From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 12/11/01-10:06:10 PM Z
On Tue, 11 Dec 2001, Daren wrote:
> .... etc.) light has no "choice" but to obey the laws of physics, that
> includes the inverse square law. Light is not magic, it can and must be
> described in a rational way.
Daren,
Light has no "choice" perhaps about the laws of physics, but my hunch is
that the "laws" are imperfectly understood in these set ups, which in fact
have all sorts of ancillary factors. (Not to mention that if the science
section of the NY Times is right, those "laws" are being repealed and
revised almost daily. And that's by physicists working on lab problems --
how many of them are printing UV at home???)
Let me suggest the above should read "it can .... ACT in a rational way."
Because the descriptions here may be omitting some of the operative
factors... for instance the amount of bounce reflection off the SIDES of
the bulbs, of the bulbs off each other, of the bulbs off the base, etc.
My bet is that anyone who dares to predict what a light source of our
devising is going to do simply from THEORY could stand to lose a lot of
monopoly money....
best,
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 01/02/02-04:47:33 PM Z CST