Fastest Waves Ever Photographed 167
starfoot writes, "Pictures of the fastest waves ever photographed, traveling at 99.997% of the speed of light, were presented today at the APS Division of Plasma Physics meeting in Philadelphia. The waves were formed in the wake of an intense laser pulse passing through a plasma of electrons and ionized atoms. The waves create enormous electric fields (over 100 billion electron volts/meter), which can be used to rapidly accelerate charged particles to high energies in the span of a few meters. The pictures will help scientists better understand wakefield interactions — an important factor in their quest to replace machines that accelerate particles over the course of miles with compact, tabletop versions. High energy particle accelerators are vital for cutting edge physics and many types of medical therapy, and miniaturizing them would be a boon for both basic physics research and medicine."
Yeah right (Score:4, Funny)
Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! (Score:1, Redundant)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but... (Score:1)
sorry.
No... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Instead of MIPS they measure execution speed in parsecs.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoa (Score:3, Funny)
Medical Applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
Hey, so I understand the applications in Physics of desktop particle accelerators, but what kinds of medical therapy use particle accelerators? Wikipedia suggests creating rare "proton-heavy" isotopes [wikipedia.org], but I'm having trouble finding more about what kinds of "killer apps" (pun intended) would be enabled if there were cheap desktop particle accelerators. Someone in med school?
Re: (Score:2)
Synchrotron radiation also looks like it's useful for a variety of both imaging and radiation therapy techniques. Rather than hauling patients off to the synchrotron facility you could take t
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out, apparently us Canadians have battlemechs now.
Five 9s (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just thought I'd take the time to throw in a piece of trivia. Carry on gentlemen
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
More typically you say 1 - epsilon with epsilon an arbitrarily small number, such as 0.0001
Re: (Score:1)
Round here, they wouldn't settle for anything less than 110%.
Ok, seriously... (Score:4, Interesting)
Dead serious, I know there's a difference here between my family photo album and the pretty graph thing FTFA, could someone explain to me why photographing LIGHT doesn't count here?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
because you can't? (Score:3, Interesting)
There's currently no way to take a snapshot of a single photon in motion and produce an image out of it. An ordinary photograph captures the effect of many millions of them impacting a chemical, so that's not really the same
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can -> .
(Magnified for easier viewing)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Fast, but how fast? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
"Oh, a lesson in not changing time from Mr. 'I'm my own grandfather'"
-Professor Farnsworth
Re: (Score:2)
Faster Waves Photographed (Score:2)
For the pedants technically your own photographs generally don't count because the refractive index of air (1.0008) actually means that light waves in air will only travel at 99.92% of the speed of light in vacuum.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong - the Hubbel uses waves travelling at c to record the electro magnetic emissions of distant bodies in our universe, it does not photograph the waves themselves. To match what was done in TFA, you'd have to photograph, er, photons. Not the same thing at all.
Again - you'd have to photograph photons themselves to match the experiment, regardless of the RI of the medium they're travell
Re: (Score:2)
I was reading these moronic response wondering if there was any intelligence on slashdot at all anymore.
Apparently there is.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I have to wear a helmet...? (Score:2)
How easy is it? (Score:3, Interesting)
The reason this is so awesome is that scientists can apply this to nanotechnology -- actually, the prefix "nano" is not small enough. After all, everything moves in waves, but these waves are only noticeable on a small enough scale. On this scale, electric energy is so much more important than gravity. The fact that this energy is electric and not physical means that, instead of bumping atoms around continuous for a month, something might happen sooner. The fact that it's been proven done might help with something, like (for example) supplying a power source. The question is, "How easy is it to synthesize this phenomenon, and is it worth it?"
What excites me most is the fact that Are we still afraid of put explosives into our chemistry kits for fear that kids might get hurt? Just like how, around Sputnik time, the US gov't tried to make all of the children in its public education system little scientists of future, it is (seriously) important to get kids interested in science, math, and academic pursuit at a young age. Can a little kid read the KJ version of the Bible at 4 years old, as was done in days of yore?
It would be a good thing that, with this increased technology, scientists would try to give nuclear chemistry to the public and make atomic physics more tangible. There was an ambitious project some time ago that wanted to create a huge electromagnetic field somewhere in Texas. It was shut down because the US gov't saw no use of it. If this technology can do something as simple as power a light bulb, the public will notice. No one cares if Element 118 is created in a matter of seconds instead of across the span of a week, but if people can actually see something, this is better for science in general. (So long as John Galt doesn't get angry.)
Re:How easy is it? ... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Haw did he get modded up? Modders: If you don't know what he's talking about, don't mod him insightful. I feel like that duck in the barber shop.
Note: You could imagine what would happen if you put a paperclip in this field, but without a net charge it aint movin'. If there were a net charge you better get o
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Bzzzt*. Wrong with the second sentence.
100 GeV/m isn't an amount of physical energy. It's a field strength.
It's still not a lot on a macroscopic scale (about 1.6E-8 joules per meter). But, jeeze, at least get your units right before you start doing dimensional analysis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite frankly, if a 4-year-old was able to read the entire Bible, I'd consider him to be pretty damn smart! (I'd also hope that he/she could tell the difference between fact and fiction.)
WoW! (Score:1)
Fine Print... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is nothing compared to the petawatt laser that is being built in the same building here at UT in the same building that this published research was done (one door down from my office in fact). They can only take a shot every 45 minutes after charging a huge bank of capacitors.
What warp speed is that? (Score:1)
exclusive pics (Score:3, Insightful)
/ \
This is me waving so fast my arm looks stationary
Re: (Score:2)
INSIGHTFUL?
I hope some one missed the Funny button....
Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerator (Score:2)
Why do we do this again? Just to detect the junk that's emitted from the destroyed atom? Why do hospitals need a tabletop accelerator?
Thanks for filling me in
Re:Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerat (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerat (Score:2)
I dunno (Score:1)
I never get a chance to work that story into anything...
Surf's up... (Score:1)
I can't make up my mind (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soko
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently (Score:1)
iron in my Toyota has the same field strength (Score:1)
I think normal matter like the iron my Toyota is made from has the same field strenght near the nucleus. Anything less, and the car would fall apart. Not sure what is so enourmous about it.
Speed Limit (Score:3, Funny)
| _ 5MPH__ |
| No Wake_|
+----+-----+
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~
The harbor master isn't going to like this one.
--
BMO
Antimatter (Score:2)
All my photos... (Score:2)
You kids and your new-fangled sub-light speed waves.
Get offa my lawn!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I looked in my vacuum here at home, but saw no light.
Perhaps the Hoover at work...
speed of light (Score:1)
Rafting (Score:2)
Rafting is recommended to experienced rafters only.
Not just the light in photographs... (Score:1)
Been There (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As has been pointed out already, no, you don't.
You have tons of pictures made by light waves travelling at the speed of light, but you haven't got a single picture of a light wave travelling at the speed of light.
there's a difference...
What's it good for? (Score:2)
Re: Fastest Waves Ever Photographed (Score:1)
volt/meter, not eV/m (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Then I looked at TFA - they had "electron" in the story, but it's now crossed out. I guess "Physics Buzz" isn't run by physicists nor engineers.
BTW, the word "mass" didn't come through correctly in your post.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok (Score:2)
Give me one of those (Score:3, Insightful)
The waves create enormous electric fields (Score:2)
Could these (i assume) elertrons/electric charges be harnessed in some way?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Request for Clarification (Score:4, Interesting)
The electric field is merely the negative gradient of the scalar potential (ie, voltage)*. So in SI it will have units of Volts/Meter.
* (Just in case any E&M sticklers want to point that my electric field definition here ignores the contribution from vector potential, just assume a time-independent gauge).
Re: (Score:2)
Since the electric field is interacting with electrons, it is actually reasonable to use units of electron volts per meter. The quantity desc
Re: (Score:2)
Volts have dimension of: m^2*s^-3*kg*A^-1
Electron-volts have dimension: kg*m^2*S^-2
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
However, somewhat confusingly, it's also often used as a unit of mass - technically the units are eV/c^2, but in the particle physics grand tradition of insanely terse notation, the c^2 is usually dropped and eV is used as a unit of mass.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
What I want to know is (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
A "usability engineer" can't see the point and has the costing wrong, what a surprise!
Re: (Score:2)
The CRT didn't have much relevance to everyday life in 1897 either, nor did that first bigass transistor from Bell Labs. If it weren't for money that was spent on pie-in-the-sky / "basic" research, there'd be nothing to do applied research on.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if this would enable you to break a hole into a hell dimension, but it certainly sounds plausible,
Uh oh.... I smell a DOOM sequel...