Trapping Light: An Infinite Source of Energy?

[Mutsi]

Knowing that light goes on in infinity. Would it theoretically be possible to trap light between two mirrors? And have an infinite source of light which would require no energy once it has been trapped.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF.

1. No. There's no such thing as a perfect mirror.
2. If the light is trapped between two mirrors, it doesn't provide a source of light - it's trapped!

 

[Disconnected]

Well, assuming it was a perfect mirror, then you could trap the light forever.

However, it would not be a source of light. If you let the light out to illuminate something, it would no longer be in the box, it would be bouncing off the illuminated object so that you could see it.

So theoretically you could "trap" the light, but not use it as a light source. You can't have your photon and see it too.

Edit to add: As Russ said, there is no such thing as a perfect mirror.

 

[russ_watters]

You can't have your photon and see it too.

Nice.

 

[Mutsi]

Absolutely logical answers which I did not think of.
I did not knew a mirror would cause a loss of energy although obvious!

Now assume that I would have a perfect cube of perfect mirrors and have an object in the center. In that case I would have an illuminated object for infinity. Right?EDIT: Wait the object in the center would cause a loss of energy or be a perfect mirror itself and then no light would be visible.

 

[Disconnected]

Absolutely logical answers which I did not think of.
I did not knew a mirror would cause a loss of energy although obvious!

Now assume that I would have a perfect cube of perfect mirrors and have an object in the center. In that case I would have an illuminated object for infinity. Right?

Only if the object was a perfect mirror and didn't absorb any of the light!

 

[Mutsi]

Only if the object was a perfect mirror and didn't absorb any of the light!

You beat me there I edited the previous comment but I was to late. In the above case of course still no light would be visible.

 

[Discord7]

Some folks say photons have mass. Would a really fine scales provide clue to remaining light without peeking? Just to prove it worked if it possibly could. (It cannot, but that is beside the point.)

 

[DaveC426913]

Some folks say photons have mass.

What folks?

 

[Mutsi]

Some folks say photons have mass

Some folks say they found the higgs boson

 

[pallidin]

Absolutely logical answers which I did not think of.
I did not knew a mirror would cause a loss of energy although obvious!

Now assume that I would have a perfect cube of perfect mirrors and have an object in the center. In that case I would have an illuminated object for infinity. Right?


EDIT: Wait the object in the center would cause a loss of energy or be a perfect mirror itself and then no light would be visible.

Mutsi, light "self propagates" but DOES NOT multiply itself while travelling.

Infinity is ONLY with respect to a photons travel through entirely unimpeded space.

This DOES NOT mean that photons are infinitely created when the source is shut-off and the photons "trapped"
ONLY a set number of photons are "trapped" between ideal mirrors and ONLY the same set number of photons are available. There is no increase in the amount of photons.

As such, infinite illumination in this case is impossible.

 

[Discord7]

What folks?

Well, to the casual observer, folks explaining gravitational redshift seem to be making that implication.

 

[pete20r2]

You know that the OP is straight of troll physics.

 

[DaveC426913]

Well, to the casual observer, folks explaining gravitational redshift seem to be making that implication.

That light has mass? No.

 

[Discord7]

That light has mass? No.

Pleading no contest.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Some folks say they found the higgs boson

Yep, it was in my closet right behind the bowling ball! Forgot I put it there.

Now assume that I would have a perfect cube of perfect mirrors and have an object in the center. In that case I would have an illuminated object for infinity. Right?

Yes, but no one could see it so it wouldn't matter if it were illuminated or not!

 

[pete20r2]

Yes, but no one could see it so it wouldn't matter if it were illuminated or not!

No, wrong, that object would absorb and re-radiate energy as a different wavelength, probably heat, and escape the mirrors, conductively.

 

[Redbelly98]

No, wrong, that object would absorb and re-radiate energy as a different wavelength, probably heat, and escape the mirrors, conductively.

If we want to argue about what could actually happen in practice, it comes back to not having perfect mirrors in the first place.

 

[Mutsi]

Lets end this topic since my question was answered and we are in no need of needless discussions. Thank you.