Agnostic.com

14 1

QUESTION Scientist announces a laser so powerful it can tear empty space

Whoa! This is trippy!

I would love to have some of our resident physicists explain the implications of this in layman's term. Although politically, I'm a little troubled and depressed knowing it is the Chinese that are behind this.

Your thoughts?

LucifersPen 7 Jan 26
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

1

The first thing to note is that this is a very powerful laser, but not a high-energy one. There are a lot more lasers around that could do much more damage than this one. The pulse is so short that you could fit more of these pulses into a minute than there have been minutes since the Big Bang (assuming there was such a thing).

So it's hard for me to see a military use for this (but I don't mind betting somebody will).

It will certainly open up some new physics, if it works.

The article speaks of creating particles out of 'thin air'. This is an unfortunate expression since it suggests that air is involved. These particles would be formed in a hard vacuum, which is a whole lot 'thinner' than air.

[I am a retired physicist with a good deal of experience with lasers, albeit of a much more mundane sort than this.]

2

Get used to it being other countries that do cool shit. The US is too busy debating whether or not we should have Jesus in schools instead of pushing science and math.

IKR! I feel so ashamed to be American. Been considering to leave the country.

0

Way cool, I hope it works!

0

Sorry, beyond my ken. I read the article and couldn't grasp the concept.

0

Tear empty space? I don't think so - sounds like a physical impossibility

gater Level 7 Jan 26, 2018

So does the concept of a piece of cloth you could hold in your hand that is so black you can't see it. Yet, they did it.

@JeffMurray Sorry - I call bs.

@gater On the material or the laser?

@JeffMurray both - you can not tear empty space. You clearly don't have an understanding of physics

@gater
Well, the material exists already, so I don't know what there is to call BS on... Search for Vantablack. Considering that, I'd be willing to bet it is you, sir, that is failing to understand.

@JeffMurray what I am saying is that you can tear matter - but not empty space.

It only sounds impossible because there really is no such thing as empty space. Quantun theory doesn't allow it.

@Coffeo what? no empty space? care to explain?

@gater Even in the best possible vacuum, there are always particles popping in and out of existence. Sort of continuously on the boil, in a manner of speaking. So if you zap it the right way, you can maybe provide enough energy to stop them from popping out of existence again. Hence they would appear to come out of nothing. But all you've really done is capture them before they can disappear. And to do that you need to provide a lot of energy very fast.

@Coffeo let me explain why you are wrong - there is empty space, lets say we have 1 cubic foot of space, maybe what you said is accurate as far as single molecules entering - however, there would be cubic inches in the cube that are empty - empty space. No one put a qualifier on the size.

@gater You need to read up on quantum theory. Try this for starters:
[scientificamerican.com]

@Coffeo this article seems irrelevant to the original topic

@gater Not by any means. It's where the particles come from. Give them some energy quickly enough and they'll stick around. Very relevant indeed.

@Coffeo I thought the original topic was about a laser that tears empty space

@gater Yes. That is exactly the point. Except there is no such thing as empty space. You may think that by continually subdividing a volume smaller and smaller, you will eventually have a volume that contains no particles. Quantum theory says no. There are always virtual particles, It doesn't matter how good your pumps are or how leak-proof your container. These virtual particles can't last long because if they did they would violate energy conservation. But Heisenberg's uncertainty principle allows (indeed requires) them to exist very briefly. If you're fast enough (and that means really, really fast, like this laser) you might give them enough energy to go on existing, and voilà! particles created from empty space!

If you didn't find the article that I linked for you to be relevant (I thought it was), there's plenty more stuff on the web about it; I don't need to spoon-feed you. But it has been experimentally verified in a number of ways that these virtual particles do exist.

@Coffeo I say there is empty space

@gater Flat Earth too?

@Coffeo I think your problem is that you don't understand the definition of empty

@gater I do not have a problem with that. But maybe you should save that unfortunate Chinese scientist time and money by pointing out that his experiment won't work.

0

Way above my knowledge

0

Not a physicist here but from what physics I took in college, the real feat here is the inverse of Einstein's E=mc2(m=e/c2). The law of conservation of mass/energy has one way to "break" it. As it said in the article, the atom bomb converts mass into energy but the inverse has yet to be achieved. If the laser works as planned, it will focus enough energy, in a vacuum, and in one place, that it should be able to convert that energy into matter. Not sure what real application this will have, but rarely is a discovery obviously useful right away. Not sure if that explains anything, but it's extreme physics and could offer validation for current theories as well as new big discoveries in our understanding of the universe.

Yes, this is basically right. I don't think it is that interesting as "fundamental physics" because our particle accelerators have been beyond that energy level for many decades and create matter out of the vacuum easily. However, it is a significant advance in laser technology itself and may have unforeseen and interesting applications.

0

something FISHY going on here, where are the scientific papers published? 'A particle accelerator that reaches 100bn GeV would be larger than Earth, and is unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.

Read more: [dailymail.co.uk]
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

0

What struck me is the quote "You could generate something from nothing."

Intelligent desin people always say "You think somthing came from nothing" when making the cosmological arguement. to which I resopond " I did not say that, I don't know the origins of the universe, I just don't pretend to know waht I don't know."

With the experiments at CERN, the verification of the Higgs bozon has already proven that matter can come into existance "from nothing."

@DavidLaDeau -- Not quite and definitely not from nothing. The Higgs is a subatomic particle that exists in matter. What they did at CERN was release it in a collision at a level of energy higher than anything ever attempted so that it could be observed. "Why has the Higgs been the subject of so much hype, funding, and (mis)information? For two reasons. One, it was the last hold-out particle remaining hidden during the quest to check the accuracy of the Standard Model of Physics. This meant its discovery would validate more than a generation of scientific publication. Two, the Higgs is the particle which gives other particles their mass, making it both centrally important and seemingly magical. We tend to think of mass as an intrinsic property of all things, yet physicists believe that without the Higgs boson, mass fundamentally doesn’t exist."

I know, it sounds weird, but explaining it here without significant loss of the real importance of this particular particle would be close to impossible.

@evidentialist Thank you for the correction, It was my understanding it actually became matter for somthing like a trillionth of a second. You you have any links to share for someone with a rudamentry understanding?

@DavidLaDeau -- You might enjoy this video with one of my favorite people. It is a friendly presentation with excellent explanations without being overly rigorous.

@evidentialist Thank You, I'm a history geek, but I try to keep up with science and other things.

@TheMiddleWay Interesting article: thanks for the link.

@evidentialist Thank you!!!!

1

Fascinating. You needn't be concerned about whose hands it's in because it is not the sort of technology that can be made portable or become weaponized. It is a research tool that by its nature is limited to a single location. There may be some spinoff from it, but not likely. The most exciting thing at the moment, considering our lack of information about research intent, is this notion of kicking out a virtual pair and separating them so that they survive for however long they can. It would go a long way toward confirming some theoretical ideas about origins and add another feather to Einstein's cap (rapidly becoming a headdress).

@NerdyOkieDude -- Nah, just a stable segment of a nation somewhere.

My concern is more weighted on the fact our priorities in science are dropping like a rock under the current political atmosphere in this country. We used to be a country of dreamers, visionaries, and pioneers. What have we become?

Just to think about, we sent three adult men in an oversized lunch bucket, with less computing power on board than my current cell phone, all the way to the moon and back! And now? All we care about is getting a cheaper cell phone to text animated emojis. It's pathetic.

@LucifersPen -- Morale in the scientific community is ebbing as the cuts keep happening. Not enough funding to go around will soon have us doing triage with projects. Leaner and meaner doesn't work in research.

0

I think they ultimately are looking for the quantum entanglement carrier mechanism. Otherwise I think @TheMiddleWay's post interprets it well.

My misguided understanding of quantum mechanics and physics probably is the best answer.
How is it that 2 particles can 'communicate' over vast distances instantaneously.

0

The first thing I thought was laser propulsion.

That needs high energy. This has high power.

2

Wow!..to bad Republicans don't think research like this is worthy.But Taxbreaks for billionairses..Oh Hell yeah!

0

Honestly I don't care much for lightsabers or powerlasers.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:18535
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.