/sci/ - Science & Math

yes

you couldt shut the box fast enough

>>1752272
Yes, you could.

>>1752272

> you couldt shut the box fast enough

Of course you can, you just have to close it faster than the speed of light.

>>1752281

which is impossible

>>1752281
No you don't, just make it a huge box.

>>1752288

Trust me, it's possible. I have a phd in macrophysics.

>>1752288
>>1752281
you guys need to GTFO.

ofcourse you can trap light in a box.

what if the box had a side length of x million miles?
you shiine the light in and before it rebounds out of the small hole it came in, youd trap it.

actually it would set up standing waves modes.

its similar to the thought experiment that bohr used to come up with quantising energy levels.

>>1752288

Even if you could, the mirrored box would eventually absorb the energy of the photon by heating up and or exploding, hence the photon wouldn't be trapped anymore would it? lol, conservation of energy

>>1752293
>macrophysics?
lol

>>1752272
>>1752281
>>1752288

It's posts like these that make me hate /sci/.

You can trap the light, it just is absorbed into heat by the mirror to have any useful effects.

>>1752295
You're right. OP's example would only work if we were dealing with absolute reflectivity - something which I don't think any man-made material possesses.

>>1752308

That makes me wonder. If something...something large and spherical, for instance, had absolute reflectivity at it's surface, wouldn't it be the most radiant object in the universe?

>>1752327
wat does it mean to be radiant?
its the amount of energy it gives off/out.

if reflectivity is perfect then guess how much energy/light it gives out....

>>1752333

...all the radiation in the universe. It would become the big bang.

>>1752327
would be the coldest thing in the universe, at least.

>>1752335
>>1752336
troll harder pls.

the photons energy would eventually be absorbed... unless the box had 100% reflectivity

nothing has 100% reflectivity

>>1752342
it reflects perfectly, thus can not gain any heat.
am I incorrect?

>>1752336
>>1752335

Well then that would make it some kind of... Nano-Kelvin time machine

>>1752348
>>1752342

I was under the impression that the photons reflected from, say, a mirror counted as radiation coming from the mirror (albeit significantly reduced, scattered, and polarized relative to the original source)

>>1752348

well the question is, what range of frequency can it reflect

>>1752356
it depends of the energy level of the photon

>>1752357
well, perfect does imply all, does it not?

>>1752357
>>1752358

well if it's perfectly reflective then, all frequencies, i.e. all energy levels. I smell an analogy to a black hole coming very soon.

>>1752371
Ahahaha
Shit's getting out of hand, man. This sort of horsing around makes me want to go into theoretical physics.

not only would such a perfect spheremirror be the coldest, it would be all the way at 0K.
We wouldn't be able to use it for anything though...
dammit

>>1752371
>analogy to a black hole
well if the thing is perfectly reflective at all energy levels, it would have to be a perfect black body as well in order to deal with the energy and still be stable over time and under rotations and boosts. Moreover it would be black body by the time you observed it beacuse all the reflected photons would be already (and always) perfectly scattered away. Thus in theory, one couldn't tell the difference between a perfect reflector and a black hole. Hm. In b4 holographic principle.

>>1752377
>theoretical physics
thats basically what we're doing ITT right now

>>1752385

0K objects become equivalent to naked singularities in thermodynamic models of gravity

>>1752413
I find myself intrigued.
Explain this to a layman who knows a few things about science?

>>1752347
>>1752348
>>1752356
>>1752357
>>1752358
>>1752367
>>1752371
>>1752385
>>1752406
>>1752413

Good work, /sci/ducks. I think we just figured out what a black hole is. Somebody call Brian Greene. We'll publish a paper!

"how does I black hole: then who was singulary!?" by Anonymous

great success

>>1752423
Some people claim gravity doesn't really exist, and it's just a consequence of the laws of thermodynamics (that can be stated in an equivalent manner). At least I think that's what he's talking about.

>>1752464
some people troll /sci/

Have the box have a weird shape, the light would be throwed in in an angle wich will make it rebound for years without actually touching the door, then, close with that second the door.