Bending light by use of a strong field...

[ZMacZ]

Like the title says, bending light by means of a strong field..

And before you say "it's electromagnetic field by itself and therefore can't be changed by such.."
A strong gravitc field (also an electromagnetic field) can in fact change photons to never escape it
(in effect bending the light back a complete 180 degrees), as we can see in a neutron star (or black hole)..
The photons never leave again..and also, photons that enter it's gravity field close enough
will also never leave again (if and when they get close enough), while not actually having the neutron star
as an origin..

Now, my practical purpose of this exercise is this:

Bending a really fine laserbeam at a range of 100-1000 metres, to such a degree that the deviation
over that distance will result in a total of 1 nanometer difference..

I think we can skip the part where someone says "not possible" for in nature itself it's proven
that it can be done..

The only difficulty may then be finding a field source / light type combo that can be used
to achieve that deviation at the given distance..
Though 1 nanometer is a nice goal, less would be better still,
since using a laser as a propulsion for single silicon particles, could create even finer grained
microprocessor architectures..(not just atomized silicon but other substances as well)

So, anyone have an electromagnetic supercooled setup to test this theory ?

Thanx..

Note: I set the prefix to high school, since sometimes the best ideas come from a fresh mind,
not one that's stuck in knowledge already set to be fixed, when clearly the end of knowledge is
nowhere in sight..

 

[berkeman]

A strong gravitc field (also an electromagnetic field) can in fact change photons to never escape it

Black Hole -- correct. Can you please supply a reference link about some EM field doing something similar?

Note: I set the prefix to high school,

No, you set it to "I" meaning Intermediate, or undergraduate university level. I reset it to "B" for you, for high school level responses.

 

[Dale]

I don’t think that there is a B level answer. This involves pp wave spacetimes.

 

[ZMacZ]

Black Hole -- correct. Can you please supply a reference link about some EM field doing something similar?

No, you set it to "I" meaning Intermediate, or undergraduate university level. I reset it to "B" for you, for high school level responses.

Thanx for that correction..

And nope, I have no idea as of yet..
I'd guess very high frequency light, beyond the visible spectrum, or maybe even very far below the visible spectrum..
Since both types of light would behave differently in terms of being manipulatable..
(higher energy adds something, assumed to be mass (of sorts)..)
(lower energy means less mass also, decreasing the inertia factor, and may thus lead to easier manipulatability..)
(It would be easier to do testing on this in either end of the respective spectra...hi-lo, lo-hi, hi-hi and lo-lo,
followed by linear increase and decrease test in each of the ranges..)
(this in turn would yield either any results, or none whatsoever..)

 

[berkeman]

Please see Dale's response above. You can trust Dale to steer you in the right direction on this...

 

[ZMacZ]

Thanx for that correction..

And nope, I have no idea as of yet..
I'd guess very high frequency light, beyond the visible spectrum, or maybe even very far below the visible spectrum..
Since both types of light would behave differently in terms of being manipulatable..
(higher energy adds something, assumed to be mass (of sorts)..)
(lower energy means less mass also, decreasing the inertia factor, and may thus lead to easier manipulatability..)
(It would be easier to do testing on this in either end of the respective spectra...hi-lo, lo-hi, hi-hi and lo-lo,
followed by linear increase and decrease test in each of the ranges..)
(this in turn would yield either any results, or none whatsoever..)

In case of such a test, I'd use an analogue optical eye, and test for minor differences in the resistances of the optical eye's
pixels, at a range of 100 metres from the emitter, in complete darkness..
For optimal testing increasing and decreasing of freqencies, be means of a repeated pattern, digitally monitored..
(umm..sorry for being a little vague in my wording for the vocabulary needed is not my own..)
To avoid any outside lightsource interferences, not out in the open..
Also, to avoid seismic interference, not in earthquake prone regions..
And even though seismic interference may always be a problem in that regard, the repeating nature of the test,
should filter out results where the resistance differences created by those events, being non-synchronized
with the testing event itself, can be negated and an actual result from the field(s) applied can be verified..
.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for Moderation...