Blu-Ray Disc's have more storage than Other Discs because the Laser is blue instead of Red. Because blue has a shorter wavelength than red, it can send more information in one second unlike a red laser. Using that logic, Can someone invent Gamma-Ray Inc. where they use a laser with the wavelength of a Gamma Ray (An Uranium Nucleus) and store even more info. Just wondering.
>The laser would be invisible though.
>>8202550
>Because blue has a shorter wavelength than red, it can send more information in one second unlike a red laser
This is incorrect. Shorter wavelength means that the information can be stored more densely on the surface of the disk. The laser itself is not sending any information at all.
As to your other point, the answer is no for multiple reasons.
1. gamma radiation produced by nuclear decay is isotropic, meaning it has no preferred direction.
2. gamma and x-ray radiation is high enough energy to penetrate solid matter with ease. Visible light is incapable of doing this, which makes it perfect for reading surface features like the BluRay disk. For this same reason, gamma radiation from radioactive sources cannot be collimated and turned into a laser.
3. You need a lot of light to read surface features. Even if you could use it for this purpose (you can't), radioactive sources don't produce that much gamma radiation and you would need a very strong source with a small volume. This would never me made available to consumers outside of government/high security laboratories.
>>8202550
If you had a gamma ray laser, you'd make more money selling it to the military, I think.
>>8202550
>>8202571
Same poster here. I would like to point out that if the atomic lattice properties of a surface could be manufactured such that it could store data consistently, soft x-ray lasers could be used to read the data. I don't see this as a viable way to store or read information though. Equipment like this is quite large and essentially useless outside a laboratory setting.
>>8202550
maybe not x-rays but it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to use a UV laser instead of the blue one. But I think they switched to blue because data density had gone up, not the other way around. I mean, changing the LASER is easy. The difficult part is everything else.
>>8202588
Sure, because developing blue/violet laser diodes was so trivial. If you think making UV laser diodes that would make a significant difference from the 405 nm used in BR and not cost a fortune, then go ahead, you'll make some money.
>>8202571
>>8202585
Me again. I forgot to mention something. High energy light can be produced already collimated (i.e. a gamma "laser") by a synchrotron. When charged particles move real real fast, their radiation becomes focused onto the direction which they are traveling. Many synchrotrons around the world are now just light sources that produce this intense focused beam for other research purposes - mostly materials science.
The problem is size. The synchrotron at Lawrence Berkeley is about a wide as a football field. Hardly something that should be used for these purposes.
If you could find a way to make them table-sized and produce the same kind of focused beam, you'd win a nobel prize.
>>8202598
Is that particularly difficult? Last I checked, diodes could be made at pretty much any reasonable wavelength. Getting them cheap is just a matter of economy of scale. As it stands, I think there just isn't enough demand for denser optical storage to justify the initial cost.
>>8202609
>Last I checked, diodes could be made at pretty much any reasonable wavelength.
Well, the weirder wavelengths (even green) are made with nonlinear crystals, which makes the whole setup more expensive, but perhaps you're right that it could be done if anyone still gave a shit about optical storage. I'm a bit sad that holographic discs will likely remain a curiosity.
>>8202588
>I mean, changing the LASER is easy
nigga, some dude got a nobel prize for making blue LEDs
>>8202669
a LASER is not an LED
>>8202550
Thread creator here.
Oh I'm sorry, Thanks.
