Name it “DarkB”
Light is simply a name for a range of electromagnetic radiation that can be detected by the human eye.
Dark is absence of light.
As bulbs gives our room light, why cant we have a device[name it DarkB], which makes our room dark. Is it possible?? If this is possible we can have open theater in day time…. why we need to close the windows and doors to make the theater dark…
Yes, its not easy. May be, not feasible considering the ROI. People will say its better to close the environment to make it dark. But i don’t want to have a limitation[setting] done in the environment to make it dark. We are not opening windows and doors to see in a dark room. We are switching on a bulb and light is there… Same way, inorder to make the theatre dark, we should switch on a device and the room is dark…
Comments welcome..
14 Responses to “Name it “DarkB””
Leave a Reply
Network's G i z Z z Z z Z
Subscribe
You can subscribe by email to receive newsletter updates:
Subscribe through a RSS feed reader
Man great thought, why dont you suggest this idea to some research fellow in physics/science.
Shameer, it is so simple. Paint a light bulb with black color. Switch it on., Thats all!
Hi Shameer,
The idea is good. If I think about that, the device could be something which forms a cover on the boundaries (may be some substance in the air) which has the property of absorbing light. Can it be something like that? The idea is simple, similar to a black curtain which prevents light entering our house.
How about just closing your eyes….
Binoj, why are you applying limitations for a technology… why bulb was invented when there was already candle light..?
I’ll start by contradicting Shameer’s point. EVERY TECHNOLOGY HAS LIMITATIONS AND EVERY LIMITATION is OVERCOME by a TECHNOLOGY.
To start with, Dark is not absence of light. Dark is absorption of light. Dark is not Black. Dark is invisible. Dark(darkness) is always a destination and not a source. Destination of light.
Mahesh, The limitation concept is matter of time. Yesterday’s limitation is opportunity for today’s new technology. We are on same page. The device called DarkB is a limitation for technology today. But it can be a new invention tomorrow. I am looking for tomorrow rather than thinking about the limitations today.
I would like to comment on Mahesh’s point. I guess Shameer is right, Darkness is the absence of light. Absorption of light makes us see the object as black.
Mahesh,
we are all talking dark and light togethor.. why?
Light is electromagnetic radiation that is seen by human eye. There are animals who cant see in day light. I tell its dark for them.
So taking in human context, lets imagine a device which can absorb all the ranges of electromagnetic radiations that is seen by Human eye… and that device is “DarkB”
By the sentence “Dark is absence of light” , I meant absence of electromagnetic radiation that is seen by human eye.
Deepesh,
Total absorption (100% absorption) of light makes a thing invisible. Black holes, even though they are named as “Black” are actually invisible because they absorb all (100%) light.
Shameer,
Lets assume that “DarkB” absorbs all the light . This phenomena of absorbing light would make “DarkB” invisible (or dark if thats what you want to believe). This WILL NOT make the surrounding areas dark. If you want total absence of EM radiations, stop the SOURCE of EM radiations. Let me explain you with an example.
Imagine a square with water taps on the 4 corners. The water is flowing in all directions. You place a very efficient sponge in the center of the square to absorb the water. The sponge is so good that it absorbs all the water. The center would always be dry but most of the square would always be wet. You can make the square dry by stopping the SOURCE.
@Mahesh
Darkness does not exist. Darkness is in reality the absence of light
It isn’t said by me, but Einstein.
Just noticed your blog through Dr.E. Paramu. It is a great idea. In fact it is there for ages. We (Hau Lab people) are working on it. Please support and join us @ http://darkbulb.org
This is something which I have thought about before but purely speculatively as I think the prospect, in the form of a bulb at least, is impossible. At the time I was rather fancifully contemplating the idea of negative light, purely hypothetically of course.
The reason we see an object is because of the light that reflects from it, which is also why we perceive the colour of objects, a red object is reflecting mostly red light. So if the bulb were able to absorb 100% of light then it would only render itself invisible, since no light would reflect from it to our eyes.
However light would still be falling on things around it from elsewhere, assuming there was a source of light that is. In this case invisible does not mean that you would see straight through it, you would see the shape of it on whatever was behind, assuming that it was visible. Basically the bulb would appear as a black silhouette against the wall.
It would only render the room dark if it were able to not simply absorb but actually direct all light towards it. Also at this point I feel I should clarify on Mahesh’s comment further up the page, a black hole is rendered as such because of the gravitational effect, light falls into it and literally can’t escape, so we see no reflection from it. This is a different situation to a material that simply absorbs light. Were it possible to create a bulb that had this gravitational influence on light, such as to direct it towards itself then it would theoretically black out the room. It would of course also effect other things via its gravitational pull and the idea of making some kind of ’selective gravity’ that would only effect light, I am sure, would be quite impossible.
I am guessing here but I also suspect that the direction the photons are travelling in would come into play as well. For example, light travelling towards a black hole is easier to capture than light moving parallel to it, which will bend towards it under its influence but may still escape. In this instance light might not be so efficiently directed towards the hypothetical ‘BlackHoleBulb’ and would instead fall onto surfaces around it and still render them visible.
Now all of that was purely speculative and much of it quite possibly inaccurate but there is a far more practical and potentially realistic solution to this situation. You simply coat the surfaces that you wish to be rendered ‘invisible’ or more appropriately ‘unseen’ in a material that will absorb all light that hits them.
Take for example two objects in a room at night, one is black, one is white. The white one will be much easier to see because it reflects more of the light that hits it, the black object will be much harder to make out because it is absorbing more of the light. Therefore scale the light up to that of daytime and scale up the absorption of the black material with it and the same will be true.
There is an interesting article on such a material here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090630082647.htm
To apply this sort of material to your situation in order to be able to make part of a room dark, like the area surrounding a stage in order to enhance the performance you could possibly have the absorbing material in an on/off state. Obviously this could be a physical switch whereby the material flips round like a panel or quite simply rolls down like a blind. It could potentially be possible to have a more sophisticated electrically activated approach also, so the substance is active when under power, although I don’t know if that would work. Electronic paper uses a charge to activate in this way, so I suppose were the black ‘ink’ replaced with this material it could perhaps work. Or more likely the other way round, the material is the canvas and the ink white.
Also do not forget that if you are absorbing light then the energy needs to go somewhere and so the surface would most likely need to convert the light into electricity and would probably heat up like a black car in the sun does, only far more so. I have a sneaking suspicion that just like how something can never be 100% energy efficient or a metal 100% pure a substance could probably not absorb 100% of the light that hits it.
In any case absorbing 100% of light and creating an ultra black surface isn’t really necessary in terms of human sight since the eyes have limited potential anyway. The difference between 100% absorption over something light 80% would probably only be noticeable by a highly sensitive camera or detector.
Don’t quote me on anything here, as it is more than likely that at least some of this is completely wrong…