dark should be concentrated enough in the bucket to be "outshine" by the light. The fact that we cannot see pitch black in this seawater proves that dark does not exist as a fundamental entity thus this theory must be incorrect P.S. I also see this theory in physicsforums just before I made that fatal mistake and got permabanned. It is featured as one of the science jokes there So nice try
