Slashdot Mirror


Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power

Laser Lover writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to use the exotic material to create 'an annihilation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times more powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It survives for less than 150 nanoseconds before it is annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation. It was known that two positronium atoms should be able to bind together to form a molecule ... '"

211 comments

  1. iran by wwmedia · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    would it be ready in time for the upcoming war with iran?

    1. Re:iran by tibike77 · · Score: 1

      No, but maybe for the upcoming war with the Zorkanoids from the QF-P73 Nebula or somesuch.
      Seriously.

      --
      By reading this signature you agree to not disagree with the post you just read.
    2. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    3. Re:iran by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      Force is all-conquering but its victories are short lived.

      Abraham Lincoln

    4. Re:iran by mappemonde · · Score: 1

      http://imdb.com/title/tt0089886/ Do you think this movie possibly saw the future 22 years ago? I suppose it is possible.

      --
      enjoy it while you have it - for it may be gone soon.
    5. Re:iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words
      I think Japan would beg to differ.
    6. Re:iran by MyLongNickName · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words

      That is not true. Many civilizations no longer exist because they were destroyed by another. We, as a society, are unwilling to accept the measures needed to really win a military war. For this I am thankful. But saying that military might can't end a war is completely false.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    7. Re:iran by GundamFan · · Score: 3, Informative

      I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.

      If the US had not sought out or accepted the surrender of Japan the war would have continued in one form or another. Even if what one side is communicating is "give up or we do that again" it is still two sides meeting and making an agreement (the surrender was indeed negotiated, the US did compromise on the removal of the Emperor for instance) that ended the Pacific campaign.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    8. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The only real way to win a war millitarily then, is to totally annihillate the enemy. And that is no longer an option when you can't tell for sure who is your enemy and who isn't. And the fact that you kill a million people creates new enemies.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    9. Re:iran by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correction, it was an unconditional surrender, but MacArthur realized how important the Emperor was and that if he removed or even approached him first (instead of letting the Emperor request his audience) the people would have revolted. They truly would not have given a fuck, you don't fuck with the Emperor cause he was pretty much a god on earth to them.

    10. Re:iran by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.

      Then you have so diluted the word "win" that it no longer has any meaning. It is like saying fists don't win a fight because my opponent begged for mercy and I stopped beating him. You are arguing that it was his begging that stopped the fight. The fact is that military CAN win a war through force alone, but our society (thankfully) puts a brake on that type of activity.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    11. Re:iran by Damastus+the+WizLiz · · Score: 1

      Genocide will end a war pretty thoroughly. No words needed.

      --
      I often have trouble remembering which way is out of bed in the morning.
    12. Re:iran by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      That depends on the objectives of the attacker, if I use your example there are two possible objectives the "puncher" could have. One is to kill the opponent, the other is for the other party to relent (beg for mercy if you will). I would argue in this case the defeated is initiating the end of the conflict by choosing the lesser of the two negative outcomes once it is established that there is no winning.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    13. Re:iran by GundamFan · · Score: 1

      So the surrender was agreed to because MacArthur did his research and presented terms that would be acceptable?

      I will agree that there is a subtle difference but the outcome is the same.

      --
      I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
      Mark Twain
    14. Re:iran by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      You Can't END a war with weapons,



      Only if you care about public opinion. If you don't, just turn the war zone into radioactive slag.

    15. Re:iran by somersault · · Score: 1

      Besides, who would package up the oil to send over?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    16. Re:iran by notasheep · · Score: 1

      I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.

      The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.

      --
      Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
    17. Re:iran by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      The surrender was agreed to either way. MacArthur decided on how he would act once he got there and understood fully the reverance the japanese had for the Emperor.

    18. Re:iran by Peter+Nikolic · · Score: 1

      Here we go again .. i have noticed recently on /. that all these comments soon as you like go so far WAY WAY WAY off topic that they cease to becom relavent to the original article . The article was not HOW the West whupped on nippns butt ,, it was about a new form of Laser that has far more than JUST war USE !! .. Oh and BTW one of the biggest mistakes made was cancelling the Neutron device and yse i would not hesitate in using ALL weapons at my disposal to solve a problem ie Iran ect ect ect

      --
      Karma :Terrible I seriously like this cus at least i aint affraid of barking Caution i BITE (your a
    19. Re:iran by littlewink · · Score: 1

      You Can't END a war with weapons...


      Well, yes you can. I don't recall hearing much from Carthage in the last 2000 years.

      We've already won any war in Iraq. We should not have overstayed our welcome, however.
    20. Re:iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      > The fact is that military CAN win a war through force alone, but our society (thankfully) puts a brake on that type of activity.

      Thankfully?

      Only thankfully for the enemy. Since WW2, every war we've fought has been a bloody stalemate at best, and a loss at worst. Korea was a draw, Vietnam was a loss, Gulf War I was a draw, Afghanistan was a loss, Gulf War II was a loss, and if we fight it, Iran will also be a loss.

      Strategic bombing works, but it requires overkill. The London Blitz wasn't enough. Dresden and Tokyo weren't enough. You have to flatten every city within hundreds of miles, and keep the cities flattened and smoldering for the better part of a year, but a civilian population's will, no matter how fanatical at the onset of a conflict, can be broken.

      Come up with a way of breaking a civilian population's will short of that, and the world's generals will be only too delighted to try it. Diplomacy and propaganda are superb tools before the guns start firing, but the past 60 years have shown that nothing short of wholesale extermination is effective in winning wars. It's brutal, it's ugly, and that's why they call it war, not sitting down for tea.

    21. Re:iran by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Yes, and those words are "I surrender."

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    22. Re:iran by pnewhook · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here we go again .. i have noticed recently on /. that all these comments soon as you like go so far WAY WAY WAY off topic that they cease to becom relavent to the original article .

      What do you mean off topic? We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere--like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I tied an onion to my belt, which was the style at the time. Now, to take the ferry cost a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. 'Give me five bees for a quarter,' you'd say.

      Now where were we? Oh yeah--the important thing was that I had an onion on my belt, which was the style at the time. They didn't have white onions because of the war. The only thing you could get was those big yellow ones. Anyway, 'long story short', is a phrase whose origins are complicated and rambling.

      --
      Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
    23. Re:iran by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***would it be ready in time for the upcoming war with iran?***

      Naw, I don't think the Iranians can pull together an anti-matter based laser weapon all that quickly, no matter what the Bush administration claims about the threat the Iranians represent.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    24. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 1

      i agree, it's peace you wanna win, not war.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    25. Re:iran by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Take the limit of the scenario, there will be a few people left. Or one; someone will have won.

    26. Re:iran by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)

      Words are worthless when the other side refuses to listen. Granted, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless you kill all of the enemy. What is needed is a mix. You use the military to force the other side to the negotiating table so you can work together. So while there is no such thing as a military victory, there can be no victory without the military. (can someone please SHOUT that to the moonbats please?)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    27. Re:iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily so - one could easily argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes as little bloodshed and destruction as possible. To quote Sun Tzu, "Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." Better to capture resources than destroy them; shattered weapons, obliterated positions, and the like are much more useful intact.

      That said, this is far easier said than done.

    28. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 1

      there can be no victory without the military. The best way to win a war is not to fight it.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    29. Re:iran by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      And when you get done shouting that to the neocons, would you send an email to the dems explaining that there's no point in talking when nobody is listening?

      We Americans have no business being in Iraq, other than to prevent our economy from coming to a crashing end, but to claim that the military is not a useful tool in international diplomacy is insanely simple-minded. You are correct. The war doesn't end with weapons. It ends with a surrender or a negotiated peace. But why the hell would a superior enemy surrender or give sizable concessions (on the order of why they went to war in the first place). They won't sit down and talk until the someone with a weapon brings them to the table.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    30. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 1

      international diplomacy what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    31. Re:iran by vtcodger · · Score: 1
      ***We've already won any war in Iraq. We should not have overstayed our welcome, however.***

      Actually, I'm damned if I can figure out if we won militarily or not. One of the books on the war -- Ricks-"Fiasco" of Hersch "Chain of Command", claims that on the eve of the assault on Baghdad, Saddam Hussein decided not to conduct a scorched earth battle for the city. Instead, he sent the troops home with instructions to conduct a guerilla war. I have no idea if that is true, but whether it is or not, the results seem to have been all he could have hoped for ... excepting the part about being aprehended and hung of course.

      "Every time I look at you I don't understand why you let the things you did get so out of hand? You'd've managed better if you'd had a plan." Tim Rice, Jesus Christ Superstar. Seems to fit somehow.

      ***Well, yes you can. I don't recall hearing much from Carthage in the last 2000 years.***

      I was suprised to find that Carthage was resettled after the third Punic War and was a fairly important city until it was finally destroyed for good in 698AD (not by the Romans that time). Today, it is a suburb of Tunis http://www.galenfrysinger.com/carthage_tunisia.htm

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    32. Re:iran by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The best way to win a war is not to fight it.

      Tell that to the millions of Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and France around 1938. They were unable to fight a war themselves and I would hardly say that they won the war.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    33. Re:iran by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      Exactly. After all, it was words that made the Nazis and Imperial Japan surrender. Moron.

    34. Re:iran by Overd0g · · Score: 1

      False as well. Japan is our ally, and we killed lots of 'em. Same goes for Germany. You could fill up 1000 volumes with the quantity of history you are ignorant of.

    35. Re:iran by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really words end wars huh huh you fucking idiot ASK THE NAZI's and The Imperial Japanese oh that's right..... they don't exist now do they genius. We could end this war if we so desired in days we just don't have the WILL to do it we do have the NUKES you moron we just lack the will to do what we all know has to be done.

    36. Re:iran by burndive · · Score: 1

      One could also argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes all of your genetic competitors to die and results in your reproductive success. Hence, spare the women, and enslave the children.

      --
      ...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
    37. Re:iran by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.

      Oh, grow up for chrissakes.

      What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA?
      Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects?
      You need to pull you head out of your ass and realize that the whole "the man is keeping me down" mentality is an invention of lazy bottom feeders that just want to avoid getting a job.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    38. Re:iran by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      The only real way to win a war militarily then, is to totally annihilate the enemy.

      Either that, or to add their biological and technological distinctiveness to your own, and adapt their culture to service yours.

      That's how China "won" against its various invaders. It just assimilated them. That's also what Rome did to its defeated enemies.

      Though, perhaps that's not a "military" victory.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    39. Re:iran by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Isn't this where the comment "Kill them all and let God sort them out" come in?

      Isn't it conceivable today that with the technology civilization now has that an attempt at genocide similar to that perpetuated by Hitler could be much much more successful? Even if a few get away, if you empty an entire area of people, nature and time will take care of the few survivors. Not being able to tell who the enemy is, doesn't really matter under those circumstances so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it would be no longer an option.

      Contrary to what many may think, such a situation occurring outside western countries would likely not be stopped. Darfur is a prime example, but beyond that, if America turns inward as a result of the Iraq war and Europe's lack of support with Afghanistan, there wouldn't be anyone to stop a country or leader committing genocide anyway. Frankly, Europe, Japan and all the other nations wouldn't do anything to stop something like that, not even if it was on their doorstop.

    40. Re:iran by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I would say that you are believing way too much propaganda.
      Iraq isn't winning the war the US did win that war. Right now Irag is loosing the peace. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is high thanks to the actions of Iraqi militants and others.
      What you say I am afraid is nothing but a nice dream. World War II in Europe sure was ended with weapons and not words. World War II in Japan was ended with weapons and not words. Unless you are going to say "I surrender" counts.
      Here is the sad truth. The only way to win a war is with weapons.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    41. Re:iran by tgrigsby · · Score: 1

      The surrender was agreed to either way. MacArthur decided on how he would act once he got there and understood fully the reverance the japanese had for the Emperor.

      You're making his case for him. He's arguing brains over brawn. You're arguing that brawn created an opportunity for brains to be used. But in the end, the war was finalized successfully and with minimal rancor using intelligent diplomacy, something the current administration has absolutely no experience with or apparent motivation to try (to bring the point home).

      --
      *** *** You're just jealous 'cause the voices talk to me... ***
    42. Re:iran by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Many civilizations no longer exist because they were destroyed by another

      "Destroying an Empire to win a war is no victory. And ending a battle to save an Empire is no defeat."
      -Kahless, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    43. Re:iran by polar+red · · Score: 1

      What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA? because their leaders want to get prestige, and chicks?(=resources!) These leaders are their respective upper class.

      Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects? see above.
      See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees ... we're not more civilized than that.

      the man is keeping me down" mentality is an invention of lazy bottom feeders I think it's more an invention of realistic(cynic?) people.
      And I'm just pointing out here that war doesn't solve a dispute.
      and did you notice there is fighting here, with words? This is because people still can get it in their minds that they can sometimes be wrong - and that's got everything to do with our primal nature
      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    44. Re:iran by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words"

      The Red Army didn't talk it's way into Berlin in 1945. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    45. Re:iran by MyLongNickName · · Score: 1

      Quoting Star Trek doesn't prove any point. It was just a TV show.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    46. Re:iran by emilper · · Score: 1

      I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.

      The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.

      Have to break it to you: you are the only one who knows why did the Roman Empire end. It would be kind of you to point the clueless historians to the sources that give you such certainty :).

    47. Re:iran by hidave · · Score: 1

      And who would you judge has the requisite experience in "intelligent diplomacy?"

      --
      Synchronizing stop lights across the US = one less nuclear power plant
    48. Re:iran by Kiuas · · Score: 1

      Sure it was just a TV show, but that quote has a point. It doesn't matter where it came from. I could have easily left out the source of the quote, but I decided to include it, because I happen to know many people here watch or have watched Trek. The point of this post however, is that if you just stare the orgin of the quote, you might miss the point I'm trying to tell by using that quote.

      --
      "It is the business of the future to be dangerous" -Alfred North Whitehead
    49. Re:iran by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1
      "Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens" comes from the siege of Beziers (1209) during the crusade against the Albigensians (Cathars) in Languedoc.

      It is attributed to Arnaud Amaury, Abbot of Citeaux.

      The French army massacred the entire population of Beziers, following the orders of Amaury who was the military leader of the campaign, despite being an abbot.

      The "Spanish Inquisition" that followed was, in fact, originally set up to deal with the Albigensians, being called Spanish only later (when the mass conversion of Spain's Jewish population was undertaken).

      Ain't religion great?

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  2. Oh dear by jsiren · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I'm afraid to plug in my PS/2 mouse.

    --
    Usage: km/h for speed (kilometers per hour); kph for very slow impulses (kilopond hours).
    1. Re:Oh dear by gmf · · Score: 1

      Now I'm afraid to plug in my PS/2 mouse. Don't worry, if it's only half a PS (the electron part, I presume) you should be safe...
    2. Re:Oh dear by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Don't worry.

      They are now making a new style of mouse, which should be much safer. I think it's made from an alloy of Uranium, Sulphur, and Boron.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  3. Could we use it on sharks? by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because that's what they were saying the first time this was posted.

    1. Re:Could we use it on sharks? by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      I know I tagged this as "dupe" on the Firehose yesterday.

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    2. Re:Could we use it on sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Every article on the front page was put there by Zonk; either my computer is punishing me for something, or we're going to see a lot of dupes in the near future...

    3. Re:Could we use it on sharks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the first time it was posted, it was theoretically possible to create positronium. Now they've actually made some - a tiny, tiny teensy little bit.

      They were only able to make a few atoms.

      It's going to be quite a while before they make any lasers with this stuff. TFA (which I saw yesterday) isn't clear how they're going to make gamma ray lasers out of the stuff. The only guess I (a layman) can make is that they'll use the decaying positronium to create the gamma rays, and conventional crystals as in existing lasers to beam them coherently.

      I also can't figure out WTF anybody would do with a gamma ray laser, except perhaps for nuclear fusion or particle accelerators. And killing sharks!

      -mcgrew

    4. Re:Could we use it on sharks? by bigdavesmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      You can't blame people for being excited about new ways to kill each other.

  4. To what end? by Big+Nothing · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Granted, more powerful lasers would be great for long-distance communications, but what kind of materials could be used in fiber-optic cables to transmit gamma rays? What kind of insulation would the cable have to use?

    --
    SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
    1. Re:To what end? by pavium · · Score: 0

      I believe a conventional laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation) operates by reflecting radiation between a mirrored surface and a parallel semi-mirrored surface. The distance between the mirrors is a mutiple of the radiation's wavelength.

      What reflects gamma rays?

    2. Re:To what end? by garompeta · · Score: 1

      insulation? lots of mass with high atomic number and high density. lots. this laser will be useful only for killing.

    3. Re:To what end? by cloudwilliam · · Score: 5, Funny

      To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

    4. Re:To what end? by bilabrin · · Score: 1

      I think the bigger issue is how much power would one of these things consume?

    5. Re:To what end? by alexj33 · · Score: 0

      No, the bigger issue is, how much will the sharks wearing them consume?

    6. Re:To what end? by mhall119 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Conventional lasers use electricity or chemical reaction to stimulate radiation emission from some material. I would assume they are going to use the gamma rays to do this, and not lasing the gamma rays themselves.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    7. Re:To what end? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      insulation? lots of mass with high atomic number and high density. lots. this laser will be useful only for killing.

      I see this laser as an extremely effective way of shooting down incoming missiles. I do NOT see this as being portable enough to transport around on the battlefield. I only see this being fielded at fixed installations, which are really only good as a defensive weapon.

      Why do you think lasers are only good useful only for killing?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:To what end? by splutty · · Score: 1

      These types of lasers aren't exactly useful for communication in any way shape or form. This due to the fact the last doesn't actually survive the process. After this thing fires, you'll have one beam of laser heading off in whatever direction you pointed it, and one rapidly expanding cloud of ex-lasergenerator.

      So no, not very useful in a practical sense at all, although it might solve a lot of war related issues if this were to be made into a handheld weapon ;)

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    9. Re:To what end? by garompeta · · Score: 1

      have you read the article? you can't insulate gamma ray, can you imagine networks with cables insulated with 10 inches of lead? yeah, that would be a break through in telecommunications!

    10. Re:To what end? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, a Conan reference. Erm, as in the Barbarian as opposed to O'Brien.

    11. Re:To what end? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

      Actually, this sound more like it will vaporize our enemies on the spot. Because this laser... goes to eleven! Spartaaa!!!

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:To what end? by eh2o · · Score: 1

      Actually they *are* attempting to make a gamma ray laser. Its a new area of physics research called "quantum nucleonics".

    13. Re:To what end? by iperkins · · Score: 1

      To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

      No. To annihilate our enemies, their women and all of their stuff. Oh, and probably us as well when it backfires, because it was manufactured by the lowest bidder.

    14. Re:To what end? by Falladir · · Score: 1

      Actually, the energy or frequency of the photons is not important when you're making fiber-optic cables. In fact, fiber-optic cables require no insulation except to protect them from exterior harm (sharp things falling on them, etc). The reason is that when light (or, I think, any other wave) is incident on the boundary between a high-index material and a lower-index material (we're talking index of refraction, here) from the high-index side, if it approaches at a slight enough angle, it will be completely reflected back into the high-index material. This is called "total internal reflection." None will be transmitted into the low-index medium. This is the reason that if you sit in the deep end of a pool, you can see the sky above you, but at the other end of the pool, the surface of the water looks like a mirror.

      You can read about it here: http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/GBSSCI/PHYS/Class/refrn/u14l3c.html.

      The result is that if you're trying to communicate by firing photons down a curving tube of glass, you just have to make sure that it never bends too sharply, and all the photons that go in will come out the other end, and none will be lost in transit (assuming the surface of the glass is very smooth). ...hm, smooth...

      It would have to be smooth relative to the wavelength of the photons being transmitted, which is a serious problem for gamma rays. I calculated that the wavelength of these photons should be 3 x 10^-13 m (based on E=mc^2 and E=f*hbar and c=f*wavelength), which is one three hundredth the radius of a silicon atom. So glass would not be smooth, and fiber-optic communication would be impossible with ordinary materials.

  5. Oh yes... by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While being so excited that it's a million times more powerful, we forgot to say it'll be a million times more expensive. You don't find antimatter laying on the ground you know!

    1. Re:Oh yes... by lexarius · · Score: 5, Informative

      Positrons aren't actually that hard to find. All you need is (trying to remember Chem 2) an isotope that produces beta+ radiation. Heard of a PET scan? The P is for Positron. They put some radioactive sugar in your brain and map where the annihilations occur to determine brain activity.

    2. Re:Oh yes... by StarfishOne · · Score: 1

      If positrons are not hard to find, why am I still not seeing any androids with positronic brains walking around all over the place? :P

    3. Re:Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the problem? Just search for it on the antiground!

    4. Re:Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it doesn't really work that way?

      The containment to keep positrons from annihilating in contact with the electrons in the wires/conduits inside of the android's head would be too expensive/huge to be practical. The reason they're useful for this laser thing is because when they come into contact with regular matter (electrons) they convert into energy and gamma rays. An android walking around town with a head full of positrons would be a bigger radiation hazard than if we were trucking plutonium around in the backs of garbage trucks.

    5. Re:Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I found some anti-matter in the lint trap of my clothes dryer. At least I hope that's what it was. It tasted like anti-matter, anyway.

    6. Re:Oh yes... by fellip_nectar · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, I'm sure that in 2015, antimatter will be available at every corner drug store...

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    7. Re:Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That radioactive sugar is nontrivial. It requires a cyclotron for its production. The PET scanner is just a detector, and hospitals can operate it easily, but that sugar is so complicated and the equipment so expensive that hospitals rarely produce it on site.

      Positron based lasers are unlikely to end up in your fibre fabric or CD successor any time soon.

    8. Re:Oh yes... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Maybe they could just make his whole brain out of antimatter...

    9. Re:Oh yes... by CroDragn · · Score: 1

      sure, and every time a android trips we're minus a sizable chunk of the planet

    10. Re:Oh yes... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Because even if you could build them (probably made completely out of antimatter), they wouldn't have any advantage over normal electronic brains. After all, except for the reversed charge, positrons behave exactly like electrons.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    11. Re:Oh yes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just an android brain sized chunk of the planet.

    12. Re:Oh yes... by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      If positrons are not hard to find, why am I still not seeing any androids with positronic brains walking around all over the place? :P you could use the same "why don't i see them everywhere" logic to deny the existence of ninjas, but i wouldn't recommend it
    13. Re:Oh yes... by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but wouldn't the resultant energy release be enormous, causing far more damage than simply losing the small amount of mass in an android's brain?

      But even so, it's still worth the risk to have an android brain made of antimatter.

    14. Re:Oh yes... by zevans · · Score: 1

      There's a bloke works down the chip shop who swears his name is Daneel...

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  6. Nature article by teridon · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
    1. Re:Nature article by teridon · · Score: 2, Informative

      Damn.. forgot to mention: The current Nature podcast has an interview with David Cassidy:
      http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html

      --
      I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing. -- Thomas Jefferson
  7. Can you hear the H bomb's thunder? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this have any application other than in "defence"? I imagine it takes vast amounts of energy to create the positronium and so that means a H bomb.

    Essentially this then becomes a way of concentrating some of the power of a H bomb into an extremely powerful but very narrow beam - eg in anti-missile "defence".

    1. Re:Can you hear the H bomb's thunder? by HappyHead · · Score: 1

      Well, aside from applications in "defense", the most likely application of this technology would be "offense". Being able to poke holes in pretty much _anything_ from a long distance away is a pretty good way of attacking someone. A few of these in a network of orbiting "communications satellites" would make a very effective means of reducing enemy locations to rubble - just target key installations such as fuel refineries and ammunitions storage, and the secondary explosions would take care of the rest.

      Of course, there's probably some non-combat related applications for this type of technology as well, there have been discussions of methods of propulsion for space-craft that employ lasers as a means of producing thrust - more powerful lasers create more thrust. (and a bigger hole in whatever the thruster is pointed at...) Additionally, if we wanted to set up a "communications laser" to send messages to another solar system, a laser of this magnitude would be useful.

  8. Obligitory by SPY_jmr1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So would the sharks be a million times more powerful, or could we just use one million *tiny* fricking lasers?

  9. super-atom condensate???? by boxxxie · · Score: 3, Informative
    1. Re:super-atom condensate???? by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 2, Funny

      [fakequote]
      they mean a Bozo-Einstein compensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo%E2%80%93Einstein_compensate/
      [/fakequote] I totally object to your post!

      Einstein was certainly not a Bozo, and nobody should be compensated for saying that!
      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
  10. Annoying by dintech · · Score: 1

    Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

    1. Re:Annoying by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

      Judging by what's on the screen, not soon enough.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  11. Old fashioned ... by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 4, Funny

    Lasers?

    That won't even penetrate our navigational shields!

    Where are your phasers?

    --
    My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    1. Re:Old fashioned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Before messinng with Anti-Matter they should determine where they can safely eject the core should it become unstable.

    2. Re:Old fashioned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMMA CHARGIN MAH LAZER

    3. Re:Old fashioned ... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Why bother? As soon as you actually want to eject the core, the controls will become unresponsive anyway.

    4. Re:Old fashioned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Voyager actually ejected its core and subsequently recovered it in one episode.

    5. Re:Old fashioned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, they did it several times.
      S1E12 - Cathedral
      S4E03 - Day of Honor
      S7E?? - Reconnaissance Man
      and maybe one more.

    6. Re:Old fashioned ... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      That's because unlike shuttles, cores don't multiply magically.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    7. Re:Old fashioned ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, so here's the back of the queue to get a life. Thanks, I've been looking for ages.

    8. Re:Old fashioned ... by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 1

      OMG!

      I can't believe you actually knew that, and was so certain about it that you even posted it on /.

      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    9. Re:Old fashioned ... by SplatMan_DK · · Score: 1

      That's because unlike shuttles, cores don't multiply magically. Shuttles don't "multiply magically". They are simply replicated by folks from Engineering.

      A core could also be replicated, except for the antimatter-oh-my-God-I-am-NOT-having-this-discussion...
      --
      My security clearance is so high I have to kill myself if I remember I have it...
    10. Re:Old fashioned ... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      It's actually a widely believed fact that Voyager came equipped with more shuttlecraft than photon torpedoes, which is why I was always surprised that they'd waste their torpedoes when they could just fire shuttlecraft at their enemies.

  12. Something mentioned earlier. by z0M6 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Next on /.! DIY positronium laser using household items.

  13. Laser by mhannibal · · Score: 0

    May be annihilation gamma ray laser can destroy the dupes of slashdot? Nothing else seems to work...

  14. More info by robably · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's an interview with David Cassidy about this in the 13th September Nature Podcast (the page also has the podcast as a direct MP3 download and a transcript).

    1. Re:More info by ThirdPrize · · Score: 0

      Not THE David Cassidy?

      --
      I have excellent Karma and I am not afraid to Troll it.
    2. Re:More info by robably · · Score: 1

      Not THE David Cassidy?
      The guy in TFA. I know I know, nobody reads the article.
    3. Re:More info by nacturation · · Score: 1

      Not THE David Cassidy? The guy in TFA. I know I know, nobody reads the article. Get off my lawn! Kids these days!
      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  15. Frickin lasers strapped to their rockets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    i doubt a mod will even see this with an AC attatched to it, but, meh.
    try relating this idea with this one
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/2328233
    iirc a few people were curious as to what it may take to get this off the ground (pun so intended) as it were. =P

  16. Obligatory quote. by d3m0nCr4t · · Score: 1

    "Tonight on "It's the mind" we examine the phenomenon of déjà-vu, that strange feeling we sometimes get that we've lived through something before."

  17. Rocky Horror by Kenshin · · Score: 1

    All I have to say is: "Yes, Dr. Scott, a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter."

    --

    Does it make you happy you're so strange?

    1. Re:Rocky Horror by austinpoet · · Score: 1

      So's my putz.

  18. Sharks with WMD's by doit3d · · Score: 1

    The sharks will be happy.

    --
    "This is America... where the will of the few outweigh the outrage of the many..." - Unknown
    1. Re:Sharks with WMD's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I first read this as "Sharks with WDM" That is what would make me happy if I were a shark.

  19. Molecules...? by FlyByPC · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I was somehow led to believe that a molecule was produced by the combination of two atoms -- which each have at least one proton (in the case of Hydrogen). How does combining an electron with a positron (both very very low mass particles; think "mosquitoes" compared to the "elephant" protons and neutrons in the nucleus) equal an atom -- let alone two or more atoms to equal a molecule?

    It may be cool, but perhaps we need a new name for it. Molecule just doesn't fit; sorry.

    --
    Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
    1. Re:Molecules...? by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 1

      Indeed. I always thought an "atom" was "something with an equal number of protons and electrons". I don't see how an electron/anti-electron pair fits that definition.

      --
      No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    2. Re:Molecules...? by blockhouse · · Score: 0

      I get the idea that the non-scientist who wrote this article has no clue what he's talking about, and that casts aspersions on the credibility of the whole article. Positrons and electrons have the same mass, which is several orders of magnitude less massive than a proton. Positronium really isn't hydrogen-like at all.

      It all sounds like Harry Potter magic BS to me. Expecto positronium!

    3. Re:Molecules...? by Skylax · · Score: 1

      In Quantummechanics you can treat a positronium in the same way as a hydrogenatom. Basically, you first transform into the center of mass system and then solve the schrödinger-equation for the electron with a so called reduced mass to get its wavefunction. This wavefunction is equal to the hydrogen-electron-wavefunction except for the mass-factor. So the physical and chemical behaviour of Ps is similar to that of a hydrogenatom, so as long as the positron doesn't annihilate with another electron. Due to the different masses however ionisation energies and other things are different. This justifies calling Ps an atom and covalent binding of two Ps a molecule (of course again with lower reduced mass causing for example differences in rotation-excitation-states). In this way, the name molecule does fit very well,sorry.

    4. Re:Molecules...? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I get the idea that the non-scientist who wrote this article has no clue what he's talking about,... Sounds like most of slashdot then.

      I would hazard a guess (note - guess as I have not yet purchased yesterdays new scientist and read the full article) that this works as the two particles they are combining actually have opposing charge. This should get around the equal number of protons and electrons rule as the net charge of the atom will still be zero.

      Since neutrons are not a necessary part of an atom this should work. The wikipedia page on hydrogen is fairly detailed so should enable you to see some similarities:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

      Of course the big difference though will be the atomic weight as this will be close to negligible. This is probably why the resultant particle is so short lived as the two components of the atom are the same mass they would behave more like a dipole where both orbit each other rather than one being a stationary nucleus with orbiting electron.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole

      What I would like to know is how they plan on making this form a stable molecule so I will be buying new-scientist to find out.

      (Disclaimer - I flunked my degree in Physics some time ago so this may all be bullshit, if you think it is please post a detailed explanation of why and mention your level of physics education if possible. Please also do not bother pointing out that I am using the Bohr model of the electron and discrediting it UNLESS you can specifically state why it does not apply in this case.)

      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    5. Re:Molecules...? by Ash+Vince · · Score: 1

      Basically, you first transform into the center of mass system and then solve the schrödinger-equation for the electron with a so called reduced mass to get its wavefunction. Which is not so easy if the centre of mass is the halfway point between the two constituents.
      --
      I dont read /. to RTFA, I read /. to offend people in ignorance.
    6. Re:Molecules...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, isn't this what Val Kilmer did in Real Genius?

    7. Re:Molecules...? by miller701 · · Score: 1

      I think you're right. How exactly does one get 2 positrons together and keep their electrons from annihilating them?

    8. Re:Molecules...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well let's change "atom" and "molecule".
      Atom: a collection of particles, arranged in a central core with particles orbiting.
      Well, you can guess what molecule means, pretty obvious.

      Oh wow, that makes Earth a giant atom.
      Screw "planet", who made up that nonsense word, they can't even decide on it's definition! Oh wait...

    9. Re:Molecules...? by Skylax · · Score: 1

      You don't. Their wavefunctions are overlapping and it is only a matter of time before they transform into photons. Thus the short lifetime.

    10. Re:Molecules...? by Skylax · · Score: 1

      It doesnt't matter where the center of mass is, the resulting wavefunction depends only on the distance between the two constituents.

    11. Re:Molecules...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, the original posting that this article is a dupe of called them atoms, and people complained about the designation. But "atom" works better than "molecule" (for me, at least).

    12. Re:Molecules...? by zevans · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this can behave much like a molecule in the common parlance either.

      Hydrogen = A positively charged baryon interacting with a negatively charged (and much lighter) lepton. Held together mainly by the exclusion principle, which prevents it radiating away all the binding energy, and hence is fairly stable. (Although it has been alleged that protons themselves decay, eventually)

      Positronium = A positively charged lepton interacting with an antiparticle of same lepton. Which by definition radiates away the binding energy pretty darn quickly.

      However, a bunch of particles evolving together in a fundamental way can be thought of as a "molecule" I guess... so maybe that's what they mean here. But chemically, it ain't a molecule, and surely when people hear "molecule" they think of chemistry - not QCD.

      This would be akin to describing a whole bunch of stuff in a B-E condensate as "an atom." (Which I have seen written down, come to think of it, but it's not terribly helpful terminology.)

      --
      "... and more and more now there are all kinds of electronic goodies available" -- Pink Floyd 1972
  20. Ascendancy/Galactic Civ tech tree anyone? by rgaginol · · Score: 1

    Seriously, does it at all feel like we're on the Ascendancy/ Galactic Civ tech tree? And that we've skipped ahead a few too many techs? Sheesh.

    1. Re:Ascendancy/Galactic Civ tech tree anyone? by FusionDragon2099 · · Score: 1

      Meh. Call me back when we get Disruptors.

  21. Exposure may result in green eyes by garlicbready · · Score: 1

    I read the part about Gamma Rays and the part "potentially one million times more powerful than existing lasers"
    the first thing that sprung to mind, is the author David Banner?
    the next thing would be the warning on the side of the device

    Warning exposure may result in green eyes when changing a tyre
    loss of memory / Loss of Hair / or extreme Hulkism with hilarious consequences

  22. Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends by viking80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    To conserve momentum (and other) at least two photons are released in opposite direction when the two particles annihilate each other. If this is part of a gamma ray laser, you will have two rays: One aimed at your enemy, one in your face, and a mirror will probably not work at 0.5MeV.

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re: Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends by gardyloo · · Score: 1

      If it's truly a part of a laser, they'll have "mirrors" (of one sort or another) to ensure phase coherence anyway.

    2. Re: Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      If they can rig a "mirror", you get a photon drive for spacecraft. Hell, for starships. I'd like to see that mirror. I've no doubt some clever wanker can exploit physics to do it, and I await his/her paper.

    3. Re: Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends by Maximum+Prophet · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not all lasers have mirrors. Mirrors are a hack to get the gain of the tube > 1. If you're lasing media is long enough to have gain > .5, you only need 1 mirror at the back, but if you have enough lasing media you don't need any mirrors. Natural C02 lasers have been detected in the atmosphere of Mars that are miles long.

      A mirror for gamma rays would be cool, but would probably so far I don't think there are mirrors for even X-Rays. (Although they have made gold Fresnel lens for X-Rays.

      --
      All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
  23. Forget TFA by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

    Forget TFA. All you need to know to write a gut-reaction reply is contained in the wonderful phrase 'annihilation gamma ray laser.' Let's start: Have scientists gone too far? Could this be used as a weapon? Could it fall into the wrong hands? React away. :-)

  24. Uses? by kevmatic · · Score: 1

    If they do manage to create a powerful laser like this, could it be used to power stuff, like the Space Elevator?

    The Article seems to imply, though, that it only lasts a couple hundred nanoseconds. I wonder if it can be sustained. Otherwise, its killing-only :(

    1. Re:Uses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'm not sure if I've got this right, but here's my math.
      The speed of light = 299,792,458 Meters per Second
      This equals 299.8 Meters per Nanosecond (May have goofed this up)
      299.8 Meters = 983.6 feet

      Not a super-duper effective range, but I imagine it would make a heck of a hand-held weapon if it could be made that small.

  25. Never mind sharks... by Hanners1979 · · Score: 1

    Will we be developing Evangelions to fire these?

    1. Re:Never mind sharks... by TriggerFin · · Score: 2, Funny

      Will we be developing Evangelions to fire these?

      The US is already full of evangelicals. Do you really think they haven't been training for the past decade?
      --
      Here's your sig.
  26. Atom is a bad word for it by el_munkie · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But mass is less relevant than you may think. The electron-positron pair is held together by the Coulomb force, which is the same force that binds the proton and the electron. The electron-positron system has a net electric charge of 0, making it electrically neutral.

    As I said in the title, maybe "atom" is a bad word to describe this system. However, the word "atom" comes from a Greek word meaning "indivisible", and since we've since discovered that what we call atoms are divisible after all, the word isn't even appropriate in its accepted usage.

    1. Re:Atom is a bad word for it by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you can find innumerable instances of words that we've discovered don't actually describe what they refer to. Get over it, and stop making my poor school system buy new science books because we've decided to rename everything we know of to ever more confusing and hard to remember (much less pronounce) names.

      BTW I supported Xena/Gabrielle as a planet system, because it is no more different from Earth than Jupiter is.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  27. I have a solution! We need an anti-dupe! by tgd · · Score: 2, Funny

    Laser Lover didn't writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have not been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to never use the exotic material to create 'an creation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times less powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can't hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It can't possibly survive for less than 150 nanoseconds before it isn't annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation. It wasn't known that two positronium atoms shouldn't be able to bind together to form a molecule ... '"

    There, now the dupe and anti-dupe can form a stable dupe atom, which can bind with other dupe atoms to form powerful dupe lase.... oh dear GOD NO!!!

    1. Re:I have a solution! We need an anti-dupe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd swear I saw MacGuyver create a quantum particle coalescing raygun from three pieces of cheese and some wire. It made everything stick together. It also had a reverse setting to unscramble eggs. And was used by SCO to disassemble code.

    2. Re:I have a solution! We need an anti-dupe! by bar-agent · · Score: 1
      Laser Lover didn't writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have not been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to never use...

      It's Bizarro-Slashdot!
      • Last post
      • In Korea, only young people are robots
      • Imagine a single one of these
      • Ugh, Natalie Portman eating hot grits
      • -5 Insightful

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  28. You CAN end a war with weapons by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    You most certainly CAN end a war with weapons.

    But you can't win a war with one eye on CNN to gage the public response to your use of your weapons. That is why we won't use our weapons to win wars anymore.

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    1. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by polar+red · · Score: 1

      tell me, which war was won by weapons ?

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    2. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by dave420 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You can end a war with weapons, but war itself is something no-one can win.

      Why the US isn't using its weapons is because the US has no right to be where it currently is, let alone kill thousands upon thousands more innocent people, and still not "win". You can't blow up an idea, especially if each attempt just makes more followers.

    3. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by maillemaker · · Score: 1

      You can't think of any?

      --
      A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    4. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by maillemaker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >Why the US isn't using its weapons is because the US has no right to be where it currently is,

      Whether or not the US has any right to be where it currently is, the reason why it isn't unchaining its military to lay waste to the region, ala Dresden, Nagasaki, etc., is because the aftermath would be on CNN in 15 minutes.

      >You can't blow up an idea, especially if each attempt just makes more followers.

      You can't blow up an idea, but if you blow up enough people you can break the will of people to act on those ideas. It just takes sufficient force. We are unwilling to apply that kind of force in Iraq, and, consequently, we are having no effect on the will of our enemies there. In fact, in all likelyhood we are actually enhancing their will by being there.

      --
      A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
    5. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 2, Interesting
      tell me, which war was won by weapons ?

      Carthagio delenda est.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    6. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      The Pacific side of WW2 was won because Japan was devistated enough to surrender after having 2 Nuclear Weapons dropped on it.
      The European side of WW2 was won because the Allied side had more weapons and soldiers then the Axis side and was able to fully occupy their territory.

      I could cite other examples but I have to go soon. Here's a simple fact though, 90% of wars are won as a direct result of weapons and the willingness to use them. Rarely do they end with weapons, more often they end with diplomacy, but almost always that diplomacy comes as a direct result of superior weapons being used on a side that thought themselves invincible and was unwilling to enter into diplomatic arrangements until that invincibility was crushed.

      As one of my favorite quotes goes, "Violence never solved anything...except slavery, fascism, nazism, communism, baathism, dictatorships and a few other things". Guess what. While war, violence, and weapons may not be able, on their own, to win a war, as that generally requires diplomacy of some sort, they can be the direct cause of that diplomacy and so, since p->q (weapons lead to diplomacy) and q->r (diplomacy leads to 'winning' the war), p->r (can you tell I've been studying for a discrete mathmatics test today? :P).

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    7. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by polar+red · · Score: 1

      and indeed: weaponry *NEVER* ends it, it's always the diplomacy afterwards that ends the war. (translation of this diplomacy: the side that has lost the most of their lower-class people has to give more money/lands/resources to the other side's upper class--> see my sig)

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    8. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by Jarjarthejedi · · Score: 1

      What ends the war is irrelevant when talking about what wins the war. The original comment was that weapons don't win wars, they do. Weapons do not end (civilized) wars (unless you're willing to completely wipe out your enemies barbarian style, then the weapons alone can end the wars). Whether or not they end them, however, they are a direct cause of winning. This can be shown simply, imagine a hypothetical war (I like to use one like WW2 but it's up to you). Imagine that one side wants to win the war without being barbaric. Now imagine that their weapons are inferior to the enemies. Tell me how they can win the war without developing superior weapons.

      No army with inferior weaponry (and I count training as weapons fyi) has ever won a war with a country that had even a reasonable sized army.

      --
      There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
    9. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by polar+red · · Score: 1

      That kind of war doesn't exist anymore. Let's take a modern war: Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has WMD's and tanks. Palestine has AK47's and rocks. No-one is winning, EVERYBODY is losing. The ONLY way to end it : talking where both sides have to give something up.

      --
      Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
    10. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1

      That's not a war, its a controlled conflict. If it was a war, the maps would be changed to Israel surround by the glass-lands.

    11. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "just hit harder" lol

    12. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      first of all the Iraqi's arent the terrorists. Terrorists are just a faceless enemy with no location designed to keep an endless "war" going to make money for all the military and oil corporations. Vietnam was probably prolonged for this reason. It's fucked up and I dont know what to do anymore. Voting power just isn't enough anymore.

      --
      Balderdash!
    13. Re:You CAN end a war with weapons by dave420 · · Score: 1

      No, the US has claimed it's in Iraq to help, and blowing up the very people its trying to help is obviously showing that claim of being there to help is bogus. You can't help someone by blowing them up. CNN has nothing to do with this.

      People will always act when they're threatened. You would have to kill EVERYONE who opposed to ensure no-one fought back.

  29. Sharks... meh by Aneurism75 · · Score: 1

    Two words... DEATH STAR! :D

  30. forgot one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can't hug a child with nuclear arms.....(x_x)

  31. whatever happened to the term "graser" ? by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    Is a homonym of it just used to describe cattle and giraffes now? It certainly rolls off the tongue a bit more easily than "x-raser".

  32. So this had better be shoulder fired... by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    like a bazooka. The blow back would prevent this from being shoulder fired. Still, this would be a cool support weapon to back up your Gauss rifle shock troops.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  33. Three PS molecule laser by Alzheimers · · Score: 1

    if they have a Ps2 molecule laser, and add one more Ps, I wonder if that would that make the ray blue...

  34. Missing the point by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You beat the tar out of him, he's humiliated, and goes away for a few days, then he comes back and shoots you in the back.

    You didn't win a war, there, you won a fight. The two are not the same thing.

    You fight him, make it clear that you're going to win, and then talk with him such that he gets a way out and hostilities turn into a mutually acceptable relationship -- that's winning a war. You need the fists, but you also need some intelligent action.

    This is not to say that there are not occasions where the fists are the ONLY intelligent thing, but that means your opponent is one stupid piece of crap. Such people exist, and they're more likely to be part of a bar fight, but I don't think the metaphor extends to nations often, if at all, as nations are large groups of people, not just one Saddam.

  35. Bizzaro Molecule by KiwiCanuck · · Score: 1

    Sounds like something out of Superman.

  36. There's a joke in here somewhere... by JoeD · · Score: 1

    ...about a new GR-DVD format, but I'm too lazy to flesh it out. Go ahead and pretend that I did, and mod this up.

  37. Obligatory Ghostbusters Quote by Jon+Eiche · · Score: 1

    Don't cross the streams!

  38. Things like this.. by synonymous · · Score: 1

    Are mostly already in use. If you read the book "The Day After Roswell", it will clear up most of the suspicious side of your mind. In the book, Col. Corso talks about having copies of the Tesla papers and the proposals for weapons like the "Death Ray". Don't believe me huh?? Well, you know that the Roswell incident happened on the 4th of Jul right? The National Security Act of 1947 became law on July 26, 1947 22 days after Roswell. It created the Department of the Air Force, CIA, Department of Defense, etc... The transistor was supposedly "Invented" in 1947 by Bell Labs shortly after roswell, LOL. Boy what an exciting year. Anyway, these secret groups have been doing much while you have been focused on working for the men. Read the book and watch the movie "Secret Space" on Google video, while you are at it, watch "Disclosure Project" on Google. Heck, just Google "David Icke" and get all caught up to date. Here's a clip of an attempt to hit one with a particle beam or some sorta weapon.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxaegClR05I
    You know, NASA, aside from being a NAZI organization, can't even televise the missions anymore because of all the UFO showing up on camera. Well, it was actually that folks were then having those images show up on the front page of the papers that finally had them encrypt it. Thanks to a Canadian friend, we have those transmissions.
    Heres another choice film
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9141847328034766279&q=mir+ufo&total=55&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=8
    Take Care
    Read the damn book "The Day After Roswell"

    1. Re:Things like this.. by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The transistor was supposedly "Invented" in 1947 by Bell Labs shortly after roswell, LOL. Boy what an exciting year.
      In the several years prior, jet engines first became practical, digital computers were first invented, digital computers switched from relays to vacuum tubes (which are frequently derided these days as glass field-effect transistors), some of the first plastics became available, the German Type XXI completely changed how submarines would work going forward, both cruise and ballistic missiles were invented, radars became small enough to put in bullets, and oh yeah, The Bomb. I think penicillin was invented in there, too.

      Technology was moving fast then, in very visible ways.

    2. Re:Things like this.. by SpectreBlofeld · · Score: 1

      "Well, you know that the Roswell incident happened on the 4th of Jul right?"

        Yeah! The aliens came on the fourth of July, but Jeff Goldblum uploaded a virus to the mothership using his Macbook Pro.

    3. Re:Things like this.. by synonymous · · Score: 1

      Now how did he do that prior to the integrated circuit? Laughs.
      Actually I found that movie to be much like War of the Worlds in where it plays heavily on scaring the influential. Col. Corso states that from folks reaction to that movie as the reason for the secrecy. But at a deeper note, it was also stated that the major reason was not because of that, nor that they found aliens themselves, nor cattle/animal parts aboard, but that they also found human body parts. IOW, we are no different than the cattle to these folks. That could possibly cause some panic huh? My own impression is that the group within our government just likes to have all the latest toys, knowledge and be in control. Nothin too big a deal to not let it out. If you find yourself becoming interested in this subject, check out "theduderinok" user on youtube. He posts new series of cool spiritual, enlightening vids' all the time. Recently he had an award for being the 77th most viewed author. Never a boring time for sure. My favorite all time are the Jim Sparks episodes, heres a link.
      Episode 1
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1378184171653399267
      Episode 2
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5896492513136736122

      Regards

    4. Re:Things like this.. by synonymous · · Score: 1

      True,
      In the book, Col. Corso wrote that some of the technology had already been underway and that the items he furnished to these companies were meant to help them along in development. Night vision as one example, fiber optics etc.. Here, my fav abduction guy Jim Sparks, just found this video, watch.. oh and another link
      http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/accandroswell.html

      Jim link...never seen this one b4
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9119581384543136288&q=jim+sparks&total=327&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

    5. Re:Things like this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But certainly you would agree that field effect transistors are fairly easily understood devices. (Be it a vacuum tube or an actual semiconductor implementation.)

      Bipolar transistors (the Bell Labs invention) are pretty freaky in comparison. I could see those as being alien technology :)

    6. Re:Things like this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course ! Because all super-advanced interstellar alien spacecraft are powered by transistors.

    7. Re:Things like this.. by synonymous · · Score: 1

      The more you learn and read about the subject, History Channel had a great show on UFO's and how they travel under water. They don't even spin on the wheel of "Are they real" anymore. They theorize on how their technology works to get them supersonic under water. Navy ships on the poles have seen them crash thorough ice in one place, then reappear crashing through the ice a distance away. Pretty versatile ships indeed. Back to the transistor thing though. The ships themselves are made of these materials. There are no chases or conduits as we would normally find in things like planes and such. Corso talks of bands that would be worn on the head and speculated that they were for guidance and control, lasers that were remotely powered, fiber optics that needed no input power, etc.. One thing you want to remember, which I have not heard anyone else state, is that Roswell could have quite possibly been a stage that these creatures set up. I'm sure that they themselves have actually been learning from our own expansion of technology on these devices. They I'm sure have better ways to spend their time rather than refining these technologies that already work fine for them.

      Here's a nice link for more info,, if it helps.
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7894334334925055702&q=conspiracy+area+51&total=213&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

      Couldnt find the link I actually wanted, but cool enough.
      Take it how you like
      Cheers

  39. Scotty by DaveDerrick · · Score: 1

    As Scotty would say "If we can divert the phaser banks through the dilithium crystals we could boost the warp drive".

  40. No. by Bill,+Shooter+of+Bul · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It ended with a public radio broadcast of the emperor proclaiming himself to not be a God, and to end the war. If he doesn't do that, the war wouldn't have ended. So basically, what we needed was Saddam to surrender and tell everyone to stop fighting. I guess if Osama said that now, it might work ,but there are so many factions now that it wouldn't immediately end the war.

    --
    Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
  41. ^^Total Nutcase^^ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wow.... How many conspiracy theories can you cram into one post?

  42. NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the real conspiracy runs far more deeply than even David Icke could imagine.

    I noticed you are using dates such as "July 26, 1947". That shows that you are still blind to the true conspiracy - that every day is in fact 4 days, just like a cube has 4 sides (not 6, like the lizard alien Illuminati wants you to think). And that's only the tip of the iceberg. Get up to date at http://www.timecube.com/ .

    1. Re:NATURE'S HARMONIC SIMULTANEOUS 4-DAY TIME CUBE by synonymous · · Score: 1

      Actually I was copy/pasting from the Air Force website the date.

      I used Icke as an example because he explains things in so many ways and in such a studied detail that it is easier for many people to see. I found success in that my father approved of one of his films, as my father knows and is huge huge huge into Peak Oil. Dad holds a view of catastrophic proportions due to increased demand and population while supply peters out. Other than that, he has not much belief in Climate Change or anything else, specially conspiracy. Icke's movie worked on him though. No easy task.
      I'm sure there are plenty of others out there with greater knowledge, yet just an example. Thanks for the link :)

  43. Not on CNN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    aftermath would be on CNN in 15 minutes.

    Not on CNN, which is being very effectively censored even now. (How many dead Iraqis, out of the hundreds of thousands in this war, have you seen?)

    The aftermath of the mass murder will be shown on Al Jazeera however, and copied from there to other TV channels all over the non-U.S. world. TVs in the U.S. will be showing Britney.

  44. re: Japan by drwho · · Score: 1

    There's information that Japan had tried to surrender before the US dropped the bombs on them, but this surrender was considered inconvenient so it was ignored. You want my sources? BAH! This is Slashdot! We don't need no steenkin sources!

  45. Genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    We, as a society, are unwilling to accept the measures needed to really win a military war. For this I am thankful.

    I should hope so. A genocide committed in full view of TV screens all over the world? *shudder* People will forget Adolf Hitler and remember the USA instead as the far greater evil, just as people have mostly forgotten Mussolini because Hitler was so much worse.

  46. Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation"

    Wait a minute Egon. I thought you said crossing the streams was a bad idea.

  47. Sharks? How about Mars? by BrianGKUAC · · Score: 1

    Coincidence? I think not!

    And you people said it would take a ludicrous amount of power. Hah!

    --
    Menus: Linux=function, Windows=vendor, OS X=as little as possible. Makes a statement, don't you think?
  48. Re: Darth Maul by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    No problem having two ends of destructive power... just ask Darth Maul...

    It just means that the US can hit China and Russia at the same time, or US bases in Iraq can hit Syria and Iran at the same time... sounds groovy...

  49. Results by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can anyone make an educated guess what would happen if this ray was fired at a building? At a car? At a person?

  50. don't fall for their trap by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    only with words? Yea they have to be the right words, and there has to be a consensus among the leaders. Right now we have Republicans screaming one thing, and Democrats screaming another. And nobody is getting shit done. I blame the neocons AND the political "liberals" for leaving the moderates majority holding the bag. And I say "liberals" in quotes because they aren't real liberals, they sing the liberal tune but are totally empty of any progressive ideals.

    Almost all the kids being sent to war are moderates, as are their parents. And (except in places like San Francisco, Palo Alto, Berkeley, etc) the people who are for AND against the war with Iraq are also moderates. But the "liberal" politicians and the neocons play both sides off each other. It's not some evil conspiracy to rule the world either, it's just a survival tactic used by people who are useless leeches that have no business in the office they hold.

    As for Iran, by the time we can get around to dealing with the Iranian threat they will have sent some big missiles onto Israel. And then I think we'll have a pretty unanimous voice as to what position Americans have on Iran, hopefully when that time comes we'll get the politicians who represent us to send the same message as us.

    (please mark this thread as offtopic - we should be talking about awesome antimatter lasers, not boring US international policy)

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  51. Re: Japan by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Indeed surrender was offered twice before (iirc), but turned down because it was conditional. The nukes were not the most devastating attacks on Japan, they were just the most devastating single events. The carpet bombing of Japanese cities for many months did far more damage. The purpose of dropping the bomb was to show Japan and Russia the resolve and capability of the US military to basically bomb targets indefinitely. I mention Russia because even though there was some cooperation between the Soviets and the Allies in defeating the Axis powers, there was a definite concern even at that time by Allied governments as to how far the Soviets would grow their empire.

    What is your point anyways? In a few decades few people from that era will even be alive. I think we all know now it's not good to drop radiological devices on civilian populations, and in the future I believe we will avoid it. Our development of precision weapons, military robotics, and very powerful specialized chemical weapons is evidence of the US government and military's resolve to avoid nuclear confrontations.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  52. Darwinism by zCyl · · Score: 1

    Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

    I don't know, but it'll be really funny when all the positrons leak out into their pocket.
  53. Re:Total moral decay by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

    I'm still able and willing to think about things truly abhorrent and unacceptable, because these things still exist even when I hold the pillow really tight over my head. How else to avoid them? Genocide exists, even today. I hate it. The first wrong step is treating people as things, or as the "(ethnic class) Problem". From there it's Welcome to Nightmare City.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  54. Re:Sharks? How about Mars? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    Do you have an idea how much power you need to create all those positrons? Hint: Energy conservation doesn't have an exception for antimatter.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  55. Woohaaaaa by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

    Damn, jokes about sharks aside, the scientific and technical implications of a gamma laser will be immense. Nuclear physicists will love to have one of these to probe nuclei with as an example ( so far you need a massive particle accelerator to do it ). Heck, if you reached sufficiently high energies you could even use it to fission the actinides in nuclear waste without the need to rely on particle accelerators or critical reactors. Positron-electron annihilation probably won't get you high enough energies for that thou.. You would need something in the GeV range of energies.

  56. I think I figured it out: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Zonk only reads Slashdot every couple of days, when he gets a 12-pack and starts posting one submission for each beer he drinks, ergo, the dupes increase with the frequency of his posting.

  57. What the fuck? by el_munkie · · Score: 1

    Dude, atoms have been known to be divisible for over 70 years now, your school must have some ancient books. Do they contain references to the Aether?

    Also, if this bugs you, wait until you hear of symmetry, with its sparticles, squarks, and so on.

    1. Re:What the fuck? by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      Sigh, I suppose you're a Eurasia supporter, too. Care to start teaching kids how many continental plates we ACTUALLY have, and memorizing them? How about removing all references to Tidal waves (non-descriptive), and teaching the difference between Solar noon and statutory noon? Why don't we remove all references to pure American democracies from our history books after the Electoral College?

      My point is the terms are fine as they are, and they also teach us about the level of technology and history of the era's where the terms were coined. If the children want further knowledge, they have perfectly good access to it.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
  58. tunneling! by tchdab1 · · Score: 1

    1. develop a device that creates antimatter
    2. pair it with a process that tunnels the antimatter to a remote location
    3. profit!

  59. What, no "Real Genius" references? by Buckler · · Score: 1

    I'm ashamed.

    Chris Knight: As you know, Mitch and I were working on the cyanide system. Well, eariler today it ate itself. But, these little set-backs are just what we need to take a giant step forward. Right, Kent? Needless to say, I was a little despondent about the melt down, but then, it the midst of my preparations for hari kiri, it came to me. It is possible to synthesize excited bromide in an argon matrix. It's an excimer frozen in its excited state.
    Bodey: Th...That's impossible.
    Knight: It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, Kent, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as we apply a field, we couple to a state, it is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure we can extract at least 10 to the 21st photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.

  60. industrial drilling and cutting tool? by alizard · · Score: 1

    Imagine cutting shapes from foot-thick steel plate practically instantaneously.Or cutting I-beams to length in a small fraction of a second.

    While the battlefield uses are sort of obvious, its civilian uses might wind up more profitable in the long run, assuming there is one.

  61. Very effective? by pac0rro · · Score: 1

    Tell me If I am wrong: The super-laser beam lives for 160 ns, the speed of light is 299792458 m/s so in a nanosecond the beam runs along 0,3 meters and in 160 ns the beam dissapears at 47 meters. Hey! its very risky to shot this ray so near to the Death Star, only Skywalker can do this feat.

    1. Re:Very effective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  62. Antimatter Question by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    How is antimatter different than matter aside from it annihilating when it hits matter? Would it be possible to build things out of antimatter? i've never understood what they mean exactly, by ANTImatter. So i wonder is it actually MATTER in the way that matter is? Or is it something totally weird?

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!