Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Trap Light In Nano-Soup

Posted by kdawson on from the confusing-the-photons dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Physicists at the Bhavnagar University in Gujarat, India have trapped light in a nano-soup concoction. The chance discovery could pave the way for lab-on-a-chip devices for processing optical information. As of now there is no theoretical explanation for why the fluid has the effects it does on laser light."

7 of 110 comments (clear)

  1. the message by mseidl · · Score: 4, Funny

    Peter: "Hey Brian, there is a message in my Nano-Soup, it says 'oooooooooooooooo'"

    Brian: "Thats not Nano-Soup, its your Cheerios."

  2. The photons took too long to order. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 4, Funny

    Nano-soup for you!

    --
    Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
  3. No theoretical explanation? by GammaKitsune · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do they claim that "As of now there is no theoretical explanation for why the fluid has the effects it does on laser light" when there's clearly a theory about why this happens right in TFA? Or is there some other definition used in the Scientific community for a "theoretical explanation" that I'm not aware of?

    --
    Gamertag: WyleType
    1. Re:No theoretical explanation? by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why do they claim that "As of now there is no theoretical explanation for why the fluid has the effects it does on laser light" when there's clearly a theory about why this happens right in TFA? Or is there some other definition used in the Scientific community for a "theoretical explanation" that I'm not aware of? Yes: One where the math has been shown to work.

      Currently they have ideas, but haven't proven the math. If the math can't be made to work, either the underlying theory is wrong, or something else is happening.
      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    2. Re:No theoretical explanation? by mr_mischief · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From TFA: "but the researchers believe that"

      It's good to remember that "theory" and "hypothesis" are quite distinct in scientific circles. In science, a belief is not a theory. A belief is either a hypothesis that can be tested or an article of faith. Since these are research scientists and this has no clear ties to any religion I can see, I'm going to bet they'll want their hypothesis tested.

      They'll want the experiment set up specifically with storage of the light in mind, since this was a surprise discovery this time. Then they'll want some way to prove, mathematically or empirically (preferably both) that the light is getting trapped consistently and how that's being done.

      Then, they'll want others to repeat the experiment in other labs from their write-up and get consistent results.

      Then, when scientists can use the explanation for the light getting trapped as a portion of further work and it become useful to just assume the explanation is true and move on to work based on it... then it's a theory.

      Or... that's how I'd think of the words "hypothesis" and "theory" from my interested lay understanding of research science. In short, a hypothesis is an idea about something happening under certain circumstances or why something happens in those circumstances that has not been properly vetted by experiments and mathematics. A hypothesis can be right or wrong, and noone knows until it is tested. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven reasonably correct by multiple individual teams and can be used as a basis for further work. A theory is sometimes wrong in part, like Newtonian mechanics, but should offer a good enough model to make more discoveries.

      In even shorter terms, a scientist says "theoretically" only if the basis for the belief is tested and accepted. Otherwise, it's "hypothetically".

  4. Re:Better than flashlights or the Light of Elendil by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Probably not: you need to keep a magnetic field of an exact strength around it to hold the light. So you still need batteries or some such to maintain the field. (You'd want an atrificial field so you can choose the wavelengths of light to capture, and because it is easier to remove uniformly.)

    There is probably also a maximum amount of energy you can store per unit volume, though I'd guess they don't have that worked out yet.

    --
    'Sensible' is a curse word.
  5. Re:Better than flashlights or the Light of Elendil by eln · · Score: 4, Funny

    This will do great things for the National Strategic Light Reserve, which is a vital part of our national security initiatives. Specifically, it exists to protect the nation in the event the sun burns out. Up until now, we've been storing light using a series of 100 watt bulbs and mirrors, but there has always been doubt as to what would happen to our light reserves in the event of a power outage. Perhaps this technology will help us solve that issue.