Slashdot Mirror


Fastest Waves Ever Photographed

starfoot writes, "Pictures of the fastest waves ever photographed, traveling at 99.997% of the speed of light, were presented today at the APS Division of Plasma Physics meeting in Philadelphia. The waves were formed in the wake of an intense laser pulse passing through a plasma of electrons and ionized atoms. The waves create enormous electric fields (over 100 billion electron volts/meter), which can be used to rapidly accelerate charged particles to high energies in the span of a few meters. The pictures will help scientists better understand wakefield interactions — an important factor in their quest to replace machines that accelerate particles over the course of miles with compact, tabletop versions. High energy particle accelerators are vital for cutting edge physics and many types of medical therapy, and miniaturizing them would be a boon for both basic physics research and medicine."

167 comments

  1. Yeah right by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 3, Funny

    I bet it was just photoshopped. Gimme ten minutes, and I can give you a wave doing 99.999% of the speed of light.

    1. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Probably, the only picture they gave was a crappy 3D graph?!

      THATS NOT EVEN A PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!

      sorry.

    2. Re:Yeah right by uhlume · · Score: 1

      IANA particle physicist, but I believe the "photograph" in question is in fact the grayscale interference pattern on the plane beneath the 3D (spectro?)graph.

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    3. Re:Yeah right by shamer · · Score: 1

      with the use of dilithium crystals this can be easily achieved

    4. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. This dude Nick was the dumbest grad student at UT. It simply can't be real ! ;-)

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

    You lose.

  3. Yes, but... by Known+Nutter · · Score: 1

    do they run Linux?

    sorry.

    --
    Beware of the Leopard.
    1. Re:Yes, but... by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      "do they run Linux?"

      Yes. Instead of MIPS they measure execution speed in parsecs.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    2. Re:Yes, but... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Since it's Linux, they measure in Bogoparsecs.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. Whoa by 0racle · · Score: 2, Funny

    Thats hot.

    --
    "I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
    1. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      obligatory:

      fastest. wave. EVAR!

  5. Roman men dressed GAY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    can I lick womans feet?

  6. Request for Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been forever since I had particle physics, so I've forgotten the distinction between electron volts and plain old volts. Instinct is telling me that electron volts are units of energy. I do know that electric fields are measured in volts per meter (V/m). So, did the OP get the wrong units, or was there something else besides an electric field?

    1. Re:Request for Clarification by wass · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Particle physics has nothing to do with it, it's just straight old electrodynamics (E&M). Your assumption is correct, they specically say it's the electric field, and the slashdot blurb incorrectly inserts the word 'electron' there.


      The electric field is merely the negative gradient of the scalar potential (ie, voltage)*. So in SI it will have units of Volts/Meter.


      * (Just in case any E&M sticklers want to point that my electric field definition here ignores the contribution from vector potential, just assume a time-independent gauge).

      --

      make world, not war

    2. Re:Request for Clarification by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      You're right - an eV is a unit of energy. It's the charge of an electron multiplied by a volt - in other words, it's the energy gained by an electron accelerated through a one volt potential.

      However, somewhat confusingly, it's also often used as a unit of mass - technically the units are eV/c^2, but in the particle physics grand tradition of insanely terse notation, the c^2 is usually dropped and eV is used as a unit of mass.

    3. Re:Request for Clarification by kravlor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And in the realm of plasma physics, the eV is a common surrogate for temperature, in which Boltzmann's constant k is omitted. It's always fun when you have multiple definitions for the same abbreviation in exciting, but overlapping, branches of physics! Since I was at this talk early this morning, it certainly was exciting to see the progress in this field.

    4. Re:Request for Clarification by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1
      Particle physics has nothing to do with it, it's just straight old electrodynamics (E&M). Your assumption is correct, they specically say it's the electric field, and the slashdot blurb incorrectly inserts the word 'electron' there.

      The electric field is merely the negative gradient of the scalar potential (ie, voltage)*. So in SI it will have units of Volts/Meter.
      Since the electric field is interacting with electrons, it is actually reasonable to use units of electron volts per meter. The quantity described by these units is no longer the electric field strength, but rather the strength of the interaction between this electric field and an electron. This is probably a very useful quantity to someone who designs a particle accelerator based on the strength of the interaction between an intense electric field and an electron.
      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    5. Re:Request for Clarification by aditi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Electron Volts per Meter (eV/m) is actually a perfectly valid measure of electric field. It's how much energy an electron going through the field would gain per meter. To get the actual electric field, you would just divide by the elementary charge e = 1.6*10^-19 C. In relativity and particle physics, one often sees masses expressed in eV/c^2 and momenta in eV/c. It's just a convenient notation to absorb unweildy constants such as e and c, and show the numbers that really matter.

    6. Re:Request for Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If electron volts per meter (eV/m) is a valid measure of electric field, then so are "proton volts per meter", or "teddy bear volts per meter". To get the actual electric field you have to divide by the charge of the proton or the charge of teddy bear. That's retarded.

      Basically you wreck "volts per meter" with some random shit and say that it's ok because you just have to cancel the shit you added. That's not ok, that's proof that adding the random shit was wrong in the first place.

    7. Re:Request for Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually... electron-volt is a common unit of energy and it makes sense (probably more sense than joules) to use it. Explain why you would have to cancel. Are you going to accelerate a teddy bear? LoL

    8. Re:Request for Clarification by Cyberax · · Score: 1

      Nope. Electron-volt is a measure of energy.

      Volts have dimension of: m^2*s^-3*kg*A^-1
      Electron-volts have dimension: kg*m^2*S^-2

    9. Re:Request for Clarification by diqrtvpe · · Score: 1

      The error originally came from the article itself. If you RTA now it says electron volts with a score through electron, so obviously someone on the publishing side had much the same problem.

    10. Re:Request for Clarification by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 1

      The parent did not suggest measuring the electric field in joules per meter instead of electron volts per meter. It suggested measuring the electric field in volts per meter instead of electron volts per meter. Which makes sense.

    11. Re:Request for Clarification by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      The point is that these wakefield-accelerator designers are interested in the energy that they can impart onto an electron, normalized by the interaction length. To that end, electron volts per meter are a perfectly reasonable unit to use. The Slashdot blurb is not the only case of this--if you read the abstract for this paper or any of the other wakefield accelerator abstracts for the 48th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics, you see them using units of electron volts per meter. I agree that it's sloppy dimensional analysis, but I understand why those units are convenient in that specific discipline.

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    12. Re:Request for Clarification by Hal-9001 · · Score: 1

      The blogger is about as knowledgeable about particle accelerator design as the average Slashdotter. :-p Interestingly enough, no one at the American Physical Society's 48th Annual Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics seems to have issues with the use of the units "electron volts per meter".

      --
      "It take 9 months to bear a child, no matter how many women you assign to the job."
    13. Re:Request for Clarification by aditi · · Score: 1

      It's often very convenient to measure in eV/m, just because if you're dealing with electrons/protons and many other fundamental particles which all have charges that are multiples of e, you don't have to carry along that constant wherever you go - it's simply understood. Sometimes you're just interested in momentum or energy or speed - and even though their units are properly [kg][m][s] and so on, it's more convenient in eV/c, eV and /c.

    14. Re:Request for Clarification by Markus+Landgren · · Score: 1

      Indeed, the purpose with the choice of units is to relate the field strength to the energies to which a unit length of the field can accelerate an electron/proton. But what physicist cannot immediately see what energy this is (in electron volts) if the field strength is given in volts per meter? How is measuring an electric field strength in any way easier to do with eV/m when V/m gives the exact same numerical value and is also dimensionally correct?

  7. No... by masdog · · Score: 2, Funny

    They run from all operating systems.

  8. Five 9s by spribyl · · Score: 1

    Managment won't care until they get to 99.999%.

    1. Re:Five 9s by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      Management won't care until they get 99.9999999999999... repeating forever ;-)

    2. Re:Five 9s by Kamineko · · Score: 1

      Where do you work?!

      Round here, they wouldn't settle for anything less than 110%.

    3. Re:Five 9s by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is 100% (not approximately, but exactly 100% :)). A lot of people are unaware and the concept seems a bit strange but .9(repeating 9) is equal to 1.

      Just thought I'd take the time to throw in a piece of trivia. Carry on gentlemen :).

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:Five 9s by Matt+Edd · · Score: 1

      It depends on what branch of Math you are studying. Some would consider it 1 - epsilon with epsilon an infinitesimally small but non-zero number.

    5. Re:Five 9s by all204 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Here is a neat little proof of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.999

    6. Re:Five 9s by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      epsilon is then a hyperreal number, not a real number. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreals

      More typically you say 1 - epsilon with epsilon an arbitrarily small number, such as 0.0001

    7. Re:Five 9s by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      No, because the GP wrote 99.999% and this is *not* the same as 99.999...% (99.999 recurring).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Five 9s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, spribyl wrote 99.999%, and I did not reply to that comment. I responded to a comment by mkiwi which wrote (quoted):

      99.9999999999999... repeating forever

      Link provided: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=203885&cid =16668665

      Know what is actually the parent before posting. There's even a nice "Parent" button on a post to verify these things.

    9. Re:Five 9s by mkiwi · · Score: 1

      A note-
      My sig says "OMG Physics!" I know what .9999 repeating forever is, 100%. That was the whole point of the comment, that management will never be happy until EVERYTHING is 100%.

      Thank you

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

    What's with this same lame copypasta getting posted on a bunch of stories?

  10. Now everybody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    do the wave...

  11. Ok, seriously... by Lord+Aurora · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Wouldn't the fastest waves ever photographed be...you know...light waves? And don't we photograph those every day? Correct me if I'm wrong, but light goes 100% the speed of light.


    Dead serious, I know there's a difference here between my family photo album and the pretty graph thing FTFA, could someone explain to me why photographing LIGHT doesn't count here?

    --
    The heavens do not fall for such a trifle.
    1. Re:Ok, seriously... by Pacifist+Brawler · · Score: 1

      Because, like you said, it happens every day. It's not every day that we see things which aren't light go that fast... I mean, light doesn't have the useful properties that really fast not-light things do.

      --
      IANA*
    2. Re:Ok, seriously... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      When you photograph light, you can't see the wave. Taking the classical E&M view for a second, a light wave is an oscillation between the magnetic and electric fields - you can't photograph that. TFA is admittedly sketchy with the details, but these seem to be waves in the "globs of stuff moving around" sense, like water or sound waves.

    3. Re:Ok, seriously... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also, there's the fact that light might not be a wave. Kinda' throws a monkey wrench into th works, you know?

    4. Re:Ok, seriously... by sillybilly · · Score: 1

      I don't think you can directly photograph a single photon, what you'd need is a medium with process that senses the photon passing by, and changes state accordingly, something similar to how the bubble chamber photographs charged particles - you don't actually capture the particle, but you look at the myriad of photons emitted by the bubbles formed in the superheated liquid. The story above too photographs a medium - plasma - and it's state. That's how you get to see single particles.

    5. Re:Ok, seriously... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      These are matter waves. The summary should really say fastest matter waves ever. You're right... the same though occurred to me.

    6. Re:Ok, seriously... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 0

      Light doesn't necessarily go 100% the speed of light. Light travels fastest in a vaccuum, but slower through liquids, solids, and other gases. To measure the uppr maximum speed of light, it would have to be traveling through a perfect vaccuum.

      The only thing that travels faster than light is a politician whenever somebody accidentally drops their change on the ground.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    7. Re:Ok, seriously... by UnHolier+than+ever · · Score: 1

      Considering light IS electromagnetic waves and that what was photographed WAS an electric field (or rather the disturbance it caused, but the effect goes at the speed of the field, not the disturbance), then...... ...at 99.997%*c, that light was awfully slow. Note that light only goes at the "speed of light" in the vacuum. In anything else, it's slowed down.

    8. Re:Ok, seriously... by Sph1nct3r · · Score: 1

      Photons have no mass. They travel at the same speed through all mediums. It only appears that they slow down when difracted since they travel more distance than going in a straight line.

    9. Re:Ok, seriously... by Sensae · · Score: 1

      I know I would if I was interviewing to be a circus clown.

  12. Idiots! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They only used a 100 speed film and the picture came out real blurry.

  13. Re:saitama by Slithe · · Score: 1

    You must be new here!

    --
    ---- "XML is like violence. If it doesn't fix the problem, you aren't using enough."
  14. Fast, but how fast? by abscissa · · Score: 3, Funny

    If you made instant coffee in the microwave, would you go back in time?

    1. Re:Fast, but how fast? by finity · · Score: 1

      Only if you made instant coffee while you're in the microwave...

    2. Re:Fast, but how fast? by justinchudgar · · Score: 1
      If you made instant coffee in the microwave, would you go back in time?
      Damn! That's why I can never get out of the house in the morning...
      --
      WARNING: Smoking this sig may cause lowered IQ, insanity or short term memory loss. It is also really bad for your monit
    3. Re:Fast, but how fast? by jchernia · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of stove-top popcorn (the kind that's got foil) - but then only if you are near an exploding supernova.

      "Oh, a lesson in not changing time from Mr. 'I'm my own grandfather'"
      -Professor Farnsworth

    4. Re:Fast, but how fast? by prockcore · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the field is localized entirely within your microwave.. that's why instant coffee in a microwave tastes even worse than regular instant coffee, it's actually thousands of years old.

    5. Re:Fast, but how fast? by silentounce · · Score: 1

      Steven Wright, is that you?

      At least cite the quotation, please. Else, people will think you're funny when in actuality you are not.

      --
      There are many tongues to talk, and but few heads to think. -Victor Hugo
  15. Re:fp by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2, Funny

    let me guess, you refresh slashdot at relativistic speeds.

  16. because you can't? by sofar · · Score: 2, Interesting


    There's currently no way to take a snapshot of a single photon in motion and produce an image out of it. An ordinary photograph captures the effect of many millions of them impacting a chemical, so that's not really the same :)

    1. Re:because you can't? by servognome · · Score: 1
      There's currently no way to take a snapshot of a single photon in motion and produce an image out of it.


      Sure you can -> .

      (Magnified for easier viewing)
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    2. Re:because you can't? by aditi · · Score: 1

      You can't actually photograph light. You can only photograph stuff. When you photograph something, you're recording the light that bounces off it. Light doesn't bounce off other light, so it's impossible to photograph. Light does interfere with other light (high school double slit experiments), and you can record the patterns, but that's not the point of the article. It's point is that the waves in question are not electromagnetic, but vibrational - "oscillations moving through a plasma" - like sound waves move through air. The fact that they're traveling close to the speed of light is pretty cool, but cooler are the gigantic electric fields that these vibrations produce. And coolest is that all you have to do is shoot a laser through a plasma, instead of creating and maintaining a vacuum and uniform E & B fields thousands of meters long.

    3. Re:because you can't? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Photon-photon scattering, with a Feynman diagram that explains all.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    4. Re:because you can't? by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 0

      How would a magnified image of a photon reflect light? The proper picture would be:

      -->

      (Magnified for easier viewing, even though you can't see the damn thing)

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
    5. Re:because you can't? by Breakfast+Pants · · Score: 1

      Aww, I thought you magnified it to show the texture; how disappointing.

      --

      --

      WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
  17. Faster Waves Photographed by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Hubble telescope pictures consist of photographing waves travelling at 100% of the speed of light in vacuum by definition!

    For the pedants technically your own photographs generally don't count because the refractive index of air (1.0008) actually means that light waves in air will only travel at 99.92% of the speed of light in vacuum.

    1. Re:Faster Waves Photographed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this might seem like illogical schlock (is that even a word?) but the discussion regarding normal photographs = picutres of light waves = fastest waves photographed seems a bit wierd to me.

      To take a simple painting analogy, you're essentially trying to paint on the paintbrush that you're painting with...

      or trying to detect a dectector...using the same detector...

    2. Re:Faster Waves Photographed by Soko · · Score: 1

      Hubble telescope pictures consist of photographing waves travelling at 100% of the speed of light in vacuum by definition!

      Wrong - the Hubbel uses waves travelling at c to record the electro magnetic emissions of distant bodies in our universe, it does not photograph the waves themselves. To match what was done in TFA, you'd have to photograph, er, photons. Not the same thing at all.

      Again - you'd have to photograph photons themselves to match the experiment, regardless of the RI of the medium they're travelling in.

      Hows that for pedantry?

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    3. Re:Faster Waves Photographed by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Thank you.
      I was reading these moronic response wondering if there was any intelligence on slashdot at all anymore.

      Apparently there is.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Faster Waves Photographed by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Wrong - it detects photons of light and records their momenta (effectively). So a single photon detector (which I'm guessing they have on the hubble) - records the image of a photon as a single dot. Not a very informative picture of a photon but not the less is is AN image of a photon. This builds up into an image of a galaxy or whatnot but that image consists of single photon "pictures" added together. Just because you don't think that a single 'dot' is much of an image is neither here not there. If you want to get more pedantic (and don;t like the idea of a dot as a picture) then photon-photon scattering events from LEP (or elsewhere) could be considered "photograph" of photons since you detect "light" which has scattered off a single photon. Not quite your conventional photo but nevertheless consistent with your definition. So I would still argue that hyping this is "the fastest wave ever photographed" is wrong.

  18. Hot damn! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's my surfboard? I gotta go try them out ... whoo boy, what a ride it'll be!

    1. Re:Hot damn! by Kenyon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, dammit, I was hoping to see someone surfing these waves!

  19. Do I have to wear a helmet...? by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Wow man......surf's up, man. Fast waves? I'm in! Time to hit the beach!

  20. How easy is it? by Gracenotes · · Score: 3, Interesting
    100 billion electron volts/meter sounds like a lot. In reality, if the same amount of physical energy were applied to a paper clip over one second, it would be moved 8.0108823 microns. That's 0.000315389067 inches; 0.00080108823 centimeters. Completely not impressive.

    The reason this is so awesome is that scientists can apply this to nanotechnology -- actually, the prefix "nano" is not small enough. After all, everything moves in waves, but these waves are only noticeable on a small enough scale. On this scale, electric energy is so much more important than gravity. The fact that this energy is electric and not physical means that, instead of bumping atoms around continuous for a month, something might happen sooner. The fact that it's been proven done might help with something, like (for example) supplying a power source. The question is, "How easy is it to synthesize this phenomenon, and is it worth it?"

    What excites me most is the fact that
    a technology that could make tabletop high-energy particle accelerators a reality.
    Are we still afraid of put explosives into our chemistry kits for fear that kids might get hurt? Just like how, around Sputnik time, the US gov't tried to make all of the children in its public education system little scientists of future, it is (seriously) important to get kids interested in science, math, and academic pursuit at a young age. Can a little kid read the KJ version of the Bible at 4 years old, as was done in days of yore?

    It would be a good thing that, with this increased technology, scientists would try to give nuclear chemistry to the public and make atomic physics more tangible. There was an ambitious project some time ago that wanted to create a huge electromagnetic field somewhere in Texas. It was shut down because the US gov't saw no use of it. If this technology can do something as simple as power a light bulb, the public will notice. No one cares if Element 118 is created in a matter of seconds instead of across the span of a week, but if people can actually see something, this is better for science in general. (So long as John Galt doesn't get angry.)
    1. Re:How easy is it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am astounded at your lack of understanding of what this is and what it's for. You've probably written the most incoherent post I've ever read on slashdot.

    2. Re:How easy is it? by agentcdog · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about: not even wrong. eV/m is a FIELD STRENGTH. eV = energy. 1eV is a small amount of energy, but you cannot apply any amounts of eV/m to any object. Remember phys 101? Dimensional analysis?
      Haw did he get modded up? Modders: If you don't know what he's talking about, don't mod him insightful. I feel like that duck in the barber shop.
      Note: You could imagine what would happen if you put a paperclip in this field, but without a net charge it aint movin'. If there were a net charge you better get out of the way of said paperclip, beause 100billion eV/m is a HUGE field strength which would give a HUGE amount of energy per electron. To give you an idea of scale, the electron's rest energy is about 500k eV.

      --
      If I understand Dirac correctly, his meaning is this: there is no God, and Dirac is his Prophet. -Pauli
    3. Re:How easy is it? by doru · · Score: 1

      Actually, V/m is a field strength; eV/m would be the force applied by said field to an elementary charge. But I do agree that the grand parent doesn't make much sense

    4. Re:How easy is it? by Phanatic1a · · Score: 2, Informative

      100 billion electron volts/meter sounds like a lot. In reality, if the same amount of physical energy

      *Bzzzt*. Wrong with the second sentence.

      100 GeV/m isn't an amount of physical energy. It's a field strength.

      It's still not a lot on a macroscopic scale (about 1.6E-8 joules per meter). But, jeeze, at least get your units right before you start doing dimensional analysis.

    5. Re:How easy is it? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I nominate you for a Sokal-Bogdanoff award!

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    6. Re:How easy is it? by GWBasic · · Score: 1
      Can a little kid read the KJ version of the Bible at 4 years old, as was done in days of yore?

      Quite frankly, if a 4-year-old was able to read the entire Bible, I'd consider him to be pretty damn smart! (I'd also hope that he/she could tell the difference between fact and fiction.)

  21. All said and done.. by hvnarsana · · Score: 0

    .. don't you think this involves spending a huge amount of money on matters that bear not too much relevance to our daily lives? Academic progress is one thing, but actually helping improve our lives is another. I don't see the added benefit of studying such interactions and building particle accelerators which cost a bomb, or miniaturizing them, which would cost even bigger a bomb.

    --
    Usability Engineer, Master in Human Computer Interaction
    1. Re:All said and done.. by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "I don't see the added benefit of studying such interactions and building particle accelerators which cost a bomb, or miniaturizing them, which would cost even bigger a bomb."

      A "usability engineer" can't see the point and has the costing wrong, what a surprise!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:All said and done.. by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Yes, what possible benefits could there be to machines that help probe the basic nature of matter?

      The CRT didn't have much relevance to everyday life in 1897 either, nor did that first bigass transistor from Bell Labs. If it weren't for money that was spent on pie-in-the-sky / "basic" research, there'd be nothing to do applied research on.

  22. WoW! by felipekk · · Score: 1

    Thats almost as fast as MS new security breaches!

  23. What I want to know is by slazzy · · Score: 1

    When can I go for a ride in the particle accelerator?

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  24. Fine Print... by Garridan · · Score: 1

    That laser was burning at a full 30 terawatts. Fit THAT on a desktop. Please.

    1. Re:Fine Print... by khallow · · Score: 1

      Given that that was a pulse laser, this might be possible. Depends on how much energy needs to be dissipated. Frankly, I think the radiation shielding requirements would be more troublesome than the laser power. I imagine a few meters of concrete laced with ball bearings is necessary to play with this safely (assuming energy levels that would generate useful physics). Not something that you stick on your desktop.

    2. Re:Fine Print... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's probably peak power, not average power. You can get pulsed lasers nowadays that can put out peak powers in the tens to hundreds of megawatts that will easily fit on a desk. Remember watts is energy per unit time, so if that 30 terawatts was over a span of a picosecond that's only 30 joules, a very reasonable amount of energy.

    3. Re:Fine Print... by Oink · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These laser pulses are on order 100 femtoseconds. That's 100 * 10^-15 seconds. That works out to only about 3 Watts assuming the 30 TW and 1 shot per second (which is reasonable).

      This is nothing compared to the petawatt laser that is being built in the same building here at UT in the same building that this published research was done (one door down from my office in fact). They can only take a shot every 45 minutes after charging a huge bank of capacitors.

      --
      ----------------- Oink. Moo. rarr! -----------------
  25. What warp speed is that? by insanechemist · · Score: 1

    Jiggly watts to warp speed - anyone know the conversion?

  26. Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! by Zarel · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Every photograph is, by definition, a photograph of light waves ("photo"="light"), which, by definition, go at 100% the speed of light.

    --
    Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    1. Re:Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99.999% + 0.0001% = 99.9991%

    2. Re:Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, according to modern physics every photograph is a photograph of light _particles_, unless you're looking at a diffraction pattern, in which case it is light waves.

    3. Re:Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! by cortana · · Score: 1

      Also, the speed of light in air is probably a bit less than that of the speed of light in a vacuum ("the Speed of Light", c, ~3e8 m/sec).

    4. Re:Oh , yeah? Well, I can do you 0.0001% better! by h2g2bob · · Score: 1

      In negative refractive index ("left-handed") materials, the effective speed of light is greater than the speed of light in a vacuum (don't ask me how). So you can go faster even than that.

  27. exclusive pics by Timesprout · · Score: 2, Insightful

    o/
    /|
    / \

    This is me waving so fast my arm looks stationary

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:exclusive pics by Thansal · · Score: 1

      normaly I don't comment on moderation, however I have to make an exeption this time...

      INSIGHTFUL?

      I hope some one missed the Funny button....

      --
      Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
  28. V sub P by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The phase velocity of a wave is meaningless. It's the group velocity that counts.

  29. Medical Applications? by dch24 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    many types of medical therapy

    Hey, so I understand the applications in Physics of desktop particle accelerators, but what kinds of medical therapy use particle accelerators? Wikipedia suggests creating rare "proton-heavy" isotopes, but I'm having trouble finding more about what kinds of "killer apps" (pun intended) would be enabled if there were cheap desktop particle accelerators. Someone in med school?

    1. Re:Medical Applications? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Cyclotrons and nuclear reactors are used for creating radioactive compounds for PET (Positron Emission Tomography) scanners, other types of radiography and radiation therapy. PET scanners in particular are often built with an adjoining cyclotron facility to produce the usually fairly short lived radioactive compounds.

      Synchrotron radiation also looks like it's useful for a variety of both imaging and radiation therapy techniques. Rather than hauling patients off to the synchrotron facility you could take them down the hallway in the hospital to the Wakefield room.

    2. Re:Medical Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Synchrotron is bound to just be a cover name for a gigantic battlemech project, admit it.

      PS I apologise for ruining your serious and informative discussion :(

    3. Re:Medical Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not a doctor, but I play one on Slashdot

    4. Re:Medical Applications? by JRIsidore · · Score: 1

      Particle accelerators are used for cancer-therapy and are especially interesting for tumors that are surrounded by lots of healthy tissue, for example a brain tumor. As ions penetrate the tissue they loose only little energy on their way through but as they are stopped they deposit a lot of energy at that point (Bragg peak). This has the advantage that most of the energy is brought to where you actually want to have it, i.e. inside the tumor. The surrounding tissue is damaged far less than using other kinds of radiation (x-rays, etc.).
      There has been very promising success with this kind of treatment using carbon ions at the "Gesellschaft fuer Schwerionenforschung", an accelerator facility in Germany. You can find more information here: http://www.gsi.de/portrait/Broschueren/Therapie/in dex_e.html

      --
      :w!q
    5. Re:Medical Applications? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I always thought the Canadian Light Source, a big synchrotron they built in Saskatchewan (of all places -- VERY few people there) was a bit fishy.

      Watch out, apparently us Canadians have battlemechs now.

    6. Re:Medical Applications? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hi,

      for a bit of info Google Siemens particle therapy

      Particle Therapy*

      The incidence of cancer is increasing with the increase in lifespan. One of the more important evolutions in the treatment of certain cancers is in the area of radiobiology and information technology to seek and destroy the DNA of cancer on a cellular level.

      With the introduction of charged particle beam energy in the clinical setting, thousands of patients worldwide have benefited from the therapeutic applications in ocular, prostate, head and neck tumors.

      Targeting the tumor is a complex process that requires flexible patient positioning with sub-millimeter accuracy. Precise patient positioning devices and pencil beam scanning techniques can target tumors optimally. Patient setup and daily imaging of the tumor also allow the clinical team to adjust and optimize the treatment plan.

      Why Particle Therapy?
      The dose distribution of particles allows for:
      better dose conformity to the tumor
      lower integral dose of healthy tissue

      Tumor cases in favor for particle therapy:
      deep lying tumors
      tumors in the vicinity of organs at risk
      radiation resistant tumors
      pediatric tumors

  30. Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerator by zaqattack911 · · Score: 1

    I'm a bit of a laymen, the huge stadium sized accelerator uses some kind of giant magnetic field to propel a particle and split atoms at the other end right?

    Why do we do this again? Just to detect the junk that's emitted from the destroyed atom? Why do hospitals need a tabletop accelerator?

    Thanks for filling me in :)

  31. Re:How easy is it? ... by q1w2e3r4t5y6u7 · · Score: 1

    Surely we could hook up half a dozen of theses accelerator things to the bottom of a round ... er ... 'UFO like' structure and really get some movement going.

  32. I dunno by blue+l0g1c · · Score: 1

    My dad pratically fell on top of a tiger shark when we were out fishing once, and the waves were, well, nevermind.

    I never get a chance to work that story into anything...

  33. Re:Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Positron Emmision Tomography. AKA a PET scan. It's like an MRI on steroids. Helps them find all sorts of broken/excess bits in that big bag o' meat called a patient. The things are really useful, really really big, and really really really expensive. Make them smaller and, well, they'll be smaller, probably still really really expensive. This is the health care industry we're talking about.

  34. Doc says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.21 JIGAWATTS!?!?

  35. Surf's up... by zekt · · Score: 1

    Now, to create the world's fastest surfboard :-)

    --
    In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
  36. I can't make up my mind by syousef · · Score: 1

    I measured these but I can't make up my mind if they're a particle or a wave.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:I can't make up my mind by Soko · · Score: 1

      That's because you measured them. It's also possible your mind is in a indeterminate quantum state - I'd be able to tell for sure, but I'd have to measure it ...

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    2. Re:I can't make up my mind by syousef · · Score: 1

      That was my point.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    3. Re:I can't make up my mind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you mean there's a difference between particle and wave?

  37. Apparently by VonSkippy · · Score: 1

    Officials from Taco Bell were unavailable for comment.

  38. Re:Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerat by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

    Hospitals use accelerators to make various isotopes, that are then injected and imaged.

    --
    "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
  39. iron in my Toyota has the same field strength by viking80 · · Score: 1

    ...enormous electric fields (over 100 billion electron volts/meter)...

    I think normal matter like the iron my Toyota is made from has the same field strenght near the nucleus. Anything less, and the car would fall apart. Not sure what is so enourmous about it.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
  40. Speed Limit by bmo · · Score: 2, Funny

    +-----------+
    | _ 5MPH__ |
    | No Wake_|
    +----+-----+
            |
            |
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~

    The harbor master isn't going to like this one.

    --
    BMO

  41. Antimatter by Mal+Reynolds · · Score: 1

    A few thousand of these running in parallel may offer methods for creating meaningful amounts of antimatter.

    1. Re:Antimatter by VinB · · Score: 0

      The pro-matter people are going to want to hear about this. I don't think they'll be happy.

  42. All my photos... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    ...are of waves traveling *at* the speed of light.

    You kids and your new-fangled sub-light speed waves.
    Get offa my lawn!

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:All my photos... by Apocalypse111 · · Score: 1

      At the speed of light in atmosphere you mean. Not at the speed of light in a vacuum. The medium through which the photons are traveling impact their speed. Thus, your photons were traveling a little bit slower than those in this experiment.

      --
      There is no mod option "-1: Disagree" for a reason. "Overrated" is not an acceptable substitute. Post something instead.
    2. Re:All my photos... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
      At the speed of light in atmosphere you mean. Not at the speed of light in a vacuum.

      I looked in my vacuum here at home, but saw no light.
      Perhaps the Hoover at work...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  43. speed of light by xming · · Score: 1

    I have be capturing light waves at 100% for years with my digi cam.

  44. Rafting by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 1

    ``Pictures of the fastest waves ever photographed, traveling at 99.997% of the speed of light ...''

    Rafting is recommended to experienced rafters only.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
  45. Re:Someone care to explain the USE of an accelerat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    proton accelerators can be used to treat cancer

  46. Not just the light in photographs... by Dr.Pete · · Score: 1

    The light in photographs is (usually) the average power falling on an element, be it a CCD chip or a piece of silver halide salt in emulsion which interacts with the incident radiation over the timescale of many wavelengths. What these researchers are doing is "photographing" the individual wavefronts of a matter wave, rather than just the intensity information. Spatially resolving the so-called phase information of such a wave is no mean feat and is an area of current research in optics. Wakefields are a very cool plasma phenomenon in themselves, propagating with velocity near vacuum light speed in a medium. As user Gracenotes pointed out, the applications of wakefields can, due their very high electric fields, have potential for particle acceleration experiments. Especially so in hospitals where creating short-lived isotopes for procedures like positron emission tomography are desirable in ever smaller and ever more efficient machines. And don't get me started on a 30 TW laser. Frickin huge.....

  47. Been There by Agermain · · Score: 1

    Pfft. I've got tons of pictures of light waves traveling at 100% the speed of light.

    1. Re:Been There by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

      As has been pointed out already, no, you don't.

      You have tons of pictures made by light waves travelling at the speed of light, but you haven't got a single picture of a light wave travelling at the speed of light.

      there's a difference...

  48. What's it good for? by johansalk · · Score: 1

    What might I want to do with a tabletop particle accelerator?

    1. Re:What's it good for? by Wooster_UK · · Score: 1

      How about accelerating tabletop particles?

    2. Re:What's it good for? by Joe+Dutch · · Score: 1
      Lots of potential uses, but it's fair to say that laser-driven particle accelerators (also known as laser wakefield accelerators [LWFAs] or, less accurately, 'desktop accelerators') still have a way to go before they become widespread.

      The one that is most often mentioned is for cancer therapy. The way a beam of particles interacts with living tissue (or indeed all matter) is quite different to the way a beam of ionizing electromagnetic radiation that is conventionally used in radiotherapy does. When a high energy electron, proton or ion enters the body, it does relatively little damage along its path as it slows, until it reaches the end of its range, where it does a great deal of damage. In contrast, a single beam of ionizing photons does pretty much the same amount of damage right along its path (unless it is strongly absorbed, in which case most of the damage will be at the surface). Moreover, the range of a given particle of a given energy in a given material will be very well defined. Consequently, you should be able to better target a tumour present at a fixed depth in a patient's body, and with less collateral tissue damage, with a beam of high-energy particles than a beam of high-energy photons.

      It is potentially possible to use a conventional particle accelerator to generate such a beam. But these are bigger, more expensive, and produce beams of less brightness than the laser-driven accelerators that have been recently developed. It is certainly fair to say that these systems are not yet desktop sized, and the size and expense of the lasers that drive them must of course be brought into consideration in assessing their potential. However, laser technology is progressing at a far greater rate than is conventional accelerator technology, and it is not inconceivable that the sorts of laser necessary to generate the particle beams necessary for cancer therapy could soon be small enough, and cost-effective enough to be widely available (how widely, of course, remains to be seen).

      Also, it's much easier to manipulate the laser beam towards the patient (where it can be used to generate a particle beam within a very small space ... viz. the 3.3cm GeV accelerator result that has made the headlines recently) than to do the same with a conventionally produced particle beam.

      How soon will this happen? It's difficult to say. My guess is of the order of a decade or more (but this is only a guess). A substantial increase in the average energy and decrease in the energy spread of the beams produced will be necessary, but progress in both is still very encouraging. And I wouldn't be surprised if clinical trials of the use of electron beams produced in this way for treating shallow tumours, began in the next few years.

      But cancer therapy is not the only possibility, of course. As has already been mentioned, the beams produced by these devices could readily be used for making medical isotopes. And they can also be used for generating short bursts of X-rays, which have all manner of uses in biological and medical research (viz. the current, and increasing, buzz about Free Electron Lasers, used also for pulsed X-ray generation, but developed out of conventional accelerator technology ... another unanticipated app from fundamental physics research).

      And last, but certainly not least, it promises an entirely new frontier for learning stuff about the Universe. And surely that in itself is enough, isn't it?

      Joe Dutch

    3. Re:What's it good for? by VinB · · Score: 0

      "What might I want to do with a tabletop particle accelerator?" Extreme ping pong?

  49. Re: Fastest Waves Ever Photographed by PrinceOfDorkness · · Score: 1

    finally ghostbuster technology for the masses

  50. 100 billion electron volts per meter by irchans · · Score: 1

    If you type "10^11 eV / meter in lb" into a google box, you get (10^11) (eV / meter) = 3.60183597 × 10^-9 pound force

  51. It's old news.... by FernandoBR · · Score: 1

    Haven't you people ever watched Ghostbusters?

    --
    -x- Sorry my bad English. I'll have him tarred and feathered. -x-
  52. So lemme understand this.. by Ora*DBA · · Score: 0

    This technology will, when refined, allow us can use laser energy to accelerate particles greatly? How about something with a bigger mass, like say, a spaceship? Heinlein was right - the only way we will get into space efficiently is where there is a profit motive. Otherwise, scientists just gaze at their own navels.

  53. Where are the photographs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, I look ed at the article, but I didn't see any photographs.
    Just some cartoon.

    Also, what's up with slashdot? I typed the word at the bottom with the lines
    running through it but it kept not accepting it. I typed it correctly.

  54. Medicine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Advances in medicine huh? Let's see... Desktop particle accelerator + "medicinal" marijuana = Hello grad school.

  55. What? No Weapons? by Athanasius · · Score: 1

    High energy particle accelerators are vital for cutting edge physics and many types of medical therapy, and miniaturizing them would be a boon for both basic physics research and medicine.

    What? No mention of use as weapons?

  56. Re:What? No Weapons? by Joe+Dutch · · Score: 1
    MW fibre lasers pack more of a punch than the TW/PW pulsed lasers used for accelerators. DARPA are funding the development of a fibre laser system that could be mounted in a jet fighter... but it seems to me you'd be better off mounting it in a satellite. At a guess I'd reckon the attentuation from both is similar, but it seems easier to direct a beam onto an enemy facility (such as an oil depot) from geostationary orbit (even if you have to wait for a fine day) than from a moving jet fighter.

    But back towards the topic, the *really* cool (and certainly more evil sounding) physics won't begin to emerge until the development of exawatt lasers. At this point it may be possible to literally BOIL the vacuum with light. I don't know if this would enable you to break a hole into a hell dimension, but it certainly sounds plausible, doesn't it? Someone should alert Michael Crichton!

  57. Layman's version of article by hywel_ap_ieuan · · Score: 1
    The blog entry is very short, but there's a link to the layman's version of the report in PDF format. You may find it to be a bit hyper ("1 billion miles an hour") and kind of dumbed-down.

    http://www.aps.org/meet/DPP06/baps/loader.cfm?url= /commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=78234

    1. Re:Layman's version of article by Joe+Dutch · · Score: 1

      And the original research paper can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nphys442 (subscription required)

  58. Re:What? No Weapons? by Morphine007 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this would enable you to break a hole into a hell dimension, but it certainly sounds plausible,

    Uh oh.... I smell a DOOM sequel...

  59. volt/meter, not eV/m by SysKoll · · Score: 1

    Electron volt is a ùass unit. An electric field is measured in volt/meter. That "electron" word has to be a typo from someone with a very limited understanding of physics.

    --

    --
    Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

    1. Re:volt/meter, not eV/m by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      has to be a typo from someone with a very limited understanding of physics.

      Yeah, that's what I thought, too. Then I looked at TFA - they had "electron" in the story, but it's now crossed out. I guess "Physics Buzz" isn't run by physicists nor engineers.

      BTW, the word "mass" didn't come through correctly in your post.

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
    2. Re:volt/meter, not eV/m by SysKoll · · Score: 1

      Weird typo. I guess it is a fitting punishment to let a typo go through in a post complaining about a typo...

      --

      --
      Mad science! Robots! Underwear! Cute girls! Full comic online! http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/

  60. No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

    > wakefield interactions

    When I was 25, I had a wonderful Wakefield, MA, interaction with a 32 year old blonde, big-lipped divorcee. She was even named "Debbie".

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  61. VERY NECESSARY! by boristdog · · Score: 1

    I had an AVM "operated" on by one of these partical accelerators two years ago. It was so deep in my brain that there was no way traditional surgical procedures could be used, and it would have eventually killed me. But by strapping me into the particle accelerator the surgeons were able to seal the AVM and stop blood leaking into my brain.

    The only downside is it takes a lot longer to get drunk now since blood doesn't leak directly into my brain anymore...

    Anyway, just a personal view of how these technologies can help.

  62. That much closer to a practical PPG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahhh, yes, the power of a photon torpedo delivered at near light speed to the unsuspecting target. . .

    I wonder what the strength of a wakefield's interaction with say, the skin of a missile, would be.

  63. Ok by SnarfQuest · · Score: 1

    Ok, where are the photos?

    --
    Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
  64. Tabletop and then handheld versions by Vince8016 · · Score: 1

    Could we set these devices to stun? That'd be a "killer app", no? Vince

  65. Give me one of those by PalmKiller · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I want me one of those tabletop accelerators for my shop, oh and a tabletop nuclear fusion reactor would be nice too.

    1. Re:Give me one of those by Joe+Dutch · · Score: 1
      ... a tabletop nuclear fusion reactor would be nice too.

      And some day, Dorothy, you may. The same subset of researchers are working on that too! :-)

  66. LASERGUNPEWPEWPEW

    Ok, ok, but in all seriousness: if this will allow for particle accelerator research in a compact and affordable package, what would a particle accelerator, built on the scale of CERN but with this technology, be able to do?

    1. Re:OMG by Joe+Dutch · · Score: 1
      I'd me more concerned about what the power source that drove the laser that drove a CERN-sized accelerating plasma would do to the life forms around it if you turned it on.

      To be honest, the approach is not the sort of thing that is scalable to that sort of size, so it's a moot point... or at least it is on this planet. But I wouldn't be surprised if similar sorts of processes were sustainable in the vicinity of various astophysical objects like pulsars and the like. But that's beyond my knowledge-base.

  67. Fastest waves? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 0

    Great, I'll fetch my board.
    ECSC, here I come!

  68. The waves create enormous electric fields by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

    The waves create enormous electric fields (over 100 billion electron volts/meter).

    Could these (i assume) elertrons/electric charges be harnessed in some way?

  69. Speed of electricity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    over 100 billion electron volts/meter

    How many volts per hour is that? I know that household electricity goes at 110 volts an hour, which is fast enough to kill you.

  70. What photo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see some nice graphics, but nothing even vaguely resembling a photo. Am I missing something?

    Actually this is annoyingly common. A photo, be it grainy or blurred or whatever, is so much more impressive and real than any simulated, photoshopped "this is what it looks like" fake. eg. the grainy, blurred moon landing images are vastly more impressive than any of the the numerous "this is what we imagine our satellite looked like passing planet x" images nasa has put out over the years.

  71. Medicinal Uses? by infidel13 · · Score: 1

    Out of curiosity, does anyone know how particle accelators are used in medine? It sounds interesting.

    --
    quia potentia mens mentis