Laser beams can be made to form bright and dark intensity helices of light. Such helices have a pitch length on the order of a wavelength and may have applications in lithography and the manipulation of particles through optical forces. The formation of bright helices is more strongly constrained by optical resolution limits than that of dark helices, corresponding scaling laws are derived and ...
Laser beams can be made to form dark as well as bright intensity helices, or corkscrews of light. In a paper shortly to appear in Optics Express, Dr Ole Steuernagel, at the University of Hertfordshire's Science and Technology Research Institute, has now shown that forming dark helices can have considerable advantages over employing their commonly considered bright cousins.
Dark helices are shaped like their bright helix counterparts but they are helically-shaped threads of darkness embedded in a background of bright light. And unlike bright helices, dark helices are not resolution limited and provide a better intensity contrast than bright ones. In addition, they can be generated one-by-one but, more importantly, they can also be arranged in a massively parallel fashion on a tight grid.
The dark helices could be most beneficial in a quantum-transport setting because their waveguides interact less with trapped particles than their bright counterparts. Because of this, dark helices are more suitable for sensitive quantum systems because they do less damage.
all matter within the double layer is basically the same, just some with a slightly higher charge than others.
errr, i thought that a double layer was defined by areas of different charges.....If we knew what "charge" was, it would be easier to understand.
Your suggestion that positive and negative are the same, but of different intensities would be somewhat valid if we defined these by comparison, but we do not. Each is an arbitrary designation and is defined by comparison to as neutral an environment as we can generate. They are not compared to one another. Detectors will react
the opposite to negative as they will to positive.
Michael V wrote:Plasmatic,
Don't understand what you're getting at with "deformable balls" (ooh, er, missus).
Regarding "nothingness", there may be some curious and esoteric philosophies that propose a reality where motion exists only as an illusion. However, I am unwilling to accept such fictitious oddities as real and instead I insist upon motion as real, whether you choose it to be absolute or relative.
"From acceptance of motion as real, there is no logical escape from that which must follow. To allow motion we must also embrace the concept of separation. These ideas are mutually proved and undeniable. With spatial separation comes two further concepts that are equally proved and equally undeniable: empty space and discrete “particles” of material substance. In short we have two classes of volume occupying entity. One is inert, that is empty space, the other is interactive, that is particles of material substance. The interactive material substance may be further split into two broad categories: one is the ponderable matter that are electrons and protons and that which their interaction form; the other is aethereal particles that are responsible for producing and mediating the interactions between electrons and protons. With motion included, all theories and models must comply with the concept of particles separated by completely empty space. There is no philosophical or logical avoidance to this regime, as without the reality of motion, all other considerations become meaningless and invalid."
Whether from this we can say that "nothingness" is an "existent" or whether it might be more accurate to say that it is "a lack of existent", is basically only a semantic argument. However, what is absolutely CERTAIN is that most of the universe is absolutely completely unoccupied empty space devoid of any matter or aethereal substance whatsoever.
If are able to define a worthwhile counter-argument I would be very pleased to read it.
most of the universe is absolutely completely unoccupied empty space devoid of any matter or aethereal substance whatsoever.
Plasmatic wrote:.....a fluid sea of permeable existents.....
Plasmatic wrote:Nothing is the concept that refers to the absence of an entity in a given context where necessarily other entities are present.
If anything, "Nothing is the concept" that defines Something. As for other entities being "necessarily" present, there is no necessity in any way. The simple acceptance of multiple entities and boundaries, is in itself further demonstration of the "necessity" of separation.
This is exactly defined as particles separated by empty space. I understand the appeal of visualising a continuous aethereal fluid, but it is a vital necessity of a fluid of any description that it be particles separated by empty space. An atomic fluid is 99.9999....% empty space, an aethereal fluid will be no different.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest