Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Greg Childress <greg@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Striper... Light Sabers and introductions <OT>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:38:54 -0500
Hi,
I'm Greg Childress. i'm not really new to the list, I've lurked for a
while, but the intensity of my life has dictated that I can either read OR
post, but not read AND post on a regular basis. Anyway, it's rather
fitting for this list that my first foray into posting would be OT... sigh.

At 10:06 PM 3/30/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 21:08:01 -0500 Midn Daniel O Fredrikson
><m992148@****.NAVY.MIL> writes:
><just snipping myself>
>>I'm not the best at light theory (if I am way off, please correct me).
>>My understanding of light is though that if you shoot several beams of
>>light together, they will interfer at that point, but they wont actually
>>influence each other. THat was one of the supposed advantages of a
>light
>>computer. Shoot electron beams, get lots of interference. Shoot
>lasers,
>>they ignore each other.
>>
>Why would they ignore each other? Lasers are composed of focused light,
>which (like all light) is composed of photons, which are itty-bitty,
>teeny-tiny particles with an infintesimal amount of mass and no electric
>charge. The only reason they would ignore each other would be if they
>weren't crossing, because there would be no reason for them to pay
>attention to each other. OTOH, when they hit, there will be interference,
>and that would influence the beams. They would no longer be traveling in
>the same direction, they will have lost some of their focus, etc. Done
>right, the lasers could conceivably scatter each other because of that
>interference.

How is it exactly that two massless particles could impact? That is the
entire problem with the conception of light as existing of massless
particles. It's like most of quantum physics... it works great- but what
the hell does it mean?! (As opposed to Newtonian physics, which is neat and
elegant and fits together in a rational and coherent whole- it just doesn't
work.)
Still, It's my understanding that, given that the lasers were so perfectly
calibrated that the beams intersected perfectly, there would be the
probability that there would be some interference. The problem is that it
wouldn't make much of a difference. At the very least the effect would be
that of a light source at minimum as powerful (in lumens) as a large
spotlight. Which could be useful if the Jedi ever needed to summon Batman,
but otherwise would be sorta annoying.
In the end the problem is the coversion of fantasy to reality; Lucas wrote
about a sword made from light. He wasn't concerned with how it worked. In
this case, even a pseudo-science Star Trek style rationale isn't enough.
Your best bet would be something entirely different but with the same
effect. Try a variant of monowire that stiffens when an electrical charge
runs through it. Put a roll about three feet long in a hilt with a power
source, and go to town. If you want it to glow you've got some options.
You're stipulating a new type of monowire so why not say that in addition
to getting stiff it also gets really hot and glows-trace metels determine
the color of the glow-though in this case the saber would bleach with time.
Or be fancy and put a laser emitter in the hilt too (power and space
become a problem and SR's tech level this would require that the thing be
either backpack or car sized-you choose) put the lens behind a reflector
(two way mirror) and affix a relector to the end of the monowire.
Calibration becomes a problem but it looks real pretty.
Personally the invisible variant (a la Niven's Ringworld) seems to be the
best bet to me as a shadowrunner anyway. Who needs to be carrying a big
here-I-am-please-shoot-me-from-afar stick into battle.


>
>--
>-Canthros (Wow! Reading all that Discover magazine really was good for
>something:)
>If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
>let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
>--Roman proverb
>http://members.aol.com/canthros1/
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Love is not something you can | Greg Childress 0 O
put chains on and throw into | greg@***.edu >
a lake. That's called Houdini | pcstud3@***.edu ----
Love is liking someone a lot. | http://jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu/~child_gp
Message no. 2
From: L Canthros <lobo1@****.COM>
Subject: Re: Striper... Light Sabers and introductions <OT>
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 00:29:25 EST
On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 11:38:54 -0500 Greg Childress <greg@***.EDU> writes:
>Hi,
> I'm Greg Childress. i'm not really new to the list, I've
>lurked for a
>while, but the intensity of my life has dictated that I can either
>read OR
>post, but not read AND post on a regular basis. Anyway, it's rather
>fitting for this list that my first foray into posting would be OT...
>sigh.
>

I thought you'd posted before? Probably on one of the 'Who's on the list'
threads...



<snip>
>><just snipping myself>
>>>I'm not the best at light theory (if I am way off, please correct me).
>>>My understanding of light is though that if you shoot several beams of
>>>light together, they will interfer at that point, but they wont
actually
>>>influence each other. THat was one of the supposed advantages of a
light
>>>computer. Shoot electron beams, get lots of interference. Shoot
lasers,
>>>they ignore each other.
>>>
>>Why would they ignore each other? Lasers are composed of focused light,
>>which (like all light) is composed of photons, which are itty-bitty,
>>teeny-tiny particles with an infintesimal amount of mass and no
electric
>>charge. The only reason they would ignore each other would be if they
>>weren't crossing, because there would be no reason for them to pay
>>attention to each other. OTOH, when they hit, there will be
interference,
>>and that would influence the beams. They would no longer be traveling
in
>>the same direction, they will have lost some of their focus, etc. Done
>>right, the lasers could conceivably scatter each other because of that
>>interference.
>
>How is it exactly that two massless particles could impact? That is the
>entire problem with the conception of light as existing of massless
>particles. It's like most of quantum physics... it works great- but
what
>the hell does it mean?! (As opposed to Newtonian physics, which is neat
and
>elegant and fits together in a rational and coherent whole- it just
doesn't
>work.)

Who says there's not design in quantum physics? :):) We just can't see it
yet:)



>Still, It's my understanding that, given that the lasers were so
perfectly
>calibrated that the beams intersected perfectly, there would be the
>probability that there would be some interference. The problem is that
it
>wouldn't make much of a difference. At the very least the effect would
be
>that of a light source at minimum as powerful (in lumens) as a large
>spotlight. Which could be useful if the Jedi ever needed to summon
Batman,
>but otherwise would be sorta annoying.

Did I proclaim myself to be a physicist? (Okay, I didn't say I
wasn't...(seems like I know just enough to look stupid)) What are your
qualifications (don't take offense, just curious as it'll probably make
me look REALLY bad:) ?



>In the end the problem is the coversion of fantasy to reality; Lucas
wrote
>about a sword made from light. He wasn't concerned with how it worked.
In
>this case, even a pseudo-science Star Trek style rationale isn't enough.

But, but, but....I've got to know! I've got to have an answer! Satisfy my
thirst for knowledge! My insatiable desire to know requires that you give
me a quantifiable, solid, workable answer that I agree with! Need data!
:)



>Your best bet would be something entirely different but with the same
>effect. Try a variant of monowire that stiffens when an electrical
charge
>runs through it. Put a roll about three feet long in a hilt with a
power
>source, and go to town. If you want it to glow you've got some options.
>You're stipulating a new type of monowire so why not say that in
addition
>to getting stiff it also gets really hot and glows-trace metels
determine
>the color of the glow-though in this case the saber would bleach with
time.
> Or be fancy and put a laser emitter in the hilt too (power and space
>become a problem and SR's tech level this would require that the thing
be
>either backpack or car sized-you choose) put the lens behind a reflector
>(two way mirror) and affix a relector to the end of the monowire.
>Calibration becomes a problem but it looks real pretty.

But I don't want something that _looks_ the same. I want something that
_is_ the same:) Slight difference:)



>Personally the invisible variant (a la Niven's Ringworld) seems to be
the
>best bet to me as a shadowrunner anyway. Who needs to be carrying a big
>here-I-am-please-shoot-me-from-afar stick into battle.

But you don't get the impressive recognition! Are you going to be more
scared of the guy wielding the sword of light or the guy waving around
the little stick-looking thing? :)

--
-Canthros
If any man wishes peace, canthros1@***.com
let him prepare for war. lobo1@****.com
--Roman proverb
http://members.aol.com/canthros1/

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Striper... Light Sabers and introductions , you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!