Posted by
timothy
on from the yes-those-are-real-words dept.
bofh31337 writes: "Nature has an interesting story about the Lasetron. In theory, creating very short flashes of light, using high-powered lasers, you would be able to see inside atomic nuclei."
We would need higher frequency/lower wavelength light, not just short pulses of it.
You're right, for single photons. Sub-single-wavelength pulses are formed from many photons, of a variety of phases and colors. On average the peaks of the various photons add up to enormous values during the pulse.
If you've taken a class that discussed the Fourier transform, it's analogous to the impulse function, which is composed of all frequencies of sine waves. The sharper you want your impulse to be, the wider the range of frequencies you need to have in your pulse. These zeptosecond guys are using frequencies of light up to x-rays (!), which is how they get such short pulses.
--
-- Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.;-)
Short pulses mean higher frequency/lower wavelength. Since a pulse of light has to be at least one photon, and a photon is one wave packet, then the duration of a pulse determines the minimum frequency/maximum wavelength of the light in that pulse. A one zeptosecond (10^-21 s) pulse would mean that the largest possible wavelength of a photon in that pulse whould be 3x10^-13 meters. This is somewhat smaller than an atom (approx 10^-9 meters), but still larger than a nucleus (approx 10^-15 meters). So with a pulse of this duration, we would definately be able to see an atom, and we might get a rater fuzzy picture of a nucleus.
One thing stands out unaddressed
by
CyberBlood
·
· Score: 4, Informative
As a physics student interested in research, I've learned that Nature generally hasn't been the most reputable science journal. In the past they've featured articles on faster than light motion, published very inaccurate results and later a story that was featured on Slashdot last April on a theorhetical quantum computer that functioned without necessarily being turned on.
Regarless, the point in the story that seems to be missing is how they don't address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tracking the motions of electrons around nuclei generally isn't possible. The best we would be able to know would be one component of it's angular momentum and the rest will definitionally remain unknown.
Perhaps a better conceptualization would be the moon around the earth... It travels around the earth in a circular patter. This is about all we could know about the electron. Any other motions (like if the moon was also orbiting on a plane defined by earth's two poles) must remain unknown in quantum mechanics.
I would say read this with caution on what they claim they'd be able to do.
Slashdot Mirror
If you've taken a class that discussed the Fourier transform, it's analogous to the impulse function, which is composed of all frequencies of sine waves. The sharper you want your impulse to be, the wider the range of frequencies you need to have in your pulse. These zeptosecond guys are using frequencies of light up to x-rays (!), which is how they get such short pulses.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
Short pulses mean higher frequency/lower wavelength. Since a pulse of light has to be at least one photon, and a photon is one wave packet, then the duration of a pulse determines the minimum frequency/maximum wavelength of the light in that pulse. A one zeptosecond (10^-21 s) pulse would mean that the largest possible wavelength of a photon in that pulse whould be 3x10^-13 meters. This is somewhat smaller than an atom (approx 10^-9 meters), but still larger than a nucleus (approx 10^-15 meters). So with a pulse of this duration, we would definately be able to see an atom, and we might get a rater fuzzy picture of a nucleus.
As a physics student interested in research, I've learned that Nature generally hasn't been the most reputable science journal. In the past they've featured articles on faster than light motion, published very inaccurate results and later a story that was featured on Slashdot last April on a theorhetical quantum computer that functioned without necessarily being turned on.
Regarless, the point in the story that seems to be missing is how they don't address the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Tracking the motions of electrons around nuclei generally isn't possible. The best we would be able to know would be one component of it's angular momentum and the rest will definitionally remain unknown.
Perhaps a better conceptualization would be the moon around the earth... It travels around the earth in a circular patter. This is about all we could know about the electron. Any other motions (like if the moon was also orbiting on a plane defined by earth's two poles) must remain unknown in quantum mechanics.
I would say read this with caution on what they claim they'd be able to do.
CyberBlood