Slashdot Mirror


Mastering Light

thyristor writes "'Researchers at MIT document the ultimate control over light: a way to shift the frequency of light beams to any desired colour, with near 100 per cent efficiency. This technology could revolutionise a range of fields, from turning heat into light, or even into prized terahertz rays - which hold great promise for medical imaging. It could also make it possible to focus a wide range of frequencies into a narrow band, make devices such as light bulbs and solar cells more efficient, and help to keep optical telecommunications networks moving.' These are probably the most exciting results in photonics in the last decade."

415 comments

  1. Skimpy article. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Funny

    Will someone else shed more light into the matter???

  2. I can't wait... by WormholeFiend · · Score: 4, Funny

    for the next-generation laser pointers!

    1. Re:I can't wait... by romit_icarus · · Score: 5, Funny

      stop making light of real progress

    2. Re:I can't wait... by BabyDave · · Score: 4, Funny

      Stop please, that joke really Hertz!

      [sound of tumbleweed]

      I'll get my coat.

    3. Re:I can't wait... by Randolpho · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not the joke, it's the frequency of them.

      --
      "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
      -Marilyn Manson
    4. Re:I can't wait... by daerhu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      laser pointers? hell, i can't wait for the next-generation light sabers!

    5. Re:I can't wait... by cruppel · · Score: 1, Funny

      Also the amplitude of their low quality.

    6. Re:I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Let's just wave goodbye to this thread, OK?

    7. Re:I can't wait... by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 5, Funny

      If I make a pun too, do I have to walk the Planck?

    8. Re:I can't wait... by WeeLad · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, puns are bohring

      --
      Seriously, Don't take anything I say seriously.
    9. Re:I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      On yer bike! (it's a Rayleigh Chopper, innit?).

    10. Re:I can't wait... by big_gibbon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Really? They make me beam

    11. Re:I can't wait... by V_drive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      [comic book guy voice]
      "worst thread EVER"

      --
      char *mySig;
    12. Re:I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, that's exacty what industry is going to do; they will create light sabers so you and your little dork friends can go cut each other in half in some semi-drunk star wars orgy.

    13. Re:I can't wait... by cruppel · · Score: 1

      enough of this punishment!!!

    14. Re:I can't wait... by big_gibbon · · Score: 1

      Well, if you don't like it you could sit out and commentate on the action - become a pundit . . .

    15. Re:I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, you do seem to have quite a lot of radiant energy.

    16. Re:I can't wait... by OneMusketeer · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think that covered the spectrum.

      --
      -- To airer is humen
    17. Re:I can't wait... by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 2, Funny

      Especially since lightsabers that cut with electromagnetic radiations would just pass right through each other, right?

      I'd be like fighting with a flashlight. Although, it would promote a certain degree of finesse in swordsmanship; if you couldn't parry, would you just rush up to someone, the way medieval enthusiasts do when they know they can't get their feet chopped off? It would take some serious finesse to win a fight like that...or a longer lightsaber :/.

    18. Re:I can't wait... by Chokma · · Score: 1

      Yes! Laser pointers which change color at the *crack* of dawn.

    19. Re:I can't wait... by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, that obviously gives a spin to the whole subject!

      --
      ^_^
    20. Re:I can't wait... by redfood · · Score: 4, Funny

      At least none of the joke were off color.

    21. Re:I can't wait... by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      No, not quite....reprinted without permission (cause I dunno who made this up).

      As the old cow herder prepared to leave for the retirement home, he asked his three sons if they had come up with a new name for the ranch. They said they had, it would be called the "Focus Ranch". The father asked them why they chose that name. They replied - simple, it is where the son's raise meat.

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
    22. Re:I can't wait... by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      Think of it as evolution in action the suvivors will be reeal polite

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    23. Re:I can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a less savory, but equally punny joke:

      Two old black women go to a photographer to have their portrait made. The photographer spends some time arranging them in front of the backdrop and then announces: "OK ladies, now if you'll give me a moment I need to go adjust the camera so you'll have beautiful picture!"

      One of the women, being a little hard of hearing, says to the other: "Wha' he say?"

      The other replies: "Honey, he say he gonna focus."

      "He gon' wha?"

      "Foc-us!"

      To which the first replies with some alarm:

      "Bof' us?!"

    24. Re:I can't wait... by Trinition · · Score: 1

      It's not just for laser pointers -- there's a whole spectrum of opportunities!

    25. Re:I can't wait... by wayland · · Score: 1

      We'll soon rectify that!

    26. Re:I can't wait... by dsharp · · Score: 1

      You all have such a PUNishing sense of humor. :)

  3. whoa! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should make for more efficient floyd shows..

  4. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuff said

  5. Remember when... by emo+boy · · Score: 0


    FLASHLIGHTS were cool?!?!?

  6. See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So, with this, could we look at Ultraviolet radiation with the naked eye (through a converter)? That would be cool!
    Being able to see infrared radiation would help a lot for playing hide and seek in the dark :).

    1. Re:See outside the bubble? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

      have you ever looked through a Hoya R72 infrared filter, or a B+W 58ES 403 ultraviolet-transmitting filter?

    2. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, why?

      do they reemit the light at lower frequencies? or?

    3. Re:See outside the bubble? by ZigMonty · · Score: 1

      If you're looking through a converter then you're not looking with the naked eye.

    4. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm not an expert on light frequencies, but those are photography filters, and when you look through the IR filter for example, you see everything in dark red, except that the surfaces which reflect IR are brighter. The eye cannot see pure IR, but it can perceive the near-infrared. Looks cool in any case. Same for the UVX filter, except you see more colors, ie flowers almost glow in contrast with the rest of the scenery.

    5. Re:See outside the bubble? by interiot · · Score: 2, Interesting
      AFAIK, infrared filters simply block all visible light, and assume that the film/CCD/cornea behind it will be slightly sensitive to infrared light. This assumption is true, but (other than infrared film) those sensors aren't very sensitive to infrared so the image will be very dim, so you either have to look at the sun, or use long exposure times for the camera.

      If instead there was a filter that converted infrared light to visible light completely, then the sensors would be much much more sensitive to it and viewing normal things with your eyeball would be very practical.

    6. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf?

      sorry Anonymous. I didnt mean to post a comment under your username. What bug is this?

      WormholeFiend

    7. Re:See outside the bubble? by esonik · · Score: 5, Informative

      converters IR->visible are widely known: night vision goggles.

      converters UV->visible do also exist and are commercially available, they are not as common because they do not have so many applications (one of them is to detect corona discharge in high voltage applications, power lines). They use a stack of a photocathode (UV light->electrons), Micro Channel Plates (amplification) and a Phosphor Screen (electrons->visible light).

    8. Re:See outside the bubble? by Marillion · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Infrared is not a single color. It is a range of colors. The warmer something is the closer it gets to a visible color. Incandesant Light bulbs get so warm they become visible. The also continue to emit hugh amounts of infrared - in fact, the emit more infrared than visible.

      I interpreted the article to say that they shift light like a audio pitch shifter may change the key of a song to be more conducive to a singers natural range. Cooler objects would be, say, red and warmer objects would look oranger.

      If this has the efficiency they claim, you could get more visible light out of a standard light bulb. This would save energy.

      --
      This is a boring sig
    9. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, past a frequency threshold, there is no "color". Instruments that enable us to view past this threshold have to be programmed to display abritrarily selected colors for the various infrared frequencies. One example is Kodak's EIR slide film (Ektachrome InfraRed). On the package it says "false color infrared slide film".

    10. Re:See outside the bubble? by kevlar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, this isn't true. IR Filters FILTER Infrared light, preventing it from impacting the underlying CCD. All CCD and CMOS cameras have them. When removed, you can pick up an enormous amount of noise, including clicks from your remote control, which easily overflow the hit count on the chip and spam the resulting photo.

    11. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok, if you want to get technical, there are two types of infrared "filters. 1) Infrared BLOCKING filters, which block IR. 2) Infrared TRANSMITTING filters, which let IR through but blocks most of the rest of the spectrum.

    12. Re:See outside the bubble? by cev · · Score: 2, Informative

      Infrared-pass filters transmit IR light and absorb all visible light. Silicon CCDs (all commercial digital cameras use silicon) have a peak response in the near IR, so you can get a very bright image through the IR filter. The problem is that color digital CCDs have color filters on them which block IR light.

    13. Re:See outside the bubble? by prmths · · Score: 4, Interesting

      not just that.. i BET that with this technology.. MAYBE ... JUST MAYBE they'll find a way to prove the unified force theory... if they can shift an EM feild enough so that it behaves like gravity, or vica-versa (assuming the theory is true)
      that would truly be staggering... It could change everything...

      How about the possible implications in fusion or anti-matter research? bumping up the frequency of light enough to have the frequency of the light alone manipulate the atoms...

      or even wilder... zero point fields? those theories are out there too... -- being able to harness EM fields so high frequency... we cant' detect 'em.. though we could tap into 'em by scaling 'em down to such a degree where they're useful...

      truly exciting..

    14. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as a side note, if any of you are interested in UV photography...

      do not get a UVX filter if your still camera uses multi-element lenses (such as most SLR cameras). AFAIK the only lense made for SLRs that works with UVX filters is a very expensive quartz lense made by Nikon.

      I almost always got weird flares and reflections on my photos, until I tried my UVX filter on an old single-lense Rolleicord TLR.

      I also recently bought a Sony DCR TRV 22 MiniDV camcorder, and I can barely really see anything through the UVX, unless I use the color slow shutter mode, which makes the image very grainy and the video very choppy, even under the midday sun.

    15. Re:See outside the bubble? by Kiriwas · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I agree...it'd be very nice to have some sort of converter that could shift the entire spectrum into our color range. I'm pretty sure all visible light would look like a single color then, not sure what color though. Anyone know? -Kiriwas

    16. Re:See outside the bubble? by Kiffer · · Score: 1

      its a range in that you have near and far .. different shadeds more than differnt colours ...
      false colour infrared is where you sub in colours for diffent ranges of infrared to make it easyer to see.

    17. Re:See outside the bubble? by Hal-9001 · · Score: 2, Informative
      Infrared is not a single color. It is a range of colors. The warmer something is the closer it gets to a visible color.
      I think you are confusing the infrared spectrum with the concept of color temperature. The idea of color temperature arises naturally from blackbody radiation--as a blackbody radiator gets hotter, its peak emission wavelength gets shorter. If it's hot enough, it picks up a distinctive color (for example, blackbodies look red around 3000 Kelvin, IIRC, and yellow around 6000 Kelvin). It does not mean that the infrared spectrum suddenly becomes visible to the unaided human eye, it just means that the blackbody is now radiating visible wavelengths strongly enough that the eye can see them. The infrared spectrum is completely decoupled from the concept of color because, by definition, the infrared spectrum consists of wavelengths too long to be seen by the unaided eye.
      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    18. Re:See outside the bubble? by bogado · · Score: 1

      This converter are usualy a CCD + LCD + miniCPU combined. And as such require a power supply. This new material would make it even simpler, imagina a simple pair of glasses could do the trick.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    19. Re:See outside the bubble? by erwass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Woah there nellie. Your talking about shifting electromagnetic radiation up to energies where its wavelength is of the order of the Planck length (10^-35 meters, where the EM and gravitational fields might be unified). Puhleez. No way with this technology which is basically made of stuff whose characteristic distances if of order 10^-10 m. Don't get me wrong this stuff is really nifty but this is just way overselling it.

    20. Re:See outside the bubble? by Leimrod · · Score: 0

      Eh, outside of the bubble. Do you actually do any research into light theory, is this your profession? Why question when all you have to do is wait, i mean yes light seems to be the epicenter of technology for the next few eons but we still dont know if its a particle or a wave, sure we can break the atto barrier, sure we can simulate quantum computing... but we dont know why, and i am damned if anyone here is going to figure it out.

    21. Re:See outside the bubble? by AlecC · · Score: 1

      As I read the article, a power source is certainly going to be needed. The dicovery is that shock waves in the photoing material interact with light being multiply refelcted inside it, so that the shoclwave couples to the photons and smoothly shifts frequency up or down. It is going to take power to generate those shock waves.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    22. Re:See outside the bubble? by parmenio · · Score: 1

      Yeah, well, that's great and all that they can make lightbulbs more efficient... Having said that, I was under the impression that they managed to make lightbulbs more efficient years and years ago, but companies like GE kept them off the market so they would not impact sales...

    23. Re:See outside the bubble? by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      The article mentioned the next step as trying to use sound waves to do it instead of bullets. I seems plausible that this might not take a very large energy souce for some interesting applications.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    24. Re:See outside the bubble? by zeno_2 · · Score: 1

      I was able to do this by turning on nightshot on my sony camcorder and when I used a remote, i was pretty amazed at how much "light" came out of the remote, it pretty much floods the room and hopefully part of it will hit the tv. Was interesting in any case...

    25. Re:See outside the bubble? by Lord+Sauron · · Score: 1

      Hey, you moron, if you use a converter, then by definition it's not naked eye anymore.

    26. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this person doesn't know what they're talking about. move along.

    27. Re:See outside the bubble? by Prune · · Score: 1

      > we still dont know if its a particle or a wave

      What nonsense is this? It is neither particle nor wave. These are simply analogies from the macroworld. Particles and waves are just concepts in our minds that we use to deal with the macros scale. They fail to represent how things are at the quantum scale, where there are no particles and no waves.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    28. Re:See outside the bubble? by delmoi · · Score: 1

      not just that.. i BET that with this technology.. MAYBE ... JUST MAYBE they'll find a way to prove the unified force theory... if they can shift an EM feild enough so that it behaves like gravity, or vica-versa (assuming the theory is true)
      that would truly be staggering... It could change everything...


      Most. Idiotic. Comment. Ever. This tech couldn't change gravity into EM anymore then it could convert sound waves, or people doing the 'wave' in a stadium into EM.

      --

      ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
    29. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, at least if you shift the frequency from red towards blue you need to put in some energy to maintain energy conservation (blue photons have more energy than red photons).

    30. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are both right. he just didn't say what you think he said. he is talking about the visible tail of the blackbody spectrum.

    31. Re:See outside the bubble? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that also explains why many remotes work even if you point them at the ceiling or at the opposite wall (one reflection to the receiver).

    32. Re:See outside the bubble? by Leimrod · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was just the light blinding me too the truth. In any case, my point stands... you nor i have the knowledge to argue sufficiently about the dynamics photonic engineering, and we are purely just relaying saturated information we read in reviews, articles, summaries and reports. I don't think humans will ever understand light for what it is... my point about the wave and particle was that humans perception of this entity has always been blurred, just when we used to think it was of a celestial origin...

    33. Re:See outside the bubble? by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 1

      Or rather, as power is needed, a pair of goggles that could give you UV and IR with the same mechanism. A good way to simplify and hopefully "bombproof" some of our optics technology, 'cause that stuff is a bitch to take care of, sometimes.

      Like when you're climbing a sheer rock face, looking for Peregrine Falcons in the dead of night...

    34. Re:See outside the bubble? by Marillion · · Score: 1
      They are part of the same spectrum. Visible light is just a tiny fragment of all light including infrared and ultraviolet. Our eyes are just limited in what they can detect.

      When a prism is used to split "white" light into components there is infra-red beyond red and ultra-violet beyond violet (thus the names.)

      An ETC Source 4 (a modern fixed location theatre light) burns at about 3200K and emits several colors. Which is why you can put a red filter (Gel if you like) or Blue filter and have both work. The Electromagnetic Spectrum if graphed, is mostly a bell curve with the peak of the bell curve in the infrared range. This radiant energy is useless for being able to see what it hits.

      My take on the article is that they could shift the frequency of light up or down the spectrum. This would allow the shifting of the bell curve. This would make less waste of infrared radiant energy.

      I'm a theatrical lighting designer. I think these things are really neat! The reflector of the light is a borosilicate with a dichroic coating at allows 90% of infrared energy to pass through it and 95% of visible light to be reflected into the lens assembly. See Source 4 Datasheet

      --
      This is a boring sig
  7. question by mschoolbus · · Score: 0, Interesting

    How long until we have lightsabers?

    But honestly, do they have the ability to actually shift the light, almost like a curve effect to the beam. Cause I know not too long ago /. had an article about lazer rifers for the U.S. Military, would they be able to actually curve the beams around objects and such?

    1. Re:question by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      No, you need gravity for that....
      They are shifting the frequency (the color) of light not its path.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      laSer

      Light
      Amplification (by)
      Stimulated
      Emissions (of)
      Radiation

      What is it with Americans and using Zs.

      As a side point is was going to be Light Oscillation by Stimulated Emissions of Radiation, but it was felt that it would be rather hard to get big business backing for this product...

    3. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shh just don't mention

      gray
      color
      aluminum

    4. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      How long until we have lightsabers?

      You probably thought you were being funny. Actually, if such a device can pump in enough energy to produce a beam which can cut then you'd be partway there. The hard part is making the beam end, which perhaps could be achieved with a surrounding out-of-phase beam focused to intersect a yard or so away. Both beams would be similar in power, and from the outside would look like one beam.

      Unfortunately, producing a beam which can cut through anything would also involve the beam cutting through the device producing it. Perhaps a few weaker beams could be combined in the final stage (whatever that device is, even as simple as a mirror, it obviously would have to be the last thing touching the beam).

      A suitable power supply is left as an exercise for the reader.

    5. Re:question by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      DON'T CROSS THE BEAMS!!!!

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    6. Re:question by JohnnyBigodes · · Score: 1

      How long until we have lightsabers?
      <br><br>
      You won't... LucasArts already has the copyright on those :)

    7. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That is just people who cannot spell; we Yanks don't put a "z" in laser unless you work in marketing.

      Besides, let's not point fingers here; what's with the Brits (and their colonies) sticking all those u's everwhere? I mean, reaully, whaut's uup with thaut?

    8. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I love it when people start designing lightsabers and bitch how if scientists/engineers were smart enough we'd have them by now.

      There are plenty of beams that cut material; they are used all over in manufacturing.

      You also might want to learn a little Fourier theory before you patent that dual beam method. You won't be able to get it to work, but they'd probably still give you the patent anyway.

    9. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the nerve of them to take american and change it and call it "english"! I'm shocked! Shocked!

    10. Re:question by cens0r · · Score: 1

      Most likely a lightsaber wouldn't actually be a laser. In the films the actually cutting beam is much, much smaller than the beam of light. This suggests that something else is doing the cutting and the light either functions as a tracer, or is some sort of ionizing affect with the air.

      --
      Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
    11. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Brits (and their colonies)

      You know, I havn't checked up on how my Uncle Fred is doing in the Americas these days. I havn't seen a single shipment from the plantations in a while, come to think of it. How odd!

    12. Re:question by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      The problem with making a lightsabre is getting the beam to come to an end. You would need to bounce it off a perfectly reflective mirror, because if the beam is carrying enough energy to cut anything, then you don't want the far-end reflector to absorb any of that energy - you want to send it all back.

      An oxy-propane burner with a long, thin flame is probably the nearest thing anyone's going to make yet .....

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    13. Re:question by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 1

      You probably thought you were being funny. Actually, if such a device can pump in enough energy to produce a beam which can cut then you'd be partway there. The hard part is making the beam end, which perhaps could be achieved with a surrounding out-of-phase beam focused to intersect a yard or so away. Both beams would be similar in power, and from the outside would look like one beam.

      This is a good idea, mod this guy up.

      --
      The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    14. Re:question by DArchon · · Score: 1

      IANAP
      So essentially, if you turned off the 'containment field' of the lightsaber, it would then became a 'light blaster'. This would also follow with lightsabers actually tapering to the end (at least from an appearance perspective). It could also explain the interaction of two duelling mixed color sabers, trying to cancel out two independent frequencies, colliding and emitting the resultant flashes of 'altered' frequency of light. All speculation of course.

    15. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was referring to India, etc. where they use the U also, you fuckin' wanker.

    16. Re:question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dielectric mirrors have a very high reflectivity >99.9%. how do you think we make the end-reflectors in Laser cavities (where the intensity is a LOT higher than at the output).

  8. Rather skimpy article. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 1, Funny

    Can someone in the audience shed more light into the matter?

    1. Re:Rather skimpy article. by mblase · · Score: 3, Funny

      Can someone in the audience shed more light into the matter?

      No doubt it'll become more transparent as Slashdot editors repost it with increasing frequency.

    2. Re:Rather skimpy article. by spectrokid · · Score: 5, Informative

      Right now you can buy AOTF cristals. It is a bit similar, but works as a filter (Acousto Optic Tunable Filter). What it does is bend off one specific wavelength of light based on which ultrasound you beam through it. By sandwiching a AOTF crystal between a piezzo and an absorber, you get a filter which you can control with a waveform generator. Brimrose will sell you a spectrometer that can scan 16,000 wavelengths per second for a ridiculously cheap 100,000$. Downturn is it throws all other wavelengths out meaning you still need a 35 Watt halogen lightsource to measure anything. If you could "recuperate" or shift the other wavelengths then you could use LED's as a light source and have a completely solid-state spectrometer with > 30000 H MTBF. You would use less power, produce less heat, make it smaller, send it to Mars,....

      --

      10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

  9. Summary Of Technique by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Playing pong with lightwaves.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  10. Does that mean... by locknloll · · Score: 0

    ...that we will soon be able to buy real, lethal Star Wars light swords, too? Then I should dust off my EVIL EMPEROR SUIT and practice the EVIL EMPEROR LAUGHTER a bit more! Muhahahahahaha...

    --
    -- Power corrupts, but PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
    1. Re:Does that mean... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Your journey to the "dark" side will be complete ...

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  11. For how long? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Reading the article it seems that the light frequency is altered for only a short time, the time during which the shock wave passes through the crystal. So I don't think it's some magic filter where you can shine a green light in one end and get red light out the other. In the long term the number of peaks and troughs you put in at one end must equal the number seen at the other, so you can't consistently alter the frequency of a light beam in this way.

    IANAP, anyone care to provide more detail than seen in the article? Will the planned demonstration of the work give results observable to the human eye?

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    1. Re:For how long? by Llurien · · Score: 1

      Yes, the way I understand it, it will give observable results. The way it seems to work is they bounce light back and forth inside the crystal. This changes the frequency of the beam through interaction with the shock waves (strong vibration). If they manufacture the crystal so as to allow only green light to come out, they could send in for example red light, and at the point where it is shifted enough to become green, it can then escape from the crystal.

    2. Re:For how long? by Becquerel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The magic filter is exactly what the article suggests, but I can't see how it works.

      It seems to suggest that "Because the shock wave is moving through the crystal, the light gets Doppler shifted each time it bounces off it" But surely it gets shifted up when it hits the approaching wave and down again when it hits the retreating one. It would have to continously bounce off approaching or retreating waves in order to get shifted up or down. Maybe they use some kind of concentric shockwaves, but even then it would have to pass through retreating waves unaffected in order to hit another approaching one.

      I also can't get my head round how you would shift the frequency without moving the source at near to the speed of light. Anyone got any ideas?

      --
      My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
    3. Re:For how long? by IsaacW · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The article states that shifting red light up in frequency to blue light takes about 10,000 reflections (about 0.1 nanoseconds). I think that you could shift a pulsed light source in this manner:
      1. Generate low-frequency (LF) pulse travelling into crystal.
      2. Apply shock wave to turn crystal into frequency shifter.
      3. Wait until LF pulse is shifted to higher frequency and emitted from crystal.
      4. Allow time for crystal to relax to original properties by allowing the shock wave to dissipate.
      5. Repeat for as long as necessary/desired.
      Now, this may or may not create any really usable stream of pulses, but I believe that you would be able to shine a (pulsed) red light in and get a (pulsed) blue light out. Whether the pulsing could be controlled sufficiently to prove useful in optical switching or other applications is yet to be shown.

      As for the number of wavecycles being equal, I wonder if this is already observed. It would make sense (if the number of wavecycles is conserved) that the resulting higher frequency pulse would be shorter in duration than the incoming lower frequency pulse, due to the relation among the speed of light/frequency of light/duration of pulse.
    4. Re:For how long? by Polaris · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Reading the article it seems that the light frequency is altered for only a short time, the time during which the shock wave passes through the crystal
      No, the shock wave passing through the crystal causes the "hall of mirrors" effect with a moving mirror (the compressed/uncompressed interface) which produces a Doppler shift.

      So I don't think it's some magic filter where you can shine a green light in one end and get red light out the other
      That's exactly what it is.

      In the long term the number of peaks and troughs you put in at one end must equal the number seen at the other, so you can't consistently alter the frequency of a light beam in this way.
      Number is not frequency: you could still see the same number at a lower or higher frequency, the total observation would just take a longer or shorter time. The red shift of the light of galaxies apparently receding from us at a high fraction of c is a consistent feature, caused by exactly the same Doppler effect.

    5. Re:For how long? by Domini · · Score: 1

      Unless you have pulsed light input which is in sync with the shock wave passing through the crystal?

      Since most light sources are periodic (pulses). (Tubes/TVs/Monitors/Plasma Displays/fluorescent), perhaps there is (some) posibility this could be applied.

      Like many great discoveries, we do not fully see the benifits immediately.

    6. Re:For how long? by aug24 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      IANAP, but I am a Physics grad, so...

      Reading the article it seems that the light frequency is altered for only a short time, the time during which the shock wave passes through the crystal.

      So you put through another shock wave and another and another and another...

      You will get the same number of peaks and troughs out, but those that have bounced back and forth a bit (and thus got Doppler shifted) will come out later, having travelled further, and shifted. This technique stretches the light pulse.

      So, (asciiart time!) you could put in pulses of green and get out continuous red:

      S S S S
      gggg gggg gggg gggg
      rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

      [View it in a fixed-width font, it'll make sense I promise]

      Each green pulse g has been stretched by the shockwave sent at each S and turned to red light r, filling the time for pulse + gap.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    7. Re:For how long? by pe1rxq · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The trick is to let it bounce of a shock wave, not a continous wave. You simple let the light escape when it has the right frequency. As long as its gone while the shockwave is still going in one direction it will work.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    8. Re:For how long? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Yes you could have pulsed light I imagine. But as I said this is only 'for a short time' (the duration of one pulse). And if the output frequency is higher than the input frequency, the output pulses would be shorter.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    9. Re:For how long? by SEWilco · · Score: 2, Informative
      It sounds like you get bursts of upward conversion and downward conversion, as the conversion is done by the movement of the reflective surface. So upward conversion happens while moving toward the light, but as the mirror moves away to its starting point there will be downward conversion. So you'd get a beam with bursts of red shift and blue shift taking place, but the "wrong color" will be blocked from coming out. This color filter is what makes it different from a simple moving mirror. For constant conversion you'd have to use several devices and switch between them at appropriate times, or several running in parallel with the pulsed beams being combined.

      The energy for conversion comes from the shock wave, the light is merely bouncing between reflective surfaces as it does in a laser. In a laser, usually all the lasing light is in a single frequency. A laser normally works by using a weak mirror, and the color is whatever is inside the laser (some laser mirrors simply use a hole for the beam, which is an interesting way of having a "weak" mirror). This device instead uses a color-sensitive mirror to let the light out when it reaches the correct color.

      I do have respect for the design and engineering of an experiment which will involve bullets as a mechanism. Sometimes brute force is the simplest way to test something, such as when the question is "Is it unbreakable?" versus "How strong is it?".

    10. Re:For how long? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Yup, that makes sense. But if you put continuous green light in there you'd get - what? It seems like you should get alternating red and blue pulses.

      And certainly you can't shine red light in (whether pulsed or continuous) and get continuous blue light.

      It seems to me that this technique could be described as 'saving' or 'borrowing' wave cycles. They have to be paid back eventually. You can't keep on sending out higher frequency light than came in.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    11. Re:For how long? by gfordham · · Score: 1

      I think this is more like a musical instrument for light. Instead of the air vibrating and having it's frequency altered, light is vibrating and having it's frequency altered. The crystal is basically a resonant cavity for light. IMHO --Greg

      --
      When work feels overwhelming, remember that you're going to die.
    12. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
      [View it in a fixed-width font, it'll make sense I promise]

      And here it is:
      S S S S
      gggg gggg gggg gggg
      rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    13. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      1. Generate low-frequency (LF) pulse travelling into crystal.

      2. Apply shock wave to turn crystal into frequency shifter.

      3. Wait until LF pulse is shifted to higher frequency and emitted from crystal.

      4. Allow time for crystal to relax to original properties by allowing the shock wave to dissipate.

      5. Repeat for as long as necessary/desired.

      6. PROFIT!!!!
    14. Re:For how long? by jgardn · · Score: 1

      You are wrong. The light actually shifts from one frequency to another. It doesn't alternate between two frequencies.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    15. Re:For how long? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1
      Number is not frequency: you could still see the same number at a lower or higher frequency, the total observation would just take a longer or shorter time.

      But in this case the speed of the light going in equals that of it going out. You can't store light inside the crystal for more than a short time. The crystal is not moving towards or away from the observer.

      Suppose you are shining in continuous blue light and in a given time period a certain number of waves go into the crystal. At the other end red light is emitted, with a lower wavelength, so in the same time period fewer waves come out. What has happened to the 'missing' ones? They are inside the crystal doing the hall-of-mirrors thing presumably. But surely the number of light waves inside the crystal is limited. And anyway the moving mirrors to trap the light happen only during the shock wave.

      Or take it the other way round - send in a continuous beam of red light, how do you get a continuous beam of blue light from that without 'running out' of waves? Any blue light produced must be just for a short time.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    16. Re:For how long? by jgardn · · Score: 1

      You are discounting the Doppler Shift, which is how the light actually changes frequency. You are discounting the property of the photonic crystal that it behaves like a mirror and reflects light and then behaves like glass and propagates light depending on its compression.

      And "stretching" the light as you described has no effect on light. If it did, then you would get alternating bluer and redder light as you sent a shockwave through the crystal.

      Thank you for not becoming a Physicist.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    17. Re:For how long? by cruppel · · Score: 1
      You can't keep on sending out higher frequency light than came in.

      As was mentioned a bit above, if you send pulses of a higher frequency in, you get a continuous stream of lower frequency light out. Similarly, If someone were to shoot a low frequency of light into this crystal, perhaps some sort of control could be developed to continually pulse higher frequency light out of the system.

      ...this technique could be described as 'saving' or 'borrowing' wave cycles.

      I would think of it more as compressing or decompressing the stream of waves as a whole, instead of adding or subtracting a few wavelengths.

    18. Re:For how long? by str1chn1n3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The unaltered 'band-gap' crystal structure traps some quantum energy states and lets others pass through. When a shockwave meets the crystal, the traversing wave is momentarily 'held-up' if the shockwave is travelling in the opposite direction or 'hastened' if the shockwave is travelling in the same direction, thereby compressing or stretching the frequency. Since 'band-gap' crystals apply to all waves and not just photonic, this same method can be applied to sound and heat waves as well. Check this excellent Wired article for more. This whole field is really elegant.

      --
      RICERCAR
    19. Re:For how long? by aug24 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Firstly, a photon will bounce off the material boundaries within the crystal forever unless it has the frequency we want.

      Assuming the pressure wave is reversed (ie the crystal doesn't explode), then yes the light will be doppler shifted the other way if it hits the rebounding boundary.

      This could be taken care of by careful timing, although it might limit the range of practical shifts.

      But who cares about practice! I was always a theoretician - didn't like getting my hands dirty with real photons ;-)

      Oh, and the shift will occur whatever the speed is, it'll just be a smaller shift for a slower boundary.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    20. Re:For how long? by aug24 · · Score: 1
      Continuous green light would result in continuous red light out in pulses plus... blue light! Well, it depends on what frequency is allowed through by the retreating boundary, but light shifted up. You can Doppler shift the other way by just sending the shockwave the other way. I think that's both your first two points covered.

      As to you last, I think you're exactly right. The authors only suggest that it is near 100% efficiency while the shockwave is going the way you want...

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    21. Re:For how long? by aug24 · · Score: 1
      Thank you for not becoming a Physicist.

      Thank you for your enlightening comments.

      I have two degrees, from Southampton (UK) University - the first in Physics and the second in Maths. [I now work as a Java and Oracle programmer specialising in Web Development. Ho hum]

      I am on occasion wrong, as are we all, but I don't think so this time. Neither, it seems, do the various moderators.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    22. Re:For how long? by Rich0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wonder if large frequency shifts towards higher frequencies would require a substantial energy input to power the shock wave? If you put in 50 photons at frequency x and get out 50 at freq x+n, you have to put energy into the system. Likewise if you downshift in frequency you must be releasing energy - perhaps the shock wave could become self-sustaining? This still could be useful for power-generation - most photovoltaics have optimum absorbtion frequencies, and a lot of work probably goes into broadening the effective range. With this technology we could steer all our effort into making a cell which was REALLY efficient but at a very narrow range of wavelengths. Then we could convert the incident light completely into this wavelength. Even if we have to kick some energy back into the shock waves it should be more than compensated by the efficiency increase, and if we get very high efficiency wasting a little energy won't matter since presumably most of it will be coming from the sun.

    23. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bit full of yourself, aren't you? Hmm?

    24. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The technique does not allow for green light in and red light out as that would be a lowering of the frequency of the radiation (if I remember correctly). It will, however, make red to green as that is an increase in the frequency. That is about all that this is limited to, increasing the frequency of light that you put into the photonic crystal. Which is how they get radio waves from microwaves by interference with a shockwave of some kind. If I understand correctly it is this "addition" of "troughs and ridges" that allows this to occur.

    25. Re:For how long? by fyonn · · Score: 1

      At the other end red light is emitted, with a lower wavelength, so in the same time period fewer waves come out. What has happened to the 'missing' ones?

      I would imagine that that if you spend 1 second pouring blue light in, red light will spend 1.1 seconds coming out so that the number of waves entering and leaving is the same (scale figures as approriate).

      conversely I suppose that if you shine red light into it continuously, you migh get pulses of blue coming out, although this one is harder to reason through.

      or perhaps it affects the strength of light coming in and out? ie a bright red light produces a weaker blue light? and vice versa?

      dave

    26. Re:For how long? by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Suppose you pour blue light in during forty days and forty nights. It might take 44 days for the light to emerge as red, so at the end of the 40 days the crystal has stored 4 days of light. How can it store that much energy efficiently? There must be a limit to how much energy, and thus how much light, can be stored inside the crystal. Emission of pure red light must be temporary before the crystal gets 'full up' and starts to leak blue light, or gets too hot and breaks, or something.

      You could OTOH do it with pulses of blue light, as others have mentioned.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    27. Re:For how long? by apdt · · Score: 1

      This of course all assumes that GR is correct....

      --
      I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
    28. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is only true if you assume that the number of cycles must be conserved. Is that in fact true? What is wrong with sending in 1 cycle of red light and getting out 2 cycles of blue light? From what I can tell, nothing. Even a single photon has frequency.

    29. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Here,
      S S S S
      gggg gggg gggg gggg
      rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
    30. Re:For how long? by mfrank · · Score: 1

      It looks like these devices use the mechanical energy of the shock wave to pump the energy of the photons up or down. If you have a continual stream of shock waves going through the material you should have a continual light coming through (there may be small gaps in the output when the shock wave hits the surface the light gets emitted from).

      Wonder how well laser light would stay collimated going through one of these things.

    31. Re:For how long? by Rxke · · Score: 1

      Wow; Makes a lot of sense. couldnt they let the device vibrate w electricity, like errrrr xtals do, mount a transparant xtal in front of it or sumting like that. (just because the idea of a lightsource making a lot of noise seems kinda problematic for everyday use...)

    32. Re:For how long? by Dr.+Evil · · Score: 1

      "Stretching" or "compressing" light is what the doppler shift is doing. As I interpreted the article, the motion of the crystal from the shockwave is causing the light to shift. The properties of the medium are reflecting undesired wavelengths back into the crystal, while allowing desirable ones though.

      The percieved effect wouldn't be pulsing. But a pulsing laser going in might be smeared across time as some photons are emitted before others.

      I don't know squish about photonics, but I would think that merely blasting a shockwave through a prism reflector would result in your "alternating bluer and redder" light. I would think that putting the output of that through a prism or spectrometer should show a spectral blur centered on the original frequency.

      What I don't get is that if light intensity is the volume of photons, and this converts photon for photon, where's the energy coming from to convert (for example) IR to UV? And where does the energy go, converting UV to IR? Is it pulling it out/putting it in to the shockwave?

    33. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good link, thanks.

    34. Re:For how long? by Pooua · · Score: 1
      The unaltered 'band-gap' crystal structure traps some quantum energy states ... Since 'band-gap' crystals apply to all waves and not just photonic, this same method can be applied to sound and heat waves as well.

      I have spent the last several minutes brushing up on this topic, and it appears that your general ideas are correct, but I am confused by the way you have expressed them. First, you state that bandgap crystals work by acting on quantum energy states. This would make sense, because the concept of a "bandgap" is a quantum energy concept, but then you say that these bandgap materials work on non-quantum waves (sound). I might suppose you refer to phonon (quantized vibrational energy), but other references show that bandgap materials are used on ordinary soundwaves in air. I don't see how this follows.

      Also, when you refer to "heat waves," are you referring to electromagnetic radiation?

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    35. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah fuck you asshole

    36. Re:For how long? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      check out www.fastlite.com, their programmable acousto-optical dispersive filters "DAZZLER" have about the size of a cigarette packet and cost ~$60k including the 19" electronics. They are used to shape short (femtosecond) light pulses (do not generate new frequencies, though).

    37. Re:For how long? by esonik · · Score: 1

      not necessarily: the number of photons (i.e. the intensity) in the blue beam could be smaller. For energy conservation, you have to consider the whole system: light in/out AND sound wave in/out; there is probably some energy transfer from the sound wave to the light.

      I think, the proposed device would work in pulsed mode, however, the article states that it would not need gigawatts/cm2 of light fluence, i.e. you don't need focused femtosecond light pulses like in "conventional" frequency doubling/tripling, white light generation or optical parametric amplification.

  12. hmm by Riallin · · Score: 0

    finally I won't have to keep changing these lightbulbs all around the house. Plus I can have funky colors :D

  13. Star Trek has been completed! by bigattichouse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, now, can we control the "shift" from software? which a real explaination for how StarTrek does those "lets generate a xMhz pulse" sorts of things... sending hailing signals over arbitrary frequencies. (like if you had an array of these devices tuned to different freq.). Also, (boy the nerd in me loves this), it generates ideas for reception.. tuning all sorts of frequencies into a standard freq (like for SETI searches....)... wow, neat idea folks.

    --
    meh
    1. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more importantly than that...

      Star Trek generates Gamma radiation in the warp and impulse reactors (really just anti-matter / matter and fusion reactors respectively). This would allow you to actually utilize this new technology to generate energy efficiently: your reactors generate gamma and x-ray radiation (high-energy photons) and your crystals can change the wavelength to something useful, like the frequency that a solar cell (converts photons into electricity) is actually efficient at.

    2. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Star Trek generates Gamma radiation in the warp and impulse reactors (really just anti-matter / matter and fusion reactors respectively). This would allow you to actually utilize this new technology to generate energy efficiently: your reactors generate gamma and x-ray radiation (high-energy photons) and your crystals can change the wavelength to something useful, like the frequency that a solar cell (converts photons into electricity) is actually efficient at.

      From what I have seen, it takes a square meter of solar cells to power a pinwheel. Not sure if that a good method of conversion :)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by alchemist68 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I disagree with "Star Trek has been completed!"

      Star Trek will NOT be complete until we have discovered how the Klingons and Romulans make their CLOAKING DEVICES. And while we're at it, I wish Zephram Cochran would hurry up and be born so he can invent the Warp Drive. You know, I thought we almost had the Warp Drive with Asymetical Capacitors, but others here on Slashdot have pointed out that they don't work in a vacuum. One more thing, we need Transporters to beam down to other planets from orbit. We're a long way from Star Trek.

    4. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by operagost · · Score: 1

      We're working on the transporters- search Google for "quantum entanglement".

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by HermanZA · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, the superheterodyne radio is not exactly new you know. It's been used for almost 100 years now...

    6. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      Hmm cloaking device...

      A ship with a skin made of these, absorbs incoming light of any frequency and radiates some other form of non visible light or simply converts it to energy to aid in powering the ship, rendering it invisible to radar, light, ect as in space it would appear to be utterly black. In fact this would be a "virtual black hole" where light would go in and never come back out.

      Planes could become invisible at night and become the color of the sky during the day, though you could get a similar effect with fiber optics to just pass through whatever is behind it.

      Heat from the engines could be bled away as standard light.

      However it is far more important to be able to become invisible to radar and infrared which would defeat incoming missiles. The main danger would be if missiles were developed which could lock on to an object visibly and track it in real time, making radar and heat counter measures useless. Then cloaking from visible light would become rather important to fool the missiles computer.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    7. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was meant as an example. You could choose something more efficient

      The solar cells are generally considered inefficient because we're talking applying broad spectrum light to them; and, they only work in narrow bands -- the rest is either reflected or absorbed as heat. However, If you apply light only in the band that they convert at, they would seem much more efficient...

    8. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A black hole isn't invisible because it's black. In fact, black holes are surrounded by high energy disks of matter spinning around at relativistic velocities, throwing off tons of light. The black hole in the middle makes it pretty obvious that there's this big dark invisible thing in the middle.

      If you wanted to make a cloaking device, you need to be able to bend light, or at least recreate it, so that you can see right through the object. I think the US Army is actually working on this (using electronics woven into fabrics to create a chameleon-like effect), although it sounds like one of those pie-in-the-sky research projects to me.

    9. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by Selanit · · Score: 1
      Besides which, note that the article says:
      The team is now collaborating with researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to demonstrate the effect. Initially they will generate shock waves by shooting bullets at photonic crystals. This would destroy the crystal, but not before the light has had time to shift. Eventually, sound waves should do the job just as well, they say. "Its really practical, and potentially even easier to do than with actual shock waves," says Reed.

      This explains why hand-phasers make that annoying high-pitched whine! There are light sources contained in the handle of the weapon whose outputs are modified by passing through a photonic crystal. The sound is generating the shock waves necessary to the operation of the crystal.

      Mind, it still doesn't explain why you can hear those sounds even when the camera is hovering in space and recording a battle taking place in vacuum . . . but hey, that'll come. :-)
    10. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Heat from the engines could be bled away as standard light.

      You could block yourself from detection from one angle by using yourself as cover and beaming the light away from whoever you're dodging.

      Unfortunately absorption is no solution since that just means that instead of finding something, they find a hole in space.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Star Trek has been completed! by TrixX · · Score: 1

      I wish Zephram Cochran would hurry up and be born so he can invent the Warp Drive

      And while he is at it, somebody invent the inertial dampers, so we don't get splattered all over the back of the starship when accelerating to Warp Speed.

  14. Innovative group by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 5, Informative

    Joannopolous was also involved in the development of the "perfect" dielectric mirror, which was mentioned here before.

    1. Re:Innovative group by Floater_Nutz · · Score: 1

      The story behind that was actually pretty funny. JOannopolous originally wrote a long dissertation effectively "proving" that creating a near-perfect dielectric mirror was impossible. Then he turned around and proved himself wrong by making one. =) Given the usefulness of it though, I'm sure he wasn't all that disappointed.

  15. Heat - energy by sonofagunn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If they could shift heat waves -> light waves, then absorb those with photovoltaic cells, we could harness lots of wasted energy. Almost everything generates wasted heat energy, and isn't heat energy basically the same thing as light waves, just at a different frequency?

    1. Re:Heat - energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In basic terms, heat is the amount of atomic/molecular motion within a given blob of matter, and radiation (light) is just one way that hot things give up their energy to their surroundings. Things that are warm radiate strongly in the infrared part of the spectrum, which we *feel* as heat because our skin absorbs it, but is not actually heat as per the definition. Radiation is not a particularly efficient way to get rid of energy - white dwarf stars stay incredibly hot for millions of years even though they do not produce energy because radiation is their only means of losing their heat.

    2. Re:Heat - energy by FamousLongAgo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, what exactly is a 'heat wave'?

      Heat comes in two flavors - radiated light waves and random molecular motion. The second kind is irrelevant to this discussion. As far as the first kind goes, you can't magically make that radiated light have more energy by converting it up to a higher frequency.

      The laws of conversation of energy and thermodynamics would like to have a little word with you out back...

      --

      A customer service representative will be with me shortly.
    3. Re:Heat - energy by sonofagunn · · Score: 1

      Well, when I said heat waves (in a discussion about light) what do you think I was talking about?

      Radiated light waves obviously.

      And I never stated you'd get more energy than you started with - just that you'd get to "reuse" some wasted energy.

    4. Re:Heat - energy by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Actually, this MIGHT be a good idea...

      If you shine light (photons) on a solar cell (for example), the photons need to have a minimum energy (wavelength) in order to generate electricity. If a photon has enough energy, it can knock an electron around and produce electricity. If a photon does not have enough energy, it just jiggles the atoms and makes heat.

      The only question is ... how much energy to continuously hit the crystal so that it does its magic. I suspect it would take more energy than you could get out of the system.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    5. Re:Heat - energy by jgardn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. We can take the entire light range of the sun, and up the red light so it is blue, thus improving the efficiency of solar cells. Heck, you could take all the light and up it to X-Ray status, and that is guaranteed to knock off electrons with some "minor" side effects.

      --
      The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    6. Re:Heat - energy by OrbNobz · · Score: 1

      In fact, the light captured and converted back to energy in this fashion just might...fall...way short of the energy needed to shock the crystal.
      Damn.
      No perpetual motion machine for you, one year!
      The only way to achieve any kind of efficiency would be to cheat by saying you don't couont the energy being applied to the crystal as part of the system.

      - OrbNobz
      "If the truth can be told, so as to be understood, it WILL be believed."

    7. Re:Heat - energy by StatFiend · · Score: 1

      Actually, you would just figure out exactly which frequency is best for kicking out electors, create one of these photonic converters that shifts everything to that frequency and bond it to the top of the solar cell. Presto the ultimate solar cell!

    8. Re:Heat - energy by stud9920 · · Score: 1
      The laws of conversation of energy and thermodynamics would like to have a little word with you out back...
      You shut up ! Or an uninspired will post that young lady Simpsons quote again !
    9. Re:Heat - energy by Arcturax · · Score: 0

      You are better off converting the heat to microwaves, which can be converted to electricity far more efficiently than visible light can. See my post way down from here about using this in satellites to beam to ground stations.

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
    10. Re:Heat - energy by sonofagunn · · Score: 1

      It's not breaking any laws of physics. It could increase the efficiency of a system if the energy required to shock the crystal is less than the energy being radiated as heat.

      It would only break the law of conservation of energy if the resulting energy created from the photovoltaic cell was greater than the energy being radiated.

      No one is suggesting that. I think you guys just like reading your own funny quotes regarding laws of physics.

      Laws of physics are only funny on Slashdot. What nerds!

    11. Re:Heat - energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It'd be nice to be able to siphon off the energy difference between IR and microwave photons and use that for control of various support subsystems.

    12. Re:Heat - energy by harrkev · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the salary of the guy with the hammer having to hit the thing 12 hours/day.

      There is no such thing as a free lunch. You still have to vibrate the crystal--which takes energy.

      This may just increase the efficiency a little -- or the energy required to oscillate the crystal may be more than what you get back.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    13. Re:Heat - energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that should be changed to "There's no such thing as an endless free buffet."

      If the vacuum and coldness of outer space isn't a ploblem for a superconductive device, and that device is made of smart meta-materials and is agile with regard to to its internal and external electromagnetic fields, then perhaps the buffet can provide a nearly endless feast for everyone.

    14. Re:Heat - energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can oscillate a crystal by a hammer attached to a pivot. The hammer is periodically jolted by an off-centre peg in a wheel driven by a paddle that a waterfall flows over.

      "Free Energy" - energy from nowhere is different to economically "free energy". Businessmen have retained a remarkable degree of control over society by carefully mixing the two up.
      The earth is not a closed system - Windmills, waterwheels, etc can be "free energy" but not "Free Energy".

    15. Re:Heat - energy by ocie · · Score: 1

      That would be great for camping trips too. A device that would convert sunlight to microwaves for cooking.

      --
      JET Program: see Japan, meet intere
    16. Re:Heat - energy by Spunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      Uh, what exactly is a 'heat wave'?

      Three consecutive days with temperatures of 90 degrees (F) or above.

    17. Re:Heat - energy by anshil · · Score: 1

      Well this would be a perpeto mobile of the second kind. To transform heat into energy, such machine would solve all energy problems of the whole future.

      Well there is no real physical law speaking against, but the first law of thermodynamics, which in fact seems to be only a statistically law. However until now experience showed us, it is "normally" true.

      Not that I would be a nay sayer, when it's possible it would be really revolutionary, however it sounds just to good to be true. So normally from experience about such "revolution" I would guess this is all likely to be bullshit. (but not sure of course)

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    18. Re:Heat - energy by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The heat energy you are thinking of being the same as light waves but at a different frequency is near infrared radiation (or actual infrared radiation) and it is, in fact, light.

      There are two ways things radiate heat, as another poster points out; One is by losing its heat energy to neighboring substances, thus exciting them and becoming less excited. The other is through near-infrared radiation.

      Things which absorb IR are heated by it, and things which reflect IR are not. Most things are somewhere in between, reflecting a percentage of IR. In a vacuum you can't cool by convection for example so you paint one side reflective and insulated and the other side black and noninsulated and control temperature by rotating; The black side will radiate in the near-infrared and provide (slow) cooling. I have no idea why black surfaces radiate more heat, surely someone will explain it to me someday. Or soon.

      So heat itself cannot be converted. IR can be converted, but most loss of heat in terrestrial (or other environmental) systems is not due to infrared radiation. Heat energy is essentially kinetic energy on a very fine scale, whereas developing energy from light involves photons knocking around electrons.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    19. Re:Heat - energy by Brown · · Score: 1

      I believe the point the orinial poster was making is that infrared-frequency EM radiation often isn't very useful; if this was shifted to visible frequencies, the amount of useful energy would increase (though the total energy remains constant).

      However, infrared photovoltaic cells are already availible, so that doesn't actually help this application particularly.

      - Chris

    20. Re:Heat - energy by anshil · · Score: 1

      """""As far as the first kind goes, you can't magically make that radiated light have more energy by converting it up to a higher frequency.""""

      Well such technology as far I understood, if you get a constant beam of heat radiation, you could create a pulse of in example blue light.

      This would not violate the conservation of energy.

      However it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics, but at the end, why is it not violatable? It is a soley experimental law, based on no other laws or conclusions, so if it get's one day violated due to an expriment in some special case, nothing else in the physical world would be touched.

      Look at other "laws" that normally hold true, but in some special cases, do not. For example left/right symetry.

      This bases on a funny Gedankenexpiriment by Richard Stallmann. Suppose through some Radio Station you are able to talk to an alien. Note that your worlds do not touch, so you can't refer him to the light of any star or such, but you managed to establish a communication with each other (through learning to know each other)

      Now when it comes to the physical world, can you explain him things? Can you explain him how long is 1 meter? Yes for example you can, you can tell him it's for example xxxxx times the size of a helium atom, or for example the xxx times the wave length of some material having a resonant light emmiting state.

      Length is not a symetric issue, however in our normal real world it often seems to be.

      Now most interesting can you tell him whats left and whats right? Well normally you do not seem you can, so it seems to be symetric. This "law" seems to hold true. However threre are some quantum effects, where the particles prefer left and right, so you can instruct him to build a machine, and he will know what right is.

      Can you tell him what matter and anti-matter is? Well today it seems to be no. Also if his world is made from anti-matter. He will have the wrong result for left/right.

      --

      --
      Karma 50, and all I got was this lousy T-Shirt.
    21. Re:Heat - energy by AlecC · · Score: 1

      You have made a small assumption here - that this gadget runs at zero energy cost. It doesn't. It works in the frequency domain like an amplifier operatess in the magniude domain. Small signal in->powered amplifier->large signal out. This gadget is low frequency in->powered shifter->high frequency out. Great for generating strange frequencies for investigations, shifting signals into measurable domains, multiplexing many signals onto the same fibre... But not for generating energy.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    22. Re:Heat - energy by TuxGrep · · Score: 1

      True, but it will nevertheless save a LOT of energy just by diminishing or even eliminating the "wasted" energy that is radiated as heat from lightbulbs and such.

      Almost every device that uses energy emits "waste heat". Only in the rarest of cases this heat is actually wanted or reused. Mostly it is discarded.

      Light is a much more useful "waste" than heat is. So chances are, with all the light that could be emitted by all our appliances, our need for the traditional light sources and thus the additional energy, could be reduced.
      Maybe even reduced dramatically...

    23. Re:Heat - energy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      oh no someone is gonna start having a whinge about the laws of thermodynamics...


      my farts violate the laws of thermodynamics, let me provide you with an example...

    24. Re:Heat - energy by delmoi · · Score: 1

      I have no idea why black surfaces radiate more heat, surely someone will explain it to me someday. Or soon.


      They don't. Black surfaces absorb more heat through radiation, and are therefore hotter to the touch.

      --

      ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
  16. All one frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I call it a "laser"....

    1. Re:All one frequency? by geeber · · Score: 1

      Um, I hate to be pendantic, but laser stands for Light Amplification from Stimulated Emission of Radiation. This effect has nothing to do with stimulated emission. There are many ways of producing single frequency light.

    2. Re:All one frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Does your "laser" come with a shark cranial mount?

    3. Re:All one frequency? by StrangeTikiGod · · Score: 1

      that, and isn't a key characteristic of laser light that it's coherent, all the troughs and peaks of the wave lined up? from what I remember of light in high school physics, it doesn't sound as though these waves will be coherent, just at the same (altered) frequency.

      Obviously, IANAP, just an actor who loved his HS level physics class...

      --
      "split the clouds and divide the sea and show those evil guys how nasty the Tiki gods can be."
    4. Re:All one frequency? by geeber · · Score: 1

      Yes, but coherence can be maintained through nonlinear processes, such as these, if the light you start out with was coherent.

    5. Re:All one frequency? by praedor · · Score: 1

      Except it also has to be in phase, otherwise it is just monochromatic light.

      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    6. Re:All one frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I hate to be pedantic, but it is "pedantic," not "pendantic."

    7. Re:All one frequency? by geeber · · Score: 1

      You are in the wrong room. This is over-zealous physics nerd discussion group. The over-zealous grammarians are across the hall.

    8. Re:All one frequency? by hobbesx · · Score: 1

      I call it a "laser"....

      <Dr. Evil voice>

      Why don't you and the "Laser" get a freakin' room?

      </Dr. Evil Voice>

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    9. Re:All one frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I might want to point out that your comment would be appropriate for the vocabularians, not the grammarians, but I think that would be being too pedantic as well.

    10. Re:All one frequency? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck me, it's Mr. Logic, out of Viz.

  17. dilithium anyone? by jpnews · · Score: 1

    The description in the article reminds me of the fictional workings of the Enterprise warp core.

    "Captain, I think we can modulate the dilithium crystal resonance and redirect the warp increase to the forward sensor array!"

    In other words, it sounds brilliant without actually making any sense.

  18. Who else imagines... by mirko · · Score: 1

    Wireless electricity ?

    --
    Trolling using another account since 2005.
    1. Re:Who else imagines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and me both...

      -- N. Tesla

  19. GITS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean we are one step closer to having full optic camo like ghost in the shell?

  20. Invisibility possible now? by kristoferkarlsson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So, does this mean we can make ourselves invisible? If we would make a suit of frequency shifters we could make the visible light turn into radio waves, let them pass through the body, and then change them back into visible light. Of course, it would require huge amounts of energy aswell as precision, so it probablly won't happen anytime soon. Interesting thought, though.

    1. Re:Invisibility possible now? by NeuroGrrrl · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the (constant?) shock waves required to generate this miracle of frequency shift might be a wee bit uncomfortable to endure bodily.

      *

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is.
    2. Re:Invisibility possible now? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the (constant?) shock waves required to generate this miracle of frequency shift might be a wee bit uncomfortable to endure bodily.

      True, but shift the idea toward say, a layer of these things coating a jet....or a bomber....
      you could fairly easily (with the Pentagon's budget) insulate the pilots from the shockwaves, or just fly the plane remotely. Alternatively, just covering missiles with this stuff would probably work too. It'd be expensive to blow them up, but that hasn't stopped 'em from making Tomahawks and bunker-busters.

      To me, it's just like almost any science: you can use it in applications both beneficial and harmful. Even anti-disease research was hijacked by various governments to make better biological weapons. I really hope that this tech (should it develop practical applications and find a market niche) will be used wisely. However, humanity's track record causes me to expect the worst, even while I hope for the best.

    3. Re:Invisibility possible now? by Angry+White+Guy · · Score: 1

      I guess it all depends on exactly where on the body they are generated.

      --
      You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
    4. Re:Invisibility possible now? by aug24 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What an excellent thought!

      The difficulty would be to get the shock waves going in the direction of light for all directions or light!

      That doesn't mean it can't/won't be managed though.

      Justin.

      --
      You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
    5. Re:Invisibility possible now? by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      Can the crystals tell the difference between the light wave coming from the sun|other light source and the radio waves coming from the inside of the jet?

    6. Re:Invisibility possible now? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      As I understand it, they feel they can be very precise. They should be able to anticipate which types of energy waves they will most likely come into contact with and prepare for it. I mean, throwing a few billion dollars at a problem has a strange knack for getting it solved. I only hope that 0.1 nanosecond delay would be measurable, say for example, if you notice your radar pulses are coming back 0.1 nanoseconds later than expected, in a plane-shaped region, you'd know it was there. I don't have any real, solid ideas, this is all just wild speculation...but that's what makes life fun. Well, that and calculating actuarial tables.

    7. Re:Invisibility possible now? by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Well, I woulda thought the transistor counts on modern GPUs were impossible just a few years ago. I mean, it's freaking insane. And yes, I meant GPU. They have more transistors and are actually more complicated to make than p4 CPUs. (referring of course to high end chips on both sides of the comparison) The stuff they can do....perhaps figure out a way to mount the things on a membrane of some sort? I'm just spitballing here, but you could cut some corners. You wouldn't have to worry about *all* kinds of radiated energy because most of them you wouldn't care about. Also, you don't really have to worry about light coming from *inside* so the shock waves for each tiny piece would be going the same direction always, or at least a less than 360 degree subset of directions. I don't know, I really don't want to think too much about how they could actually do it, cause honestly I'd rather no-one had the power to appear invisible. I think there's too much intrusiveness now, if every square meter of 'empty' space could be housing some stealthed camera or hell even a stealhed cop... that gets into scary territory. (not to mention the pain of discovering one the hard way) it's OT but I really hate that old argument about 'if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't be mad about even the most extremely embarassing and intrusive searches/info gathering/government watching.' I mean, I don't have anything *illegal* to hide, but I really don't want some freaking government lacky watching me take a dump, or discovering my framed Christina Aguilera poster, or listening to the 'conversations' I have with the PS2 when I'm stuck on a game, or any of a thousand other things. If there's someone always watching, when do you scratch your embarassing itches? When do you get drunk with a good friend and sing along to oldies stations? (okay I don't do that anyways, but I saw it on Lifetime so it must be true) The point is, just because I'm not doing anything illegal doesn't mean I'm not doing anything *private*. Law enforcement doesn't always seem to make a distinction. I'm not saying that ALL law enforcers are control freaks that feel they have a right to know what is going on anywhere anytime, but those people *do* exist, and what other type of career would you have, if you wanted to snoop? I mean, sure you could be an intelligence agent or something, but the employment opportunities have to be more abundant in city and state law enforcement. Not to mention what this tech would go for on the black market... cripes! Just look at the amount of drugs and firearms that 'vanish' from police and government evidence rooms every year, or the fact that 15 year old kids just about anywhere can get access to fully automatic rifles... Man, if this technique ever ends up in law enforcement/military hands... imagine all the FUD the news agencies will be able to create. They'll keep 'experts' employed for years with this.

    8. Re:Invisibility possible now? by praedor · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that the (constant?) shock waves required to generate this miracle of frequency shift might be a wee bit uncomfortable to endure bodily.


      Or...they could be an intense source of pleasure! People walking around invisably having orgasm after orgasm. You could track them by their squeels, moans, and grunts.


      --
      In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
    9. Re:Invisibility possible now? by kevmit · · Score: 1


      Is it necessary to let the energy pass THROUGH us in order to achieve invisibility. If the light doesn't get reflected back into the viewer's cornea...we're invisible. Right?
      IANAP either so I expect this next theory to have an extremely short lifespan before it, and myself, are logically shredded...BUT I own a DLP projector that uses a tiny little array of individually controllable mirrors on-a-chip to reproduce images with a great deal of clarity and definition.
      Couldn't you cover a suit with these things and start redirecting light anywhere but back towards the viewer? Or would this create a noticeable "dark spot" in their field of vision? Why couldn't you cover the back of the suit with digital cameras that photographed the area behind you and reprojected it, through the DLP's, in front of you?

  21. I can imagine by Apreche · · Score: 2, Interesting

    An optical router. An incredible array of lenses and lasers and "light controllers". It would take up an entire room and be a dust free vacuum. It would be so awesome, not to mention cool looking.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
  22. DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This would actually be pretty cool for the average DJ or night club, since traditional filters are so inefficient, and thus cause you to use higher wattage light, and more heat (and more AC to deal with it). This could make club lighting more attractive, more sophisticated and more varied.

    After all, if science can't help drunk/horny/single people get laid, what good is it? :-)

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    1. Re:DJs! by MonkeyMagic · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, if science can't help drunk/horny/single people get laid, what good is it? :-)

      Only on Slashdot would this be moderated "insightful" rather than "funny".

    2. Re:DJs! by emok · · Score: 1

      ...or the DJ could just use LEDs.

    3. Re:DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I wrote the damn thing! lol.

      That happens to me alot. My best examples of true brilliance don't get modded at all, or modded down, and my off the cuff crap that are reasonably humorous get modded as "insightful" or "interesting" all the time, like its a reasonable application of the technology. But thats ok, i get a good laugh, and I got Karma to burn anyway :)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    4. Re:DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      they dont project enough light. they look fine if you stare at them, but they dont make the floor and walls light up.

      If you flash different colored lights all over the place, and the people are drunk enough, ugly people look pretty sexy. Until the next morning, anyway.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    5. Re:DJs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do if you have lots of them. I recall seeing a spotlight made up of an array of 250 any colour LEDs. By adjusting the voltage on the RGB lines you could get a huge range of colours, and it was as bright as a normal spot, with the benefit of redundancy too.

    6. Re:DJs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    7. Re:DJs! by Lane.exe · · Score: 1

      Do not make lighting any worse than it already is. Cheap lighting effects will be the downfall of DJ culture. And then I wouldn't have a hobby, and I'd probably end up being a troll on here. And nobody wants that.

      --
      IAALS.
    8. Re:DJs! by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      if science can't help drunk/horny/single people get laid, what good is it?

      I use roofies...that's chemistry, right?

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    9. Re:DJs! by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1

      Obligatory Hitchhiker's quote:
      Many respectable physicists said that they weren't going to stand for this - partly because it was debasement of science, but mostly because they didn't get invited to those sort of parties.

    10. Re:DJs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For laser light shows, where you have really powerful light (not physics-experiment powerful, but still) they can't use gels, since they would turn into flambe pretty quickly trying to absorb all that. Instead they use something called an AOTF (Acoustical-Optical Transmittance Filter iirc) which bends the different colors (yes, multicolor lasers exist) in the beam by different amounts. The colors you don't want just get bent off into a beam stop.

      If they could use cheaper single-color lasers (which I believe you can get more powerful as well) and just shift the light frequency, I'm sure they'd love it. Of course you'd need to be able to handle constant high-power beams...

    11. Re:DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      The link from another AC who replied shows some of these. These still do not project light such as a dual 300w head.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    12. Re:DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Do not make lighting any worse than it already is. Cheap lighting effects will be the downfall of DJ culture. And then I wouldn't have a hobby, and I'd probably end up being a troll on here. And nobody wants that.

      speaking as someone who DJed in a quite large nightclub for 4.5 years, I would have to say that the downfall of DJs, if ever, will probably be the fact that 90% of them suck. (present company excepted, of course) Most DJs just don't understand why everyone else doesn't think they are as cool as they themselves think they are.

      Oh, and for gods sake, if you're gonna burn MP3s to CD, don't use crappy 64k versions. I would rather NOT hear the song than hear a crap copy of it. :-)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    13. Re:DJs! by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I use roofies...that's chemistry, right?

      There ya go! Putting that high school chemistry to work, and obviously a class act to boot....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    14. Re:DJs! by LogicFlow · · Score: 1

      http://www.lumileds.com/ Check out the recent docs, and try one of there 5 watt leds. You can make tree tops light up, no prob.

  23. embellish by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

    MIT is a school, and thus very caught up in ego. Why can't research be disconnected from learning centers? Schools are caught up in the lie that going there makes you special. Read the damn book and you are just as well off.

    --
    -Libertarian secular transhumanist
    1. Re:embellish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you forget your medication, or is the Government[1] beaming their damn radio waves into your brain again?

      "..along with the reverse vampires, and in assciation with the RAND corporation.."

    2. Re:embellish by hak+hak · · Score: 1

      No, you're not. IMHO, going to school makes it much easier to absorb the material than just reading the book. I find it extremely useful if somebody explains the ideas of something, gives examples, etc. I read the books to get the details, but going to school makes me grasp the necessary intuition much quicker. (I'm a math and astronomy student, and this is how it works best for me; I can imagine that for other sciences `just reading the book' works a lot better.)

      Of course, going to school doesn't `make you special', but with schools we're surely a lot better off than without them. And for specialised subjects, who would be able to teach you better than people who do research in those subjects?

    3. Re:embellish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And for specialised subjects, who would be able to teach you better than people who do research in those subjects?

      Someone who understands the important points of the subject and has actual teaching skills?

    4. Re:embellish by Thinkit3 · · Score: 1

      I've skipped some classes totally with an A, others I attended mainly because the book wasn't really closely covered (usually the more advanced classes). Sometimes I even just used instrutor notes and skipped class too. If anything it depends more on the instructor than the subject material. As for researchers teaching, this usually ends up a disaster. Frankly if I'm researching something I don't want to be standing at a chalkboard yacking to a bunch of social climbers. I'd probably rather they shut up and carry my equipment. Yeah ideally it should work out, but in reality it rarely works out.

      --
      -Libertarian secular transhumanist
  24. Now when I put on my photonic crystal flame suit.. by onthefenceman · · Score: 1

    ...all those burning posts sent my way will just give me a nice tan!

    --
    Have you seen my stapler?
  25. x-ray glasses next? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can x-ray glasses be far behind?

  26. new technique for displays? by EddWo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I flat panel displays will no longer need separate reg, green and blue pixels. They could just have uniform pixels which could produce light in any shade required. Should be good for higher resolution displays, greater colour depth. But might mess up things like sub pixel rendering.

    http://grc.com/cleartype.htm

    --
    "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    1. Re:new technique for displays? by Troed · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Uhm, it wouldn't mess up anything. A 1280*1024 colourdisplay is essentially a 3840*1024 "monochrome"-display (each R,G,B being separate elements). If you wouldn't need separate elements, you'd have a true 3840*1024 colour display, which would be vastly superiour to sub pixel rendering .. :)

    2. Re:new technique for displays? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      yes, I agree with this. Maybe I wasn't thinking to clearly. It wouldn't mess up the visual effect of sub pixel rendering. I think what I meant was that it would make all the research and development that has gone into sub pixel rendering irrelevent.

      I think such a change would still be a long way off. The bandwidth required to address each pixel with a 32-bit value to tell it which colour to produce would be huge.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    3. Re:new technique for displays? by harrkev · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I flat panel displays will no longer need separate reg, green and blue pixels. They could just have uniform pixels which could produce light in any shade required. Should be good for higher resolution displays, greater colour depth. But might mess up things like sub pixel rendering.

      Ummm... How would you get white (red, green, and blue at the same time)? I suppose that you COULD rapidly switch between multiple frequencies to get a simulated white, but the article did not explain how much control you could get over the process... Perhaps a single crystal would only provide a fixed shift (red->blue), and if you wanted red->green, you use a different crystal.

      Also, each pixel would need its own crystal and "hammer" (probably a piezo element). This would probably be even more expensive than current flat-screen televisions.

      Just one more note -- if you have little crystals being hit at 60Hz (assuming a progressive scan display), that sucker would humm like crazy!

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    4. Re:new technique for displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it wouldn't. It would be similar to what it is currently, where you have to address three differently coloured pixels. Also, the 32 bit value you refer to is 24 bits of colour information and 8 bits spare 'alpha channel' to be used for whatever.

      Please stop talking such uninformed nonsense.

    5. Re:new technique for displays? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      Ok, so maybe I am completely wrong. I just imagined that for each current pixel you have three sections that are either on or off. That would be effectively 3 bits of information per pixel or one bit per segment.

      As you stated a current 1024 display has 3612 horizontal segments. In a new display each of those would be separately adressable.
      If you can get each new pixel to produce light at a specific frequency you could need to supply it with a value in an appropriate range. I just picked 32bit at random, but idealy you would want to give a suitable range of values for a suitable range of frequencies produced.

      From howstuffworks.com "The frequency of visible light is referred to as color, and ranges from 430 trillion Hz, seen as red, to 750 trillion Hz, seen as violet" so thats a pretty wide range to cover. Of course you wouldn't be able to produce light at a specific frequency down to an individual hertz but you ought to be able to adjust it by units of half a million hertz or so.

      Also if screens could be made with a universal pixels even higher resolutions should be possible.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    6. Re:new technique for displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Either on or off? No, graphics technology has moved on since then. Just having two states per pixel colour would give only eight combinations per pixel:

      r g b colour

      -------------

      0 0 0 black

      0 0 1 blue

      0 1 0 green

      0 1 1 cyan

      1 0 0 red

      1 0 1 magenta

      1 1 0 yellow

      1 1 1 white


      In most consumer-grade graphics cards these days, there are 256 gradations per pixel colour - eight bits of red, eight bits of blue and eight bits of green. Giving a total of 24 bits of colour information.

    7. Re:new technique for displays? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      sure, this is in the framebuffer, does the actual pixel on the lcd panel support more than two states per colour segment?. I though that they either let light from the backlight through or didn't. I'll have to look at my laptop through a magnifying glass. I thought that you could see many colours on an lcd panel was because there were sufficient pixels close enough together to make your eyes perceive the colours blended together.

      http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9619
      > SAMSUNG ALSO said that it has developed the first four colour channel TFT technology, which adds a white subpixel to the array for red, green and blue, to maximise brightness for screens.

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
    8. Re:new technique for displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you are incorrect. Not so long ago the number of gradations per pixel colour was only 64 (six bits) but developments in the past couple of years have yielded 256 gradations.

    9. Re:new technique for displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if white light is the "fuel" for the crystal, couldn't you just tell the crystal to not convert it, therefore you'd get white light out the other side.

    10. Re:new technique for displays? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that LCD displays generally have four elements per pixel, and two of them are the same color - I forget which color but it's one which either they cannot produce well or which we do not see well, one or the other.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:new technique for displays? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I doubt there'd be enough energy involved to make an audible hum.
      Yes, I am a humourless bastard, but I thought I'd make the point anyway.

    12. Re:new technique for displays? by 777333ddd · · Score: 1

      I think you misunderstand the previous post... think... why do you have red/green/blue? It's to mix the colors to get the desired color for that spot. Well, suppose that you just needee one element that could give THAT desired color with no additional mixing?

      d

    13. Re:new technique for displays? by harrkev · · Score: 1
      Well, suppose that you just needed one element that could give THAT desired color with no additional mixing?


      That would just give you the rainbow colors -- and no others (red, organge, yellow,green,blue,indigo,violet). If you need white, cyan, magenta, or any of the other "mixed" colors, then you are out of luck.

      Each point on a screen must be specified using three numbers. These could be the usual RGB, or YIQ, or HSV. But it does take three.
      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    14. Re:new technique for displays? by EddWo · · Score: 1

      ok thanks,
      are there any links to further info in this area?

      --
      "Taligent is still pure vapor. Maybe they'll be the last who jumps up on Openstep... "
  27. Photonic Condensator? by stiller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The researchers worked out that if a photonic crystal is designed in a certain way, incoming light can get trapped at the shock wave boundary, bouncing back and forth between the compressed part of the crystal and the uncompressed part, in a "hall of mirrors" effect.

    Could this be the starting point for some sort of photonic condensator? Maybe, this could in turn be used for building a volatile photonic memory system?
    That would mean a great leap in photo-electronic computer systems, since normally, a lot of the speedup from using optics in systems is lost due to slow(er) memory. But maybe the quality of the signal degrades too fast to be usable, afterall 0.1 nanosecond is hardly usable in most cases. Maybe somebody knows more about photo-electonics to figure this one out?

  28. Mod this idiot down! by hammy · · Score: 1

    How does this score +5!?!!?

    If you read the article you'd see that the light indeed emerges from the crystal at the new frequency. How could it make light bulbs more efficent or produce tetrahertz radiation for use in medical diagnostics if the light didn't emerge with a different frequency?

    1. Re:Mod this idiot down! by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      Yes the light emerges at a new frequency, *but for how long*? Can you shine in a continuous beam of red light and see at the other end a continuous beam of blue light? The article really didn't make this clear.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    2. Re:Mod this idiot down! by hammy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, the title of my comment was a bit harsh...
      The article seems to imply that this effect will initially be temporary ("Initially they will generate shock waves by shooting bullets at photonic crystals. This would destroy the crystal, but not before the light has had time to shift.") The article implies that in the future the technique should probably be able to produce a continuous beam ("Eventually, sound waves should do the job just as well.")

    3. Re:Mod this idiot down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes the light emerges at a new frequency, *but for how long*?

      Are you somehow implying that light will change it's frequency all by itself?

      If the light has *exited* the device, then it's just light - why would it "go back" to the frequency it had before it entered?

      The article really didn't make this clear.

      Yes, it really did. For anyone who's passed third grade science.

    4. Re:Mod this idiot down! by geeber · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt this effect will work with continuous beams. The wavelength shift is based on the Doppler effect, i.e. the light shifts in frequency because the crystal is getting smaller. At some point the crystal has to get larger again, or be destroyed. If the crystal is driven by an acoustic wave, it will oscillate in size, and therefore, the frequency shift will have an oscillatory behaviour in time.

    5. Re:Mod this idiot down! by Ed+Avis · · Score: 1

      No you misunderstand - of course I didn't mean that the light beam once it has exited the crystal will somehow revert back to its original frequency at the stroke of midnight. I meant, *for how long* can the crystal go on producing light at a different frequency? Can it do so continuously or just for short bursts?

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  29. Re:hot Sex0r!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whether the story is good or not isn't the issue. If you don't like how the system is moderated then its entirely your option to fuck off. I'm sure most here would appreciate such a wise choice on your behalf.

  30. The technology smashes the crystal by HidingMyName · · Score: 5, Informative

    The approach is destructive of the crystal used for filtering the light, although they hope to be able to use sound waves in the future. Due to the distorion of the crystal lattice structure required, even sound waves may wind up breaking the crystal (remember the old memorex commercials with the singer breaking a crystal wine glass). The approach is very interesting, but there still are some serious design issues that they need to address, otherwise, it will be tough to deploy this for applications such as optical repeaters or switches.

    1. Re:The technology smashes the crystal by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 1

      hey, that is a problem for the material enguineers. just pass it on to them ;-)

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    2. Re:The technology smashes the crystal by kinnell · · Score: 2, Informative
      even sound waves may wind up breaking the crystal

      That's only a serious problem if they hit the resonant frequency of the crystal, or a multiple thereof. As long as they avoid this, it would have to be one serious sound wave, in which case a greater problem might be the neighbours :-)

      --
      If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
  31. Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by Walts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, with such a frequency translator, we can all imagine all the goodies and baddies that can be made with it. One of them is a cloaking devices, efficient power sources, phase weapons...
    Imagine changing harmless light from light bulbs into a focused gamma rays or worse !

    1. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can!

      "Cloaking Devices"

    2. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by biawak · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Even though it could change the "harmless" light into "dangerous" light, it would be that effective as a weapon for small amounts of energy. 100% efficiency doesn't mean same number of photons but the same amount of energy. So the light coming out in the form of gamma rays would have more energy per photon but a less concentrated beam of photons and would thus not be an effective weapon.

    3. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by Walts · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Perhaps, but imagine for a moment that the beam can be translated and well as focused. Then it's doesn't really matter... Take for example all the energy of a 250 watts light bulb and focus it into say a some extremely narrow band. It's quite reasonable to get enough energy to be able blast things... Not only that, but we know that such a narrow band can be used to disable equipment as well as people by over loading them with the resulting narrow band pulse or beam...

    4. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by dunedan · · Score: 1

      RTA, This depends on light interacting with a crystal. I don't think that your going to find too many crystals that reflect gamma rays or even xrays that well.

    5. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by md65536 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm no physicist but I doubt that the light energy in is the same as the light energy out (I'd be more inclined to think that the number of photons remains the same). I think that the shock wave applying the Doppler effect is probably changing the energy? So, you may be able to build death rays out of ordinary "harmless" light, but you'd have to apply a lot of energy to the shockwave.

      The way I understand this system, it would be like tossing a pingpong ball into a match with a couple of mad pingpong players. The paddles, moving back and forth as a well-timed shockwave would, add energy to the ball and it is shot out of the system with higher energy than it was tossed in.

      Is this analogy accurate?

    6. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Conservation of energy.

    7. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by delmoi · · Score: 1

      One of them is a cloaking devices, efficient power sources, phase weapons...

      Um, what? Do you know anything about physics?

      --

      ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
    8. Re:Can anyone say cloaking devices ? by md65536 · · Score: 1

      There is still conservation of energy when something adds energy to something else. Energy of light in + energy of shockwave = energy of light out + energy lost.

      I hope that when they say this technique is efficient, they mean that there is the potential for a very small overall energy loss, rather than say just a small loss due to light absorption. Ideas for more efficient lightbulbs won't go too far if you have to keep shooting bullets at them.

  32. Efficiency by onthefenceman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the summary's mention of "near 100% efficiency" is misleading. It all depends on how wide your definition of the system is. Yes, technically the material itself appears to be highly efficient, but that's discounting all the energy used creating the shockwave necessary to give the material these properties.

    A fascinating discovery, yes, but a miraculous way to convert energy to suit our needs it is not.

    --
    Have you seen my stapler?
    1. Re:Efficiency by geeber · · Score: 2, Informative

      The efficiency of interest in these types of processes is not the total energy efficiency. For example, if I lose heat because I have to stabalize the temperature of the crystal, I am not worried about that. What is of ultimate interest is the optical conversion effiency - the power in at wavelength one, versus the power out at desired wavelength two.

      Optical conversion efficiency is what is important, for example, in wavelength conversion for data transmission. You don't want to lose signal power.

    2. Re:Efficiency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I need to read the actual paper (and not the press release); but, I'm suspecting that by saying it's 100% efficient, they're not really talking about energy efficiency; but, they're talking about conversion efficiency.

      Will be putting my physics degree to work on this one... It's just too intriguing to pass up.

    3. Re:Efficiency by FooBarWidget · · Score: 1

      "is misleading"

      Hello? This is Slashdot!

  33. hrm..... by m00by · · Score: 1

    set phasers to stun? forget x ray glasses, how about IR/Millimeter wave radar (or better) and other funky stuff. all you'd see with x rays are bones. what you see with millimeter wave might get you....er...nevermind. =D on with the science!

  34. New drink mix??? by UncleBiggims · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm confused. Are you saying that MIT researchers have developed a new "Cyrstal Light" drink mix that changes colors? What flavor is it?

    1. Re:New drink mix??? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Are you saying that MIT researchers have developed a new "Cyrstal Light" drink mix that changes colors? What flavor is it?


      You are thinking of the new flavour of Kool-Aid

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:New drink mix??? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 1

      Don't all alcholic drinks change your visible color spectrum if you drink enough of it?

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  35. What's the range of effect? by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'd be curious to know the breadth of the effect (possibly limited to those wavelengths that can be captured by photonic crystals?). I mean, visible light is only a very small part of the EM spectrum. http://www.lbl.gov/MicroWorlds/ALSTool/EMSpec/EMSp ec2.html
    Could this effect mean one could upshift radio waves to hard xrays? Or microwaves to gamma rays? The idea that this can be done with nearly 100% efficiency is the biggest wow-factor and seems like it should be violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:What's the range of effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not violating the second law of thermodynamics because to do this sort of upshift requires a stress to be applied to a crystal, thus inputting energy into the system. It's just that this energy is converted into a higher frequency light ray.

    2. Re:What's the range of effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that 100% efficiency is 100% photonic efficiency.

      100W incidence IR => 100W output UV

      Of course, there is the power sent in to shake the crystal, and that is lost (though you could possibly get conversion from vibrational energy tophoton enery, 120W UV out).

    3. Re:What's the range of effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and it would violate the 2nd law. The extra energy required to shift the frequency actually comes from the energy applied to generate the shock waves. Some of that will be lost as heat in the medium (kinetic energy lost in the vibration of the crystal lattice). By 100% efficent I believe they probably mean that 100% of the photons which come in are converted.

      Did that sound good, or what! Hey, I actually got to use my physics degree....

    4. Re:What's the range of effect? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      In particular I'd enjoy using it to upshift microwaves to the visible, so I could look up at the night sky through my converter and see the 3-degree cosmic background.

    5. Re:What's the range of effect? by dasmegabyte · · Score: 1

      Sounds to me like it ENFORCES the 2nd rule of thermodynamics.

      "Energy cannot be created nor destroyed; it can only change form."

      It's not creating anything. It's not destroying anything. It's changine form...and since we're using plenty of energy to create the phasic wave which is doing the changing, entropy's increasing too.

      Newton's emasculation of crazy science fiction magic continues unabated.

      --
      Hey freaks: now you're ju
    6. Re:What's the range of effect? by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The 'near-100% efficiency' doesn't mean that the process is energy-free, just that the light coming out is almost as intense as the light coming in. Ordinary filters don't convert anything, they just block out what you don't want. If only 10% of the emitted light is of a frequency you want, then 90% is lost by using a filter. This process actually converts the incoming light into the outgoing, so any losses are due to imperfections in the system.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  36. "Most prized results.." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "These are probably the most exciting results in photonics in the last decade."

    Wow wee. Let's see ... since 1993's blue LEDs ... what exactly wonderful has happened in the field of photonics.

    That's right, not a shit.

  37. Lawrence Livermore and bullets by panurge · · Score: 1
    A pity the researchers seem determined to pander to the rednecks by doing experiments in which they fire bullets at crystals. It sounds a bit too much like those fusion machines at LL that either don't work or are now covered in secrecy (fire lasers at deuterium/tritium pellets...). That's the bit of the article I'd have left out if I wanted to be taken seriously. Terahertz imaging might be safer than X-rays, but not if the medic comes in clutching his assault rifle ("OK, we're going to shine a light on your head, then I'm just going to let a few rounds off at this here photonic crystal and we'll have some nice pictures of the inside of your skull.")

    Being a little more serious, though, clearly I should have paid a lot more attention in those lectures on abnormal refraction in crystals. Thanks to my lecturers for making crystallography boring all those years ago, when nowadays it's just about the most important set of technologies out.

    --
    Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
  38. You know what they say about the EM spectrum... by VCAGuy · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...shift happens!

    --
    Q: "Why do sound techs say 'check 1, 2'?"
    A: "Cause if they could count any higher they'd be lighting techs."
  39. No article up yet, but here's the abstract by DrFlounder · · Score: 5, Informative

    Not much more information than in the article, but here's the abstract. This is pretty similar to Bragg scattering, which is a well known effect that uses sound waves to upshift the frequency of light. Current Bragg cells are very inefficient and are limited to small shifts in frequency. A high efficiency Bragg cell capable of shifting frequency by a large amount would be extremely interesting.

    From Physical Review Letters.

    Color of shock waves in photonic crystals
    Evan J. Reed, Marin Soljacic, and John D. Joannopoulos

    Unexpected and stunning new physical phenomena result when light interacts with a shock wave or shock-like dielectric modulation propagating through a photonic crystal. These new phenomena include the capture of light at the shock wave front and re-emission at a tunable pulse rate and carrier frequency across the bandgap, and bandwidth narrowing as opposed to the ubiquitous bandwidth broadening. To our knowledge, these effects do not occur in any other physical system and are all realizable under experimentally accessible conditions. Furthermore, their generality make them amenable to observation in a variety of time-dependent photonic crystal systems, which has significant technological implications.

    --
    Physics, Cosmology and ... ants? Dr. Floun
  40. In other news.. by knightinshiningarmor · · Score: 1

    Intel's Pentium 5 is the coldest processor ever, and it also provides a light show as you listen to your pirat^H^H^H^H^H legal mp3s!

  41. Doesn't matter, it's more than long enough by Morgaine · · Score: 4, Interesting

    the light frequency is altered for only a short time

    The "short time" doesn't really matter, and furthermore looking at a "light beam" as an end-to-end continuous sine wave that you stretch and compress doesn't really help here ...

    Photons last forever (well, until absorbed etc). Once one has escaped from the reflection zone between shockwave fronts, it doesn't wither and die, it's permanently changed to do our beckoning. The fact that its "home of origin" has since moved on isn't really of any further concern. (And notice the difference in velocities between light and shock wavefronts, ie. hare and tortoise, so from the photon's point of view the generator is pretty static.)

    Complaining that the shockwave fronts are transitory is like complaining that the metastable states in lasers are, er ... metastable. :-) It doesn't matter, the point is that the wavefronts are recreated continuously, and with sound that doesn't seem all that hard.

    --
    "The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
  42. Cool application! by Domini · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Having the ultimate sunglasses... have it shift Ultra-violet to a more visible frequency...

    Or perhaps even infrared/heat?
    Cool glasses that make you see in the dark? (military applications?)

    Whee!

    1. Re:Cool application! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You forgot X-rays... Now the old gag X-ray glasses could become a reality!

    2. Re:Cool application! by Domini · · Score: 1

      No, no...

      X-Ray glasses already exist! 2 bn. comics can't be wrong!
      -grin-

    3. Re:Cool application! by untaken_name · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot X-rays... Now the old gag X-ray glasses could become a reality!

      Sure, if you can manage to convice whoever you wanted to see through to walk in front of a device spewing x-rays. I don't really know what the attraction would be of seeing someone's skeleton, although it might be cool for a few minutes. It's not like you're going to see through just someone's clothes, unless they're sheer/transparent/over on the floor in the corner, and you don't need special glasses and deadly radiation for that.
      Maybe for doctors...but still, there has to be a source for the x-rays, and they're still dangerous. your eyes would be protected...but what about the rest of you?

    4. Re:Cool application! by phinneas · · Score: 1

      "Having the ultimate sunglasses... have it shift Ultra-violet to a more visible frequency..."

      Screw that, gimme my Peril-Sensitive Suglasses!

    5. Re:Cool application! by Domini · · Score: 1

      Gotto go and get my lead underwar right away! ;)

  43. Biodegradable? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 3, Funny
    • The work is impressive, says materials chemist Michael Sailor at the University of California, San Diego, whose team has developed flexible, biodegradable photonic crystals. He says he now plans to test the phenomenon for himself.
    Sounds like they didn't manage to make crystals that actually *last*, and are attempting to sell this bug as a feature.
    Who says the physical engineering guys can't learn anything from the software guys? :)
    --
    yes, we have no bananas
    1. Re:Biodegradable? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      Curious? Does the name Dr. Kotman mean anything to you?

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    2. Re:Biodegradable? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1
      • Curious? Does the name Dr. Kotman mean anything to you?
      FroMan, can't say it does - please enlighten me.
      --
      yes, we have no bananas
    3. Re:Biodegradable? by FroMan · · Score: 1

      My bad, your .sig was a popular quote by a Dr. Kotman in college. I had only heard it from him and his students making fun of him.

      --
      Norris/Palin 2012
      Fact: We deserve leaders who can kick your ass and field dress your carcass.
    4. Re:Biodegradable? by the+bluebrain · · Score: 1

      Okay - that lights my bulb. I only know it from the song. Good and absurd, just like what I aspire to.
      Kotman, eh? Ah, well.

      --
      yes, we have no bananas
  44. RE: The future of...*Everything*!?! by fshalor · · Score: 3, Interesting
    This is by far one of the most pivital breakthroughs I've seen in a while. Makes me want to fire up our lasers and start playing...However, they haven't accomplished this yet..

    "We ought to be able to do things that have never been possible before," Joannopoulos. While this is true, its application remains to be seen. I'll wait with held breath for their publication.

    On the same note, I wounder wheather this is just the begining of similar earth shattering (whell, light bending in this case) breakthroughs in other fields due to bringing ideas of two different fields together. Most optics people I know would never even consider bringing sound into the picture.

    My prediction: new sight and smell techniques will revolutionze the way scientists do research by allowing for instantaneous point density determinations in complex 3-d flows. (Extremely useful!) This will happen when this advacment using sound to modify crystal properties is coupled with a device that picks up minute particle changes over a surface (smell) and correlates the two internally.

    --
    -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
  45. heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there is one interesting site regarding MIT - reallife.lv

    1. Re:heh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wtf? I'm not paying some jerk's tuiton into MIT. I have enough trouble paying for my own tuiton, thanks.

  46. It was a valid question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Certainly as good as most others, and it provided some good responses. What more do you want?

  47. Does this mean by DaLiNKz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean my laser pointer will be able to hit the moon? :D

    --
    I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    1. Re:Does this mean by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

      It already can....You just don't see it anymore :)
      You could also try throwing it very hard....

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    2. Re:Does this mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No it can't. The scattering effects due to the Earth's atmosphere completely diminish any light that would have reached the moon from such a weak source.

    3. Re:Does this mean by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      Laser pointers use a cheap laser which consists of an LED {a nearly-monochromatic light source; it should be MC in therory, but the act of it emitting a photon alters the wavelength of the next photon to be emitted} shining into a lump of some stuff with a weak mirror on each end, so the light mostly just bounces back and forth inside it. This sets up the light equivalent of a guitar string {maximum vibration in the middle, no vibration at the ends}; i.e. you get all the crests and all the troughs lining up at some particular frequency, and any other frequencies end up annihilating one another due to a crest and trough meeting up. Interestingly, this energy doesn't change state - the diode just doesn't let as much current flow while it's happening. Or rather, just after it's happened :-) Think transmission lines. On average, about half of the light - that doesn't get absorbed by the imperfect reflective materials and turned into heat - eventually makes it out of the non-LED end. But there is definitely a zero-crossing where the beam is leaving the resonance cavity, and only one wavelength, so all the crests and troughs line up perfectly. This property of coherence is what defines laser light.

      When the batteries are getting spent, the LED becomes too dim to bounce back and forth very many times. All you see is what shines straight through the resonance cavity and out the other end; it is not perfectly monochromatic and not coherent.

      The beam also tends to diverge unless it is well focused. Fit new batteries, aim at a target several metres distant and adjust the focus. Keep trying further and further targets ..... although natural experimental errors will eventually take over and you won't be able to get it perfect. If you get it as far as the moon {doubtful with clouds in the way ..... which makes me highly suspicious of claims that spy satellites can read a number plate on a vehicle} then, in all probability, it'll be much, much dimmer than whatever light is bouncing off the moon. Maybe on a new moon it would work. But you also have to bear in mind that the beam of light is making a round trip of c.800Mm {that's right, megametres}; and, unless perfectly collimated, then it will spread over an area proportional to the square of the distance travelled (assuming light travels in straight lines). Even if you could get it not to diverge noticebably over 200m., multiply this by 4 million and you see the problem.


      As for this colour-changing thing ..... A photon of blue light carries more energy than a photon of red light, nearly twice as much if I remember correctly (E = h * c / lambda, where lambda varies from 400E-9m. to 700E-9m). So if I put in 7 photons at 700nm, does this mean I would only get out 4 photons at 400nm? Or does the extra energy come from the work done by the shock wave?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  48. High-efficiency automobile lighting? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hmmm.

    This research could point the way for automotive lighting systems that are far more efficient than today's lights but use a tiny fraction of its power.

    Already, we've seen LED taillights on a number of cars such as the Nissan Skyline (as the Infiniti G35 is known in most of the world). This research could lead to LED-based automobile headlights that are just as bright as the high-intensity discharge (HID) xenon headlights found on more expensive automobiles but doesn't need the expensive power generating system HID headlights now need and uses a tiny fraction of the power needed for regular headlights. Other lighting systems such as fog lights could benefit from these new technologies, too.

    1. Re:High-efficiency automobile lighting? by iplayfast · · Score: 1

      Or go the otherway. A windsheild that converts infrared to visible light. No need for headlights!

    2. Re:High-efficiency automobile lighting? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

      A windsheild that converts infrared to visible light. No need for headlights!

      In theory that would be great except that IR night vision can be blocked. The military found out that certain types of chemical smoke blocks the IR radiation from any source behind the smoke, and they use these smoke screens to protect tanks from being detected at night.

  49. Peer Review? by kravlor · · Score: 5, Informative

    This certainly sounds like an excellent advance in the field.I have been aware of interesting work with shock waves in other materials, for example, to create hydrogen metal, but it wouldn't surprise me if these claimed results were valid.

    There are a couple of problems with the article and its claims, however:

    • Near 100% efficiency -- I'd like to see a reproducable demonstration of this. If it is true, we will have a revolution in the solar cell industry. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a difficult thing to contend with; anything that comes near 100% should set off any good physicist's red flags.
    • The article is going to be published in the Physical Review Letters -- This is significantly different than saying the article has been published in the PRL's. Such a journal is peer reviewed, which means that other respected scientists in the field have read and commented on the article and its methods, and endorse the results. This case, however, seems a lot like "cold fusion" -- with researchers calling a press conference before letting others reproduce their results.

    I hope for the best, but remain sceptical; let's hope these new shockwave effects become easier to generate and exploit!

    1. Re:Peer Review? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with your 100% efficiency statement -- it clearly would violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics...

      I found the news article to be a little unclear on this point: Are they talking about energy efficiency; or, conversion efficiency?

    2. Re:Peer Review? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      The article is going to be published in the Physical Review Letters -- This is significantly different than saying the article has been published in the PRL's.

      Well, no, it's not different. The article states "soon to be published" and names a specific journal--Phys. Rev. Lett. It seems that they've already been peer-reviewed, and the journal is in press.

      You're right that it's unusual to call a press conference before they publication hits the streets, but maybe they're just enthusiastic.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    3. Re:Peer Review? by chhamilton · · Score: 1
      kravlor said:
      There are a couple of problems with the article and its claims, however:
      • Near 100% efficiency -- I'd like to see a reproducable demonstration of this. If it is true, we will have a revolution in the solar cell industry. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a difficult thing to contend with; anything that comes near 100% should set off any good physicist's red flags.
      • The article is going to be published in the Physical Review Letters -- This is significantly different than saying the article has been published in the PRL's. Such a journal is peer reviewed, which means that other respected scientists in the field have read and commented on the article and its methods, and endorse the results. This case, however, seems a lot like "cold fusion" -- with researchers calling a press conference before letting others reproduce their results.
      Right now, everything in the article is pure speculation and they realize that wholeheartedly. In fact, the effect only exists in computer simulations currently, so the researchers haven't even witnessed it yet. The article will be subject to peer review, of course, but it's simply a theoretical discussion giving computational proof of an effect believed to exist, so as long as the underlying theory is sound, the results are likely to be accepted. This isn't a case of astounding experimental results being claimed where the methodology is suspect.

      Until somebody comes up with a feasible method to produce these results, they will remain 'meta-results'. This is not like cold-fusion at all; in that case, the original researchers actually claimed success in producing the result (not just theoretically proving it possible).
    4. Re:Peer Review? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here are a couple of problems with the article and its claims, however:

      Near 100% efficiency -- I'd like to see a reproducable demonstration of this. If it is true, we will have a revolution in the solar cell industry. However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a difficult thing to contend with; anything that comes near 100% should set off any good physicist's red flags


      The 100% efficiency in the article does not refer to the total energy in the system, which would break the second law. Rather the 100% efficiency claim in in regard to how many photons go in, and come out at the new freqency. That frequency conversion is 100%, all the photons that come in do go out at the new frequency.

      The article does not make any claims about the power consumption of the whole process. Undoubtedly, the photonic crystal will heat up thereby consuming energy, generating the shock wave will dissipate energy, and generating the original freqency light will dissipate energy. The only resulting energy from he system is the new freqency light.

      This is not creating energy from nothing, simply a potentially great way to change it from less useful to more useful forms. There will be many effects, doubling the freqency of a burst of low freqency light will half the duration of the light burst. The service life of the crystals will also be interesting.

    5. Re:Peer Review? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1


      Near 100% efficiency -- I'd like to see a reproducable demonstration of
      this. If it is true, we will have a revolution in the solar cell industry.
      However, the Second Law of Thermodynamics is a difficult thing to
      contend with; anything that comes near 100% should set off any good
      physicist's red flags.


      The second law of thermodynamics is about: erm, let me guess ... might be
      its about "thermodynamics".

      So: there are endless phyical happenings where the energy "efficency" is
      close to 100%. Simple example: total reflection of light at the edge of a
      water surface or inside of a glass fibre.

      Or fusion, the energy set free in performing a fusion process is excactly
      100% of the theoretical maximum. Or fission, the energy set free is exactly
      the amount of the theoretical maximum.

      Using that energy inside of a power plant to produce electric power, thats
      the point where suddenly the second law of thermodynamics comes into play.

      Make a degree or read some phyics books instead of playing the bright guy by
      shouting "Peer review" as often as possible. There is enough stuff in the
      world wich are that plausible that every paper accepting them for publishing
      has enough know how amoung the editors to judge them selves if they
      "believe" it and publish it, or not.

      The guy is not looking for funding, is he? So there is no harm even if he
      made a "joke". But a little googeling would bring up that this research
      topic is currently a very hot one and that similar ideas and results are
      brought up at universities all over the world.

      Regards,
      angel'o'sphere

      Tzzzz.. when I wanted to post this I was in office ... and the parent was only moderated to 3, now its on 5, funny :-)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    6. Re:Peer Review? by digitalunity · · Score: 1

      Read The Fúcking Article.

      Computer simulations confirmed what they've already done in the lab. This whole talk about shooting the crystal with a bullet is what they did; not what they simulated.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    7. Re:Peer Review? by chhamilton · · Score: 1
      I did RTFA, am I to assume you did? Note carefully the use of future tense in the following quote (emphasis mine):
      The team is now collaborating with researchers at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to demonstrate the effect. Initially they will generate shock waves by shooting bullets at photonic crystals. This would destroy the crystal, but not before the light has had time to shift. Eventually, sound waves should do the job just as well, they say. "Its really practical, and potentially even easier to do than with actual shock waves," says Reed.
      The paper is in reference to the computer simulations, which came before any observations of the effect. They are currently trying to create the effect in a lab, in partnership with Lawrence Livermore labs, and the initial experiments will involve shooting crystals with a bullet.
  50. Is the Photonic Revolution Coming? by rpiquepa · · Score: 4, Informative

    I also commented this story here, but I also previously posted another column on this subject. Please read it if you're interested by the photonic revolution.

  51. Lightsaber crystals? by dev_alac · · Score: 0

    It seems to me that this might finally explain why lightsabers require crystals... at least to get the cool colors.

  52. Reverse the greenhouse effect!! by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

    Now we can convert those nasty IR photons back into UV photons and beam them back into space where they belong!

    8-)

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  53. Up-shift and down-shift ratios not symmetric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't Doppler shift asymmetric on the upshift in one direction and downshift in the other, seeing as it's asymptotic at the high end approaching the speed of light? That would also explain why they can only achieve a downshift and not an upshift.

    Time to dig out my relativity primer ... :-)

  54. IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by jgardn · · Score: 5, Informative

    IAAP (I am a Physicist) and the effect is pretty simple. I think anyone should be able to understand it if it is explained properly.

    "Doppler Shift" is a phenomena you are already familiar with. Consider a car honking its horn as he drives by at freeway speeds. As he approaches, the sound is heard at a higher frequency. As he passes by, the frequency shifts, and as he is leaving, the frequency is lower than normal.

    Light is like sound in that it is a wave and has a frequency. Let's examine light from high to low frequencies. X-Rays are light at extremely high frequencies. Ultra-Violet light is just above the visible light range. Then we get into the rainbow - blue, then green, then red. Next is infra-red light -- light just below red in frequency. Travelling farther down, we start to reach the radio band. Below that, the frequencies are so low that it no longer is light anymore, but more like a slowly shifting magnetic or electric field.

    The Doppler effect works for light as well. The problem is you or the object emanating the light has to be travelling near light speeds to see any noticeable effect. We call this "redshift" in astronomy, because stars seem to be travelling away from us, and so the light emanating from them is lower in frequency (more red). Certainly, attaining near-light-speeds is dangerous and difficult. We're not talking "bullet" fast, we are talking "cosmic ray" fast.

    However, there is an oh-so-tiny Doppler shift when *any* motion is involved with light. When your friend walks towards you, the light bouncing off of him is slightly more blue. When he walks away, it is slightly more red. Good luck actually detecting this, however.

    Photonic crystals have the strange property of behaving like a piece of glass at one moment, and a mirror the next, depending on how much pressure is applied where.

    So, using a proper push on the crystal, it is possible to set up a travelling hall of mirrors. The light appears to be slightly shifted due to the Doppler effect to the mirror, so when it is reflected, the light is shifted, by an oh-so-tiny amount. Multiply that shift by a kazillion reflections, which is quite possible if you make the hall of mirrors very tiny (think atomic scale), and you can control light to almost any frequency, high or low, depending on how you set up the mirrors.

    So, the net effect is light goes in at one frequency, and comes out the other end at another, without expending hardly any energy to get it done.

    The engineering challenge is configuring the crystal so that it can withstand the forces that need to be applied, and applying the forces in a controllable way. Right now they are doing tests with bullets and crystals, because they only need to record data for the instant that the shock waves are travelling through the crystal, and they don't mind using a cheap, destructive method. In the future, they will probably use sound waves to control the crystal. But how they configure this is left to the imagination.

    The applications are numerous, and some of them are listed in the article. Needless to say, if we want to use light to transmit data, the more control we have over the light, the more effective we can be in transmitting that data. Also, doctors will be happy because we can now easily exploit the Terahertz range for X-ray type applications.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
    1. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a physics undergrad, and there's one thing that bothers me with all of this. We know that light of a higher frequency carries more energy, so how can you just convert red light to blue and get away with it? The energy must be supplied from somewhere to energize the photons of red light enough so that their frequency goes up to become blue light. Its hard to believe that a shockwave applied to a crystal can supply enough energy for this effect to occur. Any thoghts on this?

    2. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by OrbNobz · · Score: 1

      Here's something I don't understand about your explanation.
      You make it sound as if distance is synonymous with rate of speed.
      Doppler effect involves compression and decompression of a wave.
      How does bouncing it between mirrors cause it to shift?
      It seems to me that it would only mitigate the wave, not shift it.
      Some relative movement must be involved to (de)compress the wave.
      Don't get me wrong, I think your explanation is great, but it's not done yet. Please finish. Or maybe I missed something... :)

      - OrbNobz
      "If the truth can be told, so as to be understood, it WILL be believed."

    3. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Mr.+McGibby · · Score: 1

      Light of a lower amplitude also carries less energy, no? Couldn't you get it from there.

      --
      Mad Software: Rantings on Developing So
    4. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by apdt · · Score: 1

      The detail you seem to have missed is that the hall of mirrors is actually moving, hence the doppler shift.

      --
      I lay awake last night wondering where the sun had gone, then it dawned on me.
    5. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      A photon of a given wavelength should only have one amplitude - at least that is my understanding. This is the whole basis of quantization of light. What appears to be amplitude on the macro-scale is really just intensity - more photons hitting the detector per unit of time. Since you aren't creating photons, they must be absorbing energy from the crystal - and hence from the shock wave. This should be observable if you can set up a steady-state system - as the intensity of the light is increased one should have to increase the power to the shock wave generator to compensate...

    6. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Perhaps an illustration will further illuminate this. A radar gun works by bouncing radio waves off of a moving car. Since the car is moving, the doppler effect causes the reflected waves to have a different wavelength than the incident waves. The radar gun measures this difference and determines the car's speed.

      In the same way, the walls of the crystal that the light is bouncing off of are vibrating back and forth. If the vibrations are timed such that a wall is always moving towards or away from an incident photon when it strikes the photons will always be gaining or losing wavelength due to the doppler shift.

    7. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. From the photoelectric effect we know that the intensity of light is only a measure of how many photons there are, but the photon frequency is what determines the energy level. Hence, if you have a lot of photons with low frequency absorbed by the crystal, you can't have the same number of photons exiting that have a higher frequency unless you have an energy source. That's why I'm having trouble with their concept of mechanical shockwaves imparting more energy to photons. If its a decrease only (from blue light to red), that seems much more plausible, but not the other way around.

    8. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by kalki · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the plain explanation, which triggered my thoughts on the effects this research will have on display screen. If we would manipulate light at that micro level, super rich display interface can be achieved!

    9. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, it's a downshift only. Photons are absorbed at the shockwave front and re-emitted at a lower frequency.

    10. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAP also, and while you say that this expends hardly any energy you're only partly right. From a light perspective it may be efficient. But you still have to use energy to produce the sound wave, which is not terribly efficient.

    11. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you awake at the crack of Dawn, do you wonder have many others have done this before you? :-)

    12. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I just wanted to say that - you being a physicist - I enjoyed reading your technical terms "on-so-tiny" and "kazillion".

      I never did all that well in physics. I guess now I know why...I just didn't know the lingo.

    13. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. That'd be "oh-so-tiny".

      There go my hopes for a funny.

    14. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAE (I am an Engineer) and actually, MIT people claim it is NOT Doppler effect. I have heard both Joannopoulos and Soljacic talk about this (No, I'm not from THAT Inst. of Tech.) and they claim that the shift is much larger than that which can be gained from Doppler shift. They attribute the shift to the shifting of the photonic band gap and moving the allowed modes which forces the energy to a different frequency. For the speeds and compressions they are using, it is possible they are seeing a _nonlinear_ acoustic effect while Doppler effect is essentially a linear process.

    15. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Rellik66 · · Score: 1

      So if I am traveling at light spead, in my station wagon and I turn on the headlights, what will happen? And how does the doppler effect apply to this?

      --

      Too many zeros, not enough ones

    16. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by eatdave13 · · Score: 1

      Your eyeballs will turn into bunny rabbits and your feet will be sucked into your ears! Balls of fire will shoot from your fingertips and your scrotum will be filled with vanilla ice cream!

      --
      "Verbing weirds language." -- Calvin
    17. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Their results also include upshifting to higher frequencies.

    18. Re:IAAP -- Here it is in plain English. by bpd1069 · · Score: 1

      The engineering challenge is configuring the crystal so that it can withstand the forces that need to be applied, and applying the forces in a controllable way.

      Easy, grow some multilayered quartz/'photonic crystal' sandwichs... Yummy!

      Damn it, I shoulda been a patent lawyer...

      --
      --
  55. Just in time... by PerspectiveTransform · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thank god... now just before Zephran Cochran launches, we'll have the frequency shifting lasers we need to stop the Borg without any help.

  56. Check this out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FREE MUSIC

  57. Take it easy on the hype there! by geeber · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is certainly an interesting result, but its heavily hyped as well.

    First of all, there are many many ways to shift the frequency of light, both up and down in frequency, with both linear and nonlinear means, - from the Raman effect in optical fibers (scattering off vibrations of silica molecules) to Optical Parametric Oscillators (nonlinear wave mixing), supercontinuum generation (using a multitude of nonlinear effects to generate broad bandwidth from a single laser) to simple OEO conversion (detect your light with a photodiode and use it to drive another laser at a different wavelength. Contrary to what this article implies, these effects work at modest power levels in todays optical fibers, and many are highly efficient, and work over extremely broad bandwidths. For example, supercontinuum generation can generate light sources with bandwidth covering the entire visible, UV and IR spectrum in one source! If you want to talk about bulk optic techniques for wavelength conversion, the list is even longer.

    Now think a minute about what these guys are proposing. They have to shock the crystal. Initial experiments will destroy the sample. Maybe they can refine the technique down the line to nondestructively shock the sample, maybe they can't. Certainly, infinite bandwidth won't be available, since the amount of wavelength shift will depend on the amount of shock. A single shot technique for wavelength shifting, while interesting, isn't all that useful practically.

    Second, they are using a shock, so conversion of CW light is out of the question, only pulses can be converted here, or you risk a time dependent wavelength shift, as your shock dies out.

    Finally, claims of a completely new physical effect seem somewhat overblown. It is an interesting idea, but Doppler shifting off acoustic shocks, and photonic crystals are well known. Marrying the two together and finding a stable regime of operation is novel, but not quite the same as discovering a new physical princple like relativity or quantum mechanics, for example.

    1. Re:Take it easy on the hype there! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OPA wavelength conversion has been going on for a quite a while now, much more practical.

      http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/Facilities/LSF/USL/Laser s/ spec.htm

      The BBO(?) crystals were quite sensitive to thermal shock and had to be maintained at a steady temperature, the heaters ended up getting UPS'd so that the crystals wouldn't get damaged in the event of a power cut.

      No - I can't turn into a light sabre, thanks for asking though :-)

  58. Wow. Oh wait... by First+Person · · Score: 1

    I need to start reading "New Scientist" magazine as "Not Science" magazine. They, like Discover, are far too focused on hype at the neglect of content.

    --
    Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
  59. CPU cooling? by muyuubyou · · Score: 1
    ... turning heat into light ...


    So we can finally have passive heatsinks with heat-powered neons while keeping CPUs cool??

    Wait. This is slashdot. Wake me up when this is real life :D
    1. Re:CPU cooling? by Loosewire · · Score: 3, Interesting

      how cool - finally we can have computers full of flashing lights Just like in the movies...

      --
      Slashdot - The one stop shop for procrastination
    2. Re:CPU cooling? by Arcturax · · Score: 1

      That is actually a pretty cool idea! *runs for the patent office*

      --

      --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  60. There should be a by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise every single Slashdot topic gets classified based on comedy value, because making a comic quip is so much easier than a considered technical response.

    A cap at Score:4 for Funny would help a lot.

    1. Re:There should be a by lmfr · · Score: 1
      Registered users can at least remove points from Funny comments.

      Prefs->Comments->Reason modifier.

  61. turning heat into light by tommten · · Score: 1

    this would be something of interest to many casemodders out there.. remember: don't stare to long on a overclocked computer.. you might go blind :)

    --
    - I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
  62. Patent Pending... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wohoo! Invisible vibrators!

  63. This is better than BEER GOGGLES!!! by Big_Monkey_Bird · · Score: 0

    rtt

  64. You forgot the bullets... by Chemisor · · Score: 5, Funny

    The article mentions an interesting fact that the researchers are using bullets instead of sound shock waves. "That will, of course, destroy the crystal"... I can just imagine what goes on in that lab:

    "Allrighty, George, it's your turn with the gun."

    "But Bill, you know George can't hit the broad side of a barn!"

    "Nonsense, my dear fellow. We need to produce some blue light soon, and that calls for a once-in-a-blue-moon event. Come on, George; ready... aim... fire! Take the safety off first, George. Gees... you call yourself a scientist? Ready... aim... fire!"

    "Oh, no, not my brand new spectrometer!..."

    "Look... Blue light! Woooohoooo!"

    1. Re:You forgot the bullets... by David+Roundy · · Score: 1

      From Evan's thesis defense (which was just a few weeks ago):

      Random destruction is fun, but why waste a perfectly good photonic crystal? :)

    2. Re:You forgot the bullets... by bobgoatcheese · · Score: 1

      I never thought I'd actually see a ressonance cascade!

      --
      How's my typing? Call 1-800-eta-shut
  65. Slight correction. by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We call this "redshift" in astronomy...
    Don't confuse cosmological redshift with Doppler-induced redshift. In astronomy, the redshift that's talked about is typically not due to the literal motion of the star. It really arises from the space between Earth and the star under observation expanding. It's really quite a neat little effect. I'm not going into the detail here, but I'd recommend reading a little about it.

    Anyway, because the redshift comes from the space itself expanding, it's proportional (I think it's a linear effect, I don't remember too well) to the distance between you and the object under observation. Yes, there is some Doppler style redshift, but that is not what's generally meant when an astronomer says "redshift". Also, cosmologists use redshift (z) as their primary variable in many equations. Most cosmologists measure distance in redshift, instead of cgs or mks length units.
    --


    Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    1. Re:Slight correction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IAAAS (I am an Astronomy Student)... ...And I'm sorry, but the above is incorrect. The cosmological redshift is EXACTLY the same thing as the doppler-induced redshift.

      You are correct in stating that it arises from the expansion of space between the observers (on Earth) and the galaxy* under observation, but only insofar as the expansion of space causes said galaxy to move away from the observers (On Earth).

      You are also correct that it is a linear relationship between redshift (z) and distance, the slope of the line being the Hubble Constant (H-naught) which is generally expressed in units of kilometers per second per megaparsec.

      Incidentally, this effect IS different from the GRAVITATIONAL redshift, which has to do with the fact that light must necessarily loose energy as it travels out of a gravity well (such as Earth's, but as with most things cosmological, the effect on a planetary scale is negligible). As E=h*nu, h being constant (Planck's, to be exact), nu (frequency) must be the component that changes.

      * It only works with galaxies, and then only the more distant ones. Any star that we can resolve is too close to have a significant cosmological redshft.

  66. Photons are absorbed and re-emitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The questions about how does a continuous beam of light have its frequency changed might be better rethought using a particle model of light.

    The researchers themselves refer to photons being absorbed and re-emitted with a different frequency at the shockwave fronts, so the photon model seems more suitable for current understanding of the phenomenon.

  67. Re:Wow. Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truly. It is a shit magazine with very little content. Little wonder it is a favorite of intellectually-challenged slashdot eidtors.

  68. Won't replace red/green/blue by johnjay · · Score: 1

    I may have misunderstood the article, but I didn't get the impression that a single crystal could produce different frequencies. One crystal, made of a certain combination of layers, would be able to change light from red to green, another crystal could change light from white to blue, etc. So you would still need separate crystals for each color. You couldn't simply change the composition of the crystal on the fly to give it different light-changing properties.

    It may be that you can change these crystals on the fly by sending different types of current through them. I don't know enough (read: anything) about the materials that are used to make them.

  69. Better solar power generators by Arcturax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    By taking sunlight and turning it into microwave radiation, you could get far greater efficiency out of the generation of electricity.

    This would make microwave beaming satellites highly efficient. The current idea was to have huge solar arrays which would of course alter the look of the sky during the day or night. These would convert some of the light into energy and probably reflect the rest of lose it as heat. The elctricity generated would produce a microwave signal which would be beamed down to a ground station and converted back into electricity. With this new technology, they could have far smaller arrays which convert the light directly into microwaves and transmit, eliminating the overhead of going from light->electricity->microwaves->electrici ty on the ground.

    Instead you would have light->microwaves->electricity on the ground.

    And you wouldn't need a mile long array of cells to collect enough power to make it worthwhile because your effeciency would be extremely high.

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  70. Re:Wow. Oh wait... by untaken_name · · Score: 1

    Truly. It is a shit magazine with very little content. Little wonder it is a favorite of intellectually-challenged slashdot eidtors. Yeah, those eidtors are jerks. Good thing the editors keep 'em in line.

  71. They rediscovered Brullion Scattering by AZPhysics · · Score: 1

    Holy Cow! Imagine that! People have only been doing Brullion Scattering for 30 years to shift frequencies of light! Sorry, this is a science non-story, and is merely more incremental progress.

  72. TANSTAAFL by mark-t · · Score: 1
    It won't make light bulbs, for example, more efficient because this method will invariable require some sort of input of energy into the system to change what would otherwise be lost heat into visible light. The 2nd law of thermodynamics allows us to predict that the amount of energy this technique would require would always have to be greater than the energy that we have "recovered".

    Entropy increases. This is a fundamental and inescapable law, and I'm suprised the article didn't address this point. Of course, I suppose when scientific discoveries get to the media before they get a chance to go through reasonable peer review, I guess you can't expect a whole lot of scientific accuracy.

  73. Actual Phenomenon (Cherenkov) and Research Paper by zhamurai · · Score: 3, Informative

    The radiation selectivity property was discovered by observing the phenomenon of Cherenkov radiation inside the photonic crystal.

    For further more detailed technical information, a PDF of the paper is here [http://physics.ucsd.edu/~drs/publications/2003/lu o_science_2003.pdf]

    Photonic crystals fall under a broader family of materials called "metamaterials".

    Future research note: Software-programmable metamaterials will create wonderfully exotic applications.

    Cheers

    Andrew

  74. Photonic Crystals don't they power the Enterpise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can just here Scotty know..."We need to replace ar supply of photonik crystals Captain."

  75. Relativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There once was a man named "Bright"
    Who could travel much faster than light.
    He set out one day
    In a relative way
    And came back the previous night! :)

  76. Re:You wouldn't see a thing! by Rxke · · Score: 1

    if all light would travel thru you, your eyes, working on the principle of REFLECTION of light, would become useless... Beware the invisible man, stumbling his clumsy way around! oh, well...

  77. Prized terahertz rays? by dark-br · · Score: 1

    Bah, gimme a call when Light Sabers become available :)

  78. More to the point... by kinnell · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this mean we'll finally be able to get X-Ray specs?

    --
    If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
    1. Re:More to the point... by Dyolf+Knip · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Does this mean we'll finally be able to get X-Ray specs?

      Sure, if you shift the frequency down far enough. Problem is, you would only be able to see the world in x-rays. And lemme tell you, it's pretty dark at that end of the spectrum. The atmosphere filters out most of the higher-range radiation (a few dozen kilometers of air is about as effective as 8 centimeters of solid lead), which is why x-ray machines are all about the generation of radiation; seeing it on film the easy part.

      If you want comic-book style x-ray specs, then we're talking about short microwave and far-infrared radiation. Then you just shift the radiation back up into the visible spectrum and you can see through clothes, flesh, fairly un-dense stuff like that.

      --
      Dyolf Knip
  79. Guitar string analogy? by chill · · Score: 1

    The first thing that pops in my mind is running a finger down a vibrating string, like on a guitar. The note gets higher and higher as the string is forced to vibrate in less and less linear space. This sounds like the optical equivalent.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  80. Is is just me or..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This could be used to create the first real optical multiplexer ?

    Incoming traffic could be converted to a specific frequency depending on the destination. Special filters could then be used on each outgoing channel, to filter out the undesired frequencies.

    A second "frequency conversion" could then retransform everything back to the correct spectrum band.

    1. Re:Is is just me or..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oops i meant switch. not multiplexer.
      although that would probably work too ;)

  81. Energy balance? by code_rage · · Score: 1

    E = h * nu

    If you change nu (the frequency of the EM wave), the energy of the wave must also change. Where does the energy go or come from? e.g. if shifting optical light waves to to X rays, there must be an energy input. Does this come from the mechanical vibration of the crystal?

    1. Re:Energy balance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, the extra energy comes from the shockwave, and hence, the motion of the crystal.

  82. Most famous words in science by ca1v1n · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Huh, that's not supposed to happen..."

    1. Re:Most famous words in science by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Also the the most infamous words around nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  83. X-Ray vision glasses by tetsuji · · Score: 1
    Oh, man!

    We'll finally be able to get a pair of those glasses that they sell in the back of hobby magazines... that actually work!

    Of course, you'd need lots of incident X-rays for that. Damn this atmosphere and magnetic field!!!

  84. Something is bugging me by neirboj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IANAP[hysicist], and so I have some questions about this process.

    What I know:

    So, when light is converted to a higher frequency (shorter wavelength) where does the necessary energy come from? The shockwave? What about when it is converted to a lower frequency (longer wavelength)? Where does the excess energy go? If the conversion really is 100% efficient (I'm a bit skeptical of that claim), then just imagine the solar panels we could have; sucking up all the UV raining down on us and emitting a soft red glow.

    Fascinating stuff. I've got to study more optics and electromagnetic physics.

    1. Re:Something is bugging me by mankei · · Score: 2, Informative

      The energy indeed comes from the shock wave. When light is shifted from a lower frequency to a higher frequency, a photon with the lower frequency f1 and an acoustic phonon with the frequency f2 are annihiliated and a new photon with the high frequency f1 + f2 is created. Energy is conserved. This is called stimulated Brillouin scattering. I suspect that the mechanism suggested in the article is a multi-phonon process because usually acoustic waves do not have such high optical frequencies. So multiple phonons are annihiliated in multiple bounces to generate a significant frequency shift.

    2. Re:Something is bugging me by mankei · · Score: 1

      or in the case of down-shifting, phonons are created

  85. Neat! by retro128 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Initially they will generate shock waves by shooting bullets at photonic crystals.

    Who says science isn't fun?

    --
    -R
  86. could this happen in space by guest12 · · Score: 1

    interstellar medium, like in dust clouds...interesting

  87. 6th Column by atwtftg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Does this remind anyone else of the Ledbetter effect that Heinlein described in his "Sixth Column" novella?

    Seems like there was another Heinlein story that used a light wavelength shifter as an energy resource - one that ultimately powered moving sidewalks...anyone remember the title of that story?

    1. Re:6th Column by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "Let There Be Light" - and thanks, I was positively disappointed in /. when I saw no one had mentioned that story :)

  88. Elvis had prior art... by presearch · · Score: 1

    ...when he shot out his TV. He was truly ahead of his time.

  89. Bohring maybe, but... by Iowaguy · · Score: 4, Funny

    But they do occur with alarming frequency.

    --
    "He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
  90. Efficiency Near 100% ? by istartedi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Of course I haven't seen their simulations, but where does this "near 100%" figure come from? The first test is going to use a bullet (!) and they are projecting that a more refined version will use sound waves. Something has to produce those sound waves, and the waves have to be powerful enough to alter the characteristics of the crystal.

    Now I understand that in theory a light wave at a given frequency could transform to a higher frequency and lower intensity (conservation of energy is not violated), but that's analogous to changing the gear ratio on a motor. A gear system always introduces some loss.

    Now, given that any practical implementation of this will require a wave generator that's likely to make some noise, I don't see it ending up in lightbulbs or solar cells. If you want to get more light to a solar cell, focusing a mirror on it and keeping it cool is probably more practical.

    However, the medical imaging tech sounds like a great application. Noise from medical scanners is an acceptable part of that experience.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  91. Darwin award time? by Phronesis · · Score: 1

    Since the shift requires shooting the photonic crystal with a bulled, you'd have a room full of drunk horny single people shooting guns. Darwin award, anyone?.

    1. Re:Darwin award time? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Since the shift requires shooting the photonic crystal with a bulled, you'd have a room full of drunk horny single people shooting guns. Darwin award, anyone?.


      lol. Just thinning the herd, just thinning the herd... Actually, it sounds more like a southern wedding. Or an Arab wedding, for that matter...

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Darwin award time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sounds like your mother's wedding..

  92. Interesting, but....I have a question. by carlmenezes · · Score: 1

    I wonder what this would do to say a modulated light beam carrying information. Since I'm a DSP guy the first thing that came into my head was "aliasing". Yeah, I know we're not sampling here, but that's what I thought of.

    So let's assume we have a modulated light beam carrying some information. I don't think the information would be affected if it does not require the whole bandwidth of the new light frequency.

    But what if it does? What frequencies will get chopped out? Or does the whole stream become unreadable? Anyone got any ideas? I know this sounds crazy, but what if, just what if nothing is lost? I can immediately see applications of "slowing down information transfers". And suppose certain frequencies are chopped...could that be used to implement a kind of bandpass filter?

    Quite fascinating actually. By the way, I need a job :) A DSP one.

    --
    Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
  93. Moderator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod Parent Up!!

  94. What about entropy? by Polir · · Score: 1

    I always tought that energy is downgrading and entropy is increasing, ie at the big bang the energy was all highly condensed high energy and it downgrades to background radiation. Could you change this background radiation back again to a higher frequency/energy wave?

  95. They mentioned turning heat into light... by SkyLeach · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So now in a few years might we be able to light our homes with the excess heat from overclocking our PCs? Perhpas drive some cool fiberoptic case mods?

    Oh I can't wait for this one to be commercialized, but chances are I'll be too old to be l33t by then. =(

    --
    My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so :-p
  96. You Commented?? by malakai · · Score: 1
    It looks like you simply quoted the source. I see no comments from you.

    Here's your comments in a nutshell:
    "In this article, the New Scientist tells us about an amazing discovery about the control of light."
    ...insert new scientist text here....
    "Here is how it works."
    ...insert new scientist text here....
    "What can we expect from this breakthrough?"
    ...insert new scientist text here....
    "Those of you interested by this subject can read a former column, "Is the Photonic Revolution Coming?""
    ...link points to a story in which you don't comment, you simply quote yet another story....

    Holy worthless. Score 4 on this guy? WHY?

    -malakai

  97. Thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know that, guess I need to RTFM on /. :-)

  98. prized terahertz rays? by Doppler00 · · Score: 1

    from turning heat into light, or even into prized terahertz rays
    I don't see why this would be prized. Light is in the terahertz already. 380THz to about 790THz is visible light.

  99. I'm not holding my breath... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Current methods of shifting the frequency of light involve four-wave mixing (nonlinear photon-photon interaction), stimulated Brillouin scattering (photon-acoustical phonon interaction) or stimulated Raman scattering (photon-vibrational phonon interaction). The article mentions that current methods require intense light for the nonlinear interactions to occur, which is true, but the new method suggested is just a complicated form of Brillouin scattering to trap light in a photonic crystal for the interaction to be more efficient, and it too requires an intense acoustic shock wave, which can even destroy the crystal. I don't see how this would be superior to existing methods in an experimentally realizable situation. Furthermore their result is only computer simulation, and any self-respected optical scientist knows that simulation accounts for nearly nothing, if you have no experimental demonstration to show. I'm made even more skeptic after one of those guys (Marin Soljacic) came to my school to give a seminar talk and he emphatically stated that Doppler shift was NOT the reason why the light frequency was shifted and made a really lousy explanation. I'm not holding my breath.

  100. Re:Wow. Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Slashdot editors can't spell. But I suppose subtlety is lost on this crowd.

  101. Here is the abstract. by swebster · · Score: 1

    Seems it has been accepted. Here is the abstract I found in the "Accepted Papers" section of PRL's site.

  102. Related topic: Changing light frequency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article on newscientist also mentioned another interesting phenomenon: light changing frequency when a very powerful (megawatt to gigawatt range) is sent next to it. How does this work? I thought EM waves are doesn't interacts with each other; or the presence of some matter is required for this to happen?

    1. Re:Related topic: Changing light frequency by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, matter is required. It only works if you include the material properties, related to the dielectric constant/permitivity (including nonlinear terms), in Maxwell's equations.

  103. Think what it will do for PORN by Unregistered · · Score: 0, Troll

    actually, unlike most of science i can't figure out how this will help. Did i miss something or is the project doomed since all science ultimetely goes back to porn.

  104. Re:Star Trek has been completed! - yeah? by detect · · Score: 1
    --
    // The fastest Alt-Tab in the West
  105. Re:You wouldn't see a thing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then i guess we wouldn't cover our eyes with it genius.

  106. Researchers at MIT also say... by callipygian-showsyst · · Score: 1
    Researchers at MIT also say...

    Imagin[e] a future where biology and technology merge. We're now creating computer programs using the principles of natural selection and random mutation --- the basics of Darwinian evolution. We may grow telephones, but manufacture cabbage. -- Danny Hillis, MIT Media Lab

    That kind of thinking got him fired from Disney R&D

  107. if science can't help... by bagsc · · Score: 1

    Remember, man's technological masterpiece, our crowning achievement, the Internet, is a pornography distribution system.

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    1. Re:if science can't help... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You know, society has always underrated the pervert, although we owe a debt of gratitude to all the porno junkies.

      Who bought the first $1000-$2000 VCRs, which got quantities up enough to make them more affordable? Porn lovers.

      Who was the first to pay $80 a month for 80 hours of internet access, paving the way for cheaper access? Porn lovers.

      Who were the first to buy video cameras when they cost $2000+ ? Porn lovers.

      Why are x10 cameras do damn cheap? Porn lovers.

      Even computers were adopted early by porn lovers because of the potential uses to display and manipulate porn. The hackers too, but porn lovers did their share to help reduce the cost of computers by their insatiable appetite for porn, and the machines that help provide that porn for them.

      You look any any advance in technology, and its always the porn lovers who are willing to pay the most money for the newest gadgets, which increases the manufacturing capacity, and reduces price.

      I'm not trying to be funny, although there are plenty of jokes in there. The fact is, pornography has done more for popularizing computers, the internet and video than Bill Gates or Vivendi combined. Porn lovers were mastering the computer well before they were easy to use, and driving utility software and compression technologies.

      Lets shake the hand of the porno freaks, but, er, AFTER they wash them, please.....

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  108. could this technology . . . by weighn · · Score: 1

    render an object invisble to an observer?

    --
    Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
  109. Imagine the heatsinks... by guanno · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...you could make with this technology were it in production. Those old Durons and heat-sinkless video cards could translate to some funky server room back-lighting. Just think of the kinds of case mods which would be possible...

    -guanno

  110. Lasers? by syukton · · Score: 1

    All I can think of here is lasers.

    If you can shift the wavelength of a cheapie red laser to become a non-cheapie blue laser, you could utterly revolutionize every aspect of disc-based (CD/DVD/etc) storage and retrieval.

    Wouldn't it be impressive if all lasers worked on the exact same technology, with the exception of each having a different vibrating color-shift crystal in them? Make them interchangeable and then anybody can have any laser of any color.

    Blue light is more-powerful than red light, because the wavelength is shorter; each blue photon contains slightly more energy than a red one. So, I suppose my biggest question is: If I have a 5mW red-emitting laser, and I pass it through one of these crystals to shift its emitted wavelength to blue, how close to 5mW will the crystal's output power be?

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  111. Thought experiments on uses for this by Arcturax · · Score: 1

    Actually absorbsion would work, unless you eclipsed something and in space there would always be something behind you, a star or distant galaxy, but at long enough range, you would be effectively invisible unless they did a sweep with a telescope to enhance that area to notice the missing background stars and such.

    So they wouldn't see the hole unless they were looking for it most likely or you were close enough to noticibly block out background objects. Otherwise their scanners (assuming radar here) would be absorbed but that would be no different to them than there being nothing there and the radar beam never reflecting back and continuing on into space. They would never know if it had hit something or kept on going forever. That is how stealth technology works today with radar absorbing and scattering materials.

    However, there IS a way to know if the radar hit something. That is with entangled photons. You create entangled radar basically. You create a pair of entangled photons at radar frequency and send one out, the others you somehow hold in a loop on board the ship and a computer will see if they deflect as if they encountered something. I suppose you could kick the frequency of the ones you keep up and put them in a fiber optic loop... Hmm of course observing them probably destroys them, so not entirely sure if that would work. But its a fun thought experiment.

    They have used a similar technique to see inside objects without getting an actual reflection from that object by observing the reaction of one set of the entagled pair of photons kept in a separate laser beam from the ones "injected" into the object. They were able to create a laser image of the inside of the object that way. Quite cool.

    Hmm another thought occurs. If you have a pair of entangled photons and you frequency shift one of them, what happens to its sibling? Will it also change frequency or will it become disentangled from the other one?

    If the sibling would change frequency, that would be awesome. Imagine... You have a patient with a deep brain tumor, the kind you can't take out without seriously messing them up or killing them. So you entagle photons in the form of radio waves which can pass through their head and beam them at the person, using a frequency which enables a fairly tight beam. A computer calculates then the photons will reach the tumor after coming out of the emitter and changes the sibling into x-rays or gamma rays causing the siblings inside the patient to also change and fry the tumor. All without any cutting or surgery at all. Of course the amount of time it takes the photons to go from the emitter to the tumor is exceedingly small. So if the time to change the photons is too long, you will miss the tumor and maybe the patient all together, frying something way behind them.

    Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, the change in frequency is gradual as the photons bounce around in the crystal, so the photons may be absorbed when they hit a frequency far below x-rays which may be absorbed harmlessly by the tissue... However that may not be until infrared so you might be able to kill the tumor by heating it that way instead of using ionising radiation.

    Just thoughts... free free to nitpick and add to them :)

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  112. Octarine! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, maybe we could finally see all the great stuff that happens in the Octarine-color spectrum!

  113. *waves hand* you don't need a lightsaber. by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 1

    It would make for some really great Darwin Award stories...

    This is all the budding Jedi Religion needs; an iconic weapon for every member to go out and get. And where there's Christianity, there's Satanism; what happens when some idiot Jedi decides that he'd rather be a Sith lord?

    In breaking news, a lightsaber wielding Jedi, calling himself Darth Mangle, killed several bank customers and then himself. A note found on his person declared "i told u i was hardcore."

    We need to develop blaster pistols first. Then we can pull a Raiders of the Lost Ark on these idiots.