TRoc :) how about a 'magnetic bottle'. Or a neutronstar, a black hole?
I think you can 'trap' light.
You just can't trap the consequences of trapping that original 'light' ::))
As there will be created a 'imbalance' when doing so.

Hi all,


yor_on,

A magnetic bottle traps plasma, not light.

A neutron-star is detected with light. (first with RF, then later, with visible light)

A black hole radiates very low frequency "light". (sometimes referred to as "very high frequency sound", but this just confuses an understanding, IMO)


I imagine that you are speaking of a specific frequency. If so, then you should not use the general term, "light", because it includes all frequencies. IMO, if something is "frequency dependent", then it can be described by Resonance. This is a nonlinear event, that "re-creates" itself by a harmonic recursion. I think I mentioned SHG above, and this is a similar description. The word "trap", then, would be replaced by "self-replication". Trap would be keeping the "same thing", whereas this subtle change in description that I am using, allows for having "a new thing", that conveys the same "information" (signal, or frequency).




paul h,

re. "applications in micro circuitry", and "spin" stacking or grouping.


First, we will have to remove the simplification that I used. "Spin" is a term for angular momentum (AM), and there are more than just the basic version used above. Resonance, again, helps me see my way through this. AM is always conserved, and there are specific ways that this happens. The "circular" model of an octave demonstrates that we repeat a "label", or concept, with a doubling (or halving) of frequency. Similar to the idea of "phasors", a frequency can be modeled as an angle, and that would always have to be relative to "zero" angle, or, the "Fundamental frequency". In this model, the other frequencies have different angles, and then of course, we start to form stable geometries. The triangle would be the first form inside of this circle; the triad is the first “stable form” for notes in a chord as well. Two notes are still “musical”, and can be harmonious; two points can still have “geometry” of the line. A line has even been looked at as a “fractal”.


If we started with “ground state Hydrogen”, then we would have our “perfect circle”; any further additions to this creates different stable forms. In sound, this has been studied as “Cymatics”, which was inspired by previous similar work, like musical instruments, and “chladni plates”. But, we are not starting from this (H) in our crystal example of a semiconductor.


In this area of specialization, I give them much credit for coming right out and stating clearly, “we have invented the concept of a ‘hole’, so that the actions of the electron are more easily understood”. They did not try to have this guy listed in the “who’s who” of sub-atomic particles. They also state that this ‘hole’ is not the same as a “positron”, yet both are considered the “opposite” to the electron. I’m not sure how great having one thing with 2 opposites is, but that’s where it’s at.


So, when a resonant “photon” interacts with an electron in our crystal, a ‘hole~electron pair’ is created (an ‘exciton’). They travel away from each other, with opposite “spin”. In order to make use of this moving charge, we need to collect “one of each” of these guys. The problem is, just like in the little game~toy where you have tiny marbles inside an enclosed (see-through) case, and you try to manipulate (by tilting the whole thing) the marbles into “dimples” on a flat tray. This game is possible (easier) because we have limited the degrees of freedom that the marbles have. The ‘tray’ they are on is one, and being inside an enclosed case is another.


In our crystal, there is one extra interaction to contend with: when a hole and an electron meet, they produce a “photon”. Back to ‘step one’, if this “photon” hits another electron.. and so on. In our first interaction, with the electron going one way, and the ‘hole’ going the other, the odds are pretty good that they will encounter their ‘duals’, and create energy (‘photon’) that is not headed in the direction we want. In fact, the energy gets diffused inside of the lattice (geometry), and lost as “heat”. Enter the ‘quantum dot’ (QD); this is our marble game, with one hole and one marble, inside a domed enclosure. Boring game, but great for technology. My game analogy must be left behind at this point, because in reality, there are more than one electron in this QD, and they are in ‘3D’.


This is where I would suggest watching the video by Dr. Hans Jenny (search you-tube), and thinking of our 3D “game” as a ‘Cymatic” phenomenon. Instead of holes and electrons, we just think of the standard wave terms of ‘node’ (hole) and ‘antinode’ (electron). We are then, manipulating the positions (geometry) of these nodes and anti-nodes by changing the frequency applied.


With the limited geometry of a QD, we should be able to (have, actually) get TWO excitons from one “photon”. When you add resonant superposition to this, and get TWO electrons to “hop”, we can get FOUR excitons out. I do believe that it would be possible to get 3, and possibly 4 (as I stated earlier) electrons to ‘hop’ from “combining” the right frequencies, and getting SIX or even EIGHT excitons from the interaction. This would put the efficiency at near 80%, and even approaching the 100% limit. This would certainly be great for the World’s energy problems.



regards,

T.Roc


ps. One thing that I left out, in order to keep it simple, is that we can also vibrate the lattice without causing an electron to 'hop', using lower frequencies. These vibrations (phonons) can change the bond angles in a doped crystal, which also changes the resonant frequency. These "acoustic" induced changes would allow frequencies that were otherwise not resonant, to take part in the interaction. Ideally, we would take advantage of the 'Schumann' resonance frequency of the Earth. But there are also specific wind induced vibrations present in tall buildings and structures. Since the wind is a variable, these would be not as dependable.

TRoc,
>This would put the efficiency at near 80%,

80% would change the world. ( if mass production could be done cheaply)

>They also state that this ‘hole’ is not the same as a “positron”, yet both are considered the “opposite” to the electron. I’m not sure how great having one thing with 2 opposites is, ....

I know about holes and positrons, I just never thought about them this way, but that's not so hard to understand, it just sounds strange.

As I understand ,,, The hole and the positron don't interact with each other,,, do they?

So you don't see a black hole as 'keeping' light?
And what percent of a black hole do you expect that Hawking radiation emits?

That should be read, as long as there is 'food' for growth for it?
Until our Universe 'dies' right?

But i agree in it being very difficult to contain light.
They had that experiment though where they froze/stopped light by lasers.
There they 'kept' the original photons standing still in space time.

Maybe there are other avenues to take? I don't know.
But to me light is energy quanta, exactly as 'mass' is.
So to mine thinking we already walk on it :)

yor_on,
Uh,, you kinda lost me here on more than one point.
Who you talking to? me or TRoc?

(even tho the thread title is about the Darkest Material On Earth)
I thought we were talking about electron holes not black holes???


help me out 'ol buddy, where ya going here?

Hi all,


paul:

I would not think that the positron and a 'hole' would interact. Reason being, that my opinion is that they are terms developed by different specialists/fields to describe the same thing, in different environment.


The 'hole' is in a 'solid', like our crystal example, and the positron would be in 'free space'. Note that they both have the same spin, and the same charge (opposite of the electron), and they both produce "photons" when they "collide". The difference is, that the positron has mass, and the result is 2 "photons" with energy equivalent to that positron, + the electron.


The 'hole'/electron interaction produces 1 "photon", with the energy of the (bound) electron transition. If it had mass, it would throw the calculations off, not just of the reaction, but of the solid itself. It sort of bothers me, when I'm asked to accept certain "non-real" things, that have strong roles to play in some action.


So, it seems that they are very related, but different. As you said, this is not too hard to understand. It is a little perplexing that the 'hole' was not allowed into the 'particle zoo'. I guess there is a dress code after all; I mean they let in the 'graviton' and mr higgs, after all. The 'hole' is forced to hang out in the parking lot, with 'tachyon', 'axion', et al.



yor_on:

Not really. Again, the term, 'trap' implies that you can let this out, too. The BH does not do that. Explaining this gravitational issue, with QM has yet to be done in a way that everyone is happy with. The thing is, is that the BH is collecting matter. With all that matter present, interactions near the event horizon are practically guaranteed. I don't know a great deal about this. Just, I know that energy is leaving this BH, and there is nothing observable to say that a "photon" has been 'trapped'. Absorbed is more likely the right idea.



regards,

T.Roc

Sorry Paul, missed my cue badly there:)
I was meaning TRoc ..

As well as here ::))

"here is nothing observable to say that a "photon" has been 'trapped'.
Absorbed is more likely the right idea. "

Kind of nice thinking.. 'absorbed'.
Gotta think about that.

Cheers :)