From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Fri Aug 15 2003 - 22:44:41 MDT
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2003 at 12:36:22PM -0400, John K Clark wrote:
> >
> > It would seem to me this might have some relevance toward developing a Gamma
> > Ray Laser, and that could have all sorts of non military applications. I
> > wonder if Gamma Ray Holography would be possible and I wonder if you could
> > make such a picture of a object that was not small, a human brain for
> > example. The resolution would be extraordinary.
Ok, so you get great resolution -- what in the blazes are you going to
use to "imprint" the image on? All photons above UV energy levels will
cause bond cleavage (Nanosystems, Section 6.5: Photochemical damage).
One of the big problems they are having with Extreme UV lithography
now is that they don't have materials that can withstand the damage
caused by the light at the smaller wavelengths.
On Sat, 16 Aug 2003, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> Exactly my thought. I have been considering nanotech tamper proofing of
> small "black boxes". While I think I have some good designs that are
> impervious to material tampering, a gamma ray laser might allow making a
> destructive hologram.
I don't see how you can disintegrate the box and not the hologram material.
> The beam hits the black box, disintegrating it,
> but before that a refracted wavefront appears and can be caught on a
> screen, enabling reconstruction of the black box interior.
I can see it now, people show up at the airport, throw their luggage
onto the Gamma-Ray machine which subsequently vaporizes their luggage
while providing them with a data cube of what their luggage contained.
At their destination they throw the data cube into a matter compiler and
"pooff" out comes their luggage (presumably still rather warm from
the rapid assembly of so many molecules). I expect it would make the
airlines very happy.
> The main
> problem is the wave-particle duality: in order to get the hologram we
> need to get enough photons on the screen to find the pattern, and that
> implies a very high intensity.
No kidding...
> Anybody who knows more about gamma diffraction to give a considered
> opinion?
I would think that how they manage to pull the rabbit out of the hat
with the Chandra telescope would be the place to start. In particular
whether or not they studied the lifetime of the scope. I'm believe
that you can detect X-rays with CCD detectors but I'm unsure of what
damage the detectors are exposed to in the process.
> I think one way of hiding data better is to hide it in electron spins,
> but that might also show up in the hologram?
I've never seen anything that suggests you can query the spins using
X-rays or gamma-rays (I will however ask someone who knows more than I
[my father] and get back if he speculates positively about this.)
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 15 2003 - 22:58:15 MDT