.... take a powerful telescope to view the furthest reflection will I be able to see myself as a small child?
2006-10-11 05:44:35 · 12 answers · asked by ogden_point 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
No. It is a fallacy to believe that your image can regress between 2 mirrors an infinite number of times. With every reflection, the image would lose a little bit of light intensity, so eventually the image would become dimmer and dimmer until it disappeared completely. Regardless, the image that is being bounced back and forth is the image of you at the moment the light struck you, and that image doesn't change, so even if you could get enough bounces to sustain the image indefinitely, the image would still be the same.
I think you're misreading how time relates to light - though light images do represent how something appeared in the past (e.g. when you look at a star that is 10 light-years away, you see it as it appeared 10 years ago), that's not because light can travel backwards through time but because light takes time to get from there to here.
2006-10-11 06:05:45 · answer #1 · answered by Dim 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Technically, confident. yet because gentle travels on the fee of three * 10^8 m/s, its going to take plenty extra beneficial than tens of millions over tens of millions of mirrors. efficiently, you will could desire to make the relative velocity to gentle slower. we could say you place each replicate 3 m different than for the different. What I advise right this is, certainly, you're attempting to ensure the course travelled via the gentle from one replicate to the different is 3m. Time taken for the contemplated photograph to bounce off one replicate, and attain the different it going to be 10^-8 s kind of such reflections mandatory to postpone the gentle via 5 minutes (or 3 hundred seconds) = 3 hundred / 10^-8 = 3 * 10^10 So, you will desire approximately that many reflections to "save the image busy" for 5 minutes, if the mirrors are located 3 m aside.
2016-12-13 06:23:46 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agrre with the others-no.
But there is a very,very,very small chance (about 10 to the -1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 th power) that the photons will re-arrange just right to form what you looked like as a child. But this would only be by chance, with no fundemental reasoning behind it.
2006-10-11 05:54:02 · answer #3 · answered by lewa 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, the images get dimmer.
Besides, are you a child? It's a mirror; you see yourself just as you see yourself right now. It's not a time machine.
2006-10-11 06:14:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I suggest finding a way to communicate the winning lottery numbers. And perhaps a warning about electing George W.
2006-10-11 05:48:54 · answer #5 · answered by Barrett G 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, provided you use perfect mirrors and you were a small child when you first sat down.
Otherwise, no.
2006-10-11 17:12:22 · answer #6 · answered by or_try_this 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, if you are a small child now.
2006-10-11 07:42:35 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, but if you wait around long enough, you can see yourself grow old.
2006-10-11 08:16:47 · answer #8 · answered by Stan the Rocker 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
no, but amazingly, you will be instantly zapped into the 1436th dimension.
2006-10-11 05:49:57 · answer #9 · answered by ahmo 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
no thats just silly, but it will be fun tho
2006-10-11 21:34:02 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋