• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: February 1st, 2024

help-circle
  • No, that’s not really a useful way of modeling it for the case of light traveling through a linear medium.

    The absorption/re-emission model implicitly localizes the photons, which is problematic — think about it in an uncertainty principle (or diffraction limit) picture: it implies that the momentum is highly uncertain, which means that the light would get absorbed but re-emitted in every direction, which doesn’t happen. So instead you can make arguments about it being a delocalized photon and being absorbed and re-emitted coherently across the material, but this isn’t really the same thing as the “ping pong balls stopping and starting again” model.

    Another problem is to ask why the light doesn’t change color in a (linear) medium — because if it’s getting absorbed and re-emitted, and is not hitting a nice absorption line, why wouldn’t it change energy by exchanging with the environment/other degrees of freedom? (The answer is it does do this — it’s called Raman scattering, but that is generally a very weak effect.)

    The absorption/emission picture does work for things like fluorescence. But Maxwell’s equations, the Schrödinger equation, QED — these are wave equations.




  • While neat, this is not self-sustaining — it’s taking more energy to power it than you’re getting out of it. (You can build a fusion device on your garage if you’re so inclined, though obviously this is much neater than that!)

    One viewpoint is that we’ll never get clean energy from these devices, not because they won’t work, but because you get a lot of neutrons out of these devices. And what do we do with neutrons? We either bash them into lead and heat stuff up (boring and not a lot of energy), or we use them to breed fissile material, which is a lot more energetically favorable. So basically, the economically sound thing to do is to use your fusion reactor to power your relatively conventional fission reactor. Which is still way better than fossil fuels IMHO, so that’s something.



  • I think there are examples of projects getting criticized for not recreating the corposhit. Take GIMP — sure some folks really like it, but there are huge swaths of people who basically just say, “why doesn’t it work like Photoshop?!” and get very frustrated with its different approach.

    Personally, I like Google Photos — the interface, not the product — so when Immich came along and basically cloned it, I was really happy (I think Immich is fantastic, and at this point calling it a Photos clone is kinda offensive tbh — it’s way cool).

    Some corposhit just sucks, yeah, but some is actually well thought out — no shame in taking the concept and running with it, IMHO.