3 ms·
I'm not sure I understand. In 1937 we already knew that light and RF are both part of the EM spectrum so I don't know what you mean by generating waves that bre
by cycomanic 2y ago
I'm not sure I understand. In 1937 we already knew that light and RF are both part of the EM spectrum so I don't know what you mean by generating waves that break the laws of physics (we have and had absolutely no issues generating waves with 100s of THz frequency). As a physicist coming from the optics I find naming in RF often quite puzzling, e.g. why do we call it microwave, while wavelengths are all longer that millimeters?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- yau8edq12i 2y ago> we have and had absolutely no issues generating waves with 100s of THz frequency In a way suitable for even medium range RF communication? No. That's what I mean. The required power would be insanely high. So high that it's not achievable without some breakthrough. I didn't literally mean "break the laws of physics", because that's something we obviously cannot do.
- cycomanic 2y agoWhat do you mean? We routinely do satellite communications with free space optics, and fibre comms which at the backbone of all modern comms uses light around 193 THz.