Slashdot Mirror


U of MI Produces Strongest Laser Ever

eldavojohn writes "Weighing in at a mere 20 billion trillion watts per square centimeter and containing a measly 300 terawatts of power, the University of Michigan has broken a record with a 1.3-micron speck wide laser. It's about two orders of magnitude higher than any other laser in the world and can perform for 30 femtoseconds once every ten seconds — some of the researchers speculate it is the most powerful laser in the universe. 'If you could hold a giant magnifying glass in space and focus all the sunlight shining toward Earth onto one grain of sand, that concentrated ray would approach the intensity of a new laser beam made in a University of Michigan laboratory ... To achieve this beam, the research team added another amplifier to the HERCULES laser system, which previously operated at 50 terawatts. HERCULES is a titanium-sapphire laser that takes up several rooms at U-M's Center for Ultrafast Optical Science. Light fed into it bounces like a pinball off a series of mirrors and other optical elements. It gets stretched, energized, squeezed and focused along the way.'" And ... cue the evil chortling.

244 comments

  1. Cool by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now if you can get it to fit in the weapons bay of a B1-B we might have something.

    1. Re:Cool by Shakrai · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now if you can get it to fit in the weapons bay of a B1-B we might have something.

      Popcorn!

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Cool by RDW · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think the University of Michigan researchers have a rather different weapons platform in mind:

      http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/02/20/Science/Sharks.The.Initial.Frontier-1620047.shtml

    3. Re:Cool by evilned1 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The heck with the B1, I want to know if it can be mounted on the head of a shark!

    4. Re:Cool by Z00L00K · · Score: 1
      Which would be just a load of unusable overhead. A laser designed for science is usually not really useful for blowing up things. What it can be useful for is rather to pinpoint and manipulate things on atomic scale. Another use can be long-distance precision measurements, like sending a pulse to Jupiter and measure the distance with precision. (which probably would be useless anyway since the momentarily thickness of the clouds on Jupiter will have an impact on the measurement).

      One must question if it really is a feasible weapon for a bomber as the B1-B is. You probably want to carry something that packs a lot more punch there.

      Lasers also tends to lose their power over distance - especially in atmosphere where there are a lot of molecules that are dissipating the energy. High-power lasers are actually suffering more than the plain laser pointers since the high-power lasers also excite the molecules found in the path and that draws energy. This means that a powerful laser beam sent through air can actually be seen by the naked eye - at least when it's dark while a low-power beam is invisible.

      And I actually think that an attack aircraft should benefit more from a beam weapon than a bomber. But beam weapons may be of use on other aircraft to take care of incoming missiles - but that will require a relatively light-weight weapon sufficient to take out missiles and this laser is still not very useful for that.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:Cool by Shark · · Score: 1

      They sure as hell won't be strapping that to my head...

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    6. Re:Cool by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      "Slaps forehead"

      It's a movie reference genius. Not a budgetary proposal for a new weapons systems.

      You Geek status is suspended.

    7. Re:Cool by buck19 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Why don't the Democrats scream that deficit spending is a tax increase plus interest. It is a much much worse tax increase!!

      I'm really beginning to think all this politicking of the Democrats and Republicons is just a show to make us all think they are not really there just to steal our money.

    8. Re:Cool by fsandford · · Score: 0

      I helped build a titanium belly 747 a few years back to hold one of these. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/abl.htm/

  2. The power to destroy a planet... by Andrew823 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Now all they have to do is build a huge moon-sized military base around it.

    1. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Shakrai · · Score: 3, Funny

      Now all they have to do is build a huge moon-sized military base around it.

      That's no moon.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Andrew823 · · Score: 5, Funny

      ...it's a gigantic spherical shark?

    3. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Blowfish with fricken lasers?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    4. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by kitgerrits · · Score: 1

      We just need to align 8 of these inside a moon and combine the beams.
      Lockheed Martin already has a patent for that.
      Mimas seems a better choice, though.

      --
      "I was in love with a beautiful blonde once, dear. She drove me to drink. It's the one thing I am indebted to her for."
    5. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Zephurus · · Score: 0

      No, it's your momma!

    6. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A gigantic spherical shark in a vacuum. It was the only way we could get the mathematical simulations to work.

    7. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of uniform density

    8. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Dirtside · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, the dreaded Death Shark, the Empire's most feared weapon...

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    9. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Anonymous+Buzzword · · Score: 1

      A spherical shark in vacuum.

  3. FP! by F34nor · · Score: 1

    /rumor/ Is this more powerful than DARPA's EM laser where they drilled a hole in the earth, made a spherical chamber, and set off a nuke in it? The idea being that the chamber would shape the EM pulse into a coherent beam.

    1. Re:FP! by hitchhacker · · Score: 1

      I havn't heard of that, but I don't think it would satisfy the 'coherency' bit. The explosion would emit a large range of frequencies, so I don't see how a straight chamber would help here. The resulting E/M would be oriented in the same direction, but would not be coherent.

      -metric

  4. Safety first by andy314159pi · · Score: 4, Funny

    20 billion trillion watts per square centimeter and containing a measly 300 terawatts of power
    God, I hope they provide the students operating that thing with some safety goggles.
    1. Re:Safety first by JudgeSlash · · Score: 5, Funny

      My eyes! The goggles do nothing!

    2. Re:Safety first by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Considering the way most grad students get treated, they probably tested the laser by shooting it at their faces.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Safety first by CodyRazor · · Score: 1

      What do they aim this thing at? Cause im imagining something with that kind of power isnt something you'd want to aim at a wall or.. anything really. Wouldnt it just instantly cut through like anything or am i missing something here

      --
      So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
    4. Re:Safety first by mythosaz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WARNING: Do not stare into LASER with remaining eye.

      http://www.leftmind.net/safety/laser.pdf

    5. Re:Safety first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      According to the paper, the total output energy is only 17 joules (watt-seconds). It wouldn't do anything at all to anything you aimed at it. When they fire it, they need special instruments just to detect that anything happened.

    6. Re:Safety first by vbraga · · Score: 4, Funny

      Undergraduates.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    7. Re:Safety first by ChemGeek4501 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Naaa...they are graduate students and therefore expendable. ChemGeek4501

    8. Re:Safety first by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

      17 joules is plenty of energy to detect without special instruments. It's enough to vaporize about 6 mg of water, or in other words it could blast a spherical hole about 1/16" diameter in your finger -- which I think you'd notice. Granted, it's not a lot of energy, but it's not a trivial amount, either.

    9. Re:Safety first by locokamil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do not look at laser beam with remaining eye.

    10. Re:Safety first by chriswaco · · Score: 3, Funny

      They aimed it towards Columbus, Ohio.

    11. Re:Safety first by Nebulious · · Score: 1

      That's right. Many of the experiments at lasers like this only focus the beams on very tiny sections of the small targets they use. Targets themselves will usually only be a few inches tall and the drive disks that the lasers strike is in the millimeter range of length.

    12. Re:Safety first by DarkSabreLord · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure a hole blasted through your finger would not be spherical at all...

    13. Re:Safety first by speedingant · · Score: 1

      What about a mirror?

    14. Re:Safety first by speedingant · · Score: 1

      What do they aim this thing at? Cause im imagining something with that kind of power isnt something you'd want to aim at a wall or.. anything really. Wouldnt it just instantly cut through like anything or am i missing something here Aim at a series of randomly placed mirrors. Yeah, that should do it.
    15. Re:Safety first by evanbd · · Score: 1

      Got any idea what shape it would be? It's a micron-diameter spot, and it's too short to penetrate (the stuff doesn't get out of the way).

      Assume a spherical cow...

      I made a simplifying assumption to give readers a feel for how large a chunk of stuff we're talking about. And besides, quasi-spherical might actually be pretty close to reasonable...

    16. Re:Safety first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good point; I stand corrected. 17 watts for one second would be felt as a momentary warmth, but I don't think it would blast a hole in your finger. There's too much mass surrounding the 6mg of water-filled tissue.

      I imagine it'd feel about like a brief soldering-iron burn.

    17. Re:Safety first by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Actually, it would blast a 1.3-micron hole through your finger and quite a bit of stuff behind it. One femtosecond is not not enough to "cut", just to make a single straight hole. And 1.3 micron is 13% of an average cell size meaning unless it hits a neuron on its way you wouldn't even feel it, it would just pretty much harmlessly go through.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    18. Re:Safety first by Zigmun_Barsac · · Score: 1

      "With your remaining eye, do not look again directly at the source of laser light". ZB

    19. Re:Safety first by evanbd · · Score: 1

      To good approximation, it also has very little penetrating power (a mm or two at most, I imagine, though it would depend on the frequency) -- the pulse is not long enough for anything to get out of the way. So it deposits a fair bit of energy in a very, very small volume, resulting in a tiny ball of very hot mostly steam, which might as well be an explosion. Heat transfer from that to the surrounding environment will be very poor (time scale is too short), but the blast effect will be significant. The blast would probably actually destroy a larger part of your finger than the energy could vaporize, but I don't know how to estimate the exact effects.

    20. Re:Safety first by surajbarkale · · Score: 1

      Correction: Don't look into the laser with remaining part of your skull.

      --
      With Great Power Comes No Love Life! - Samit Basu
  5. Yes but... by Johnno74 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This development is clearly useless until the system is miniturised to the point it can be mounted on a shark.

    1. Re:Yes but... by JohnSearle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This development is clearly useless until the system is miniturised to the point it can be mounted on a shark.
      You're thinking small. Why miniaturize the laser, when we could instead enlarge the sharks?

      - John
    2. Re:Yes but... by Johnno74 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nice, I like it.

      You've obviously done a lot more thinking about the whole Dr-Evil thing than me!

    3. Re:Yes but... by arcade · · Score: 1

      Could anyone explain the 'shark' reference to me?

      And do I have to hand in my geek card because I don't know it?

      --
      "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    4. Re:Yes but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Austin Powers.

    5. Re:Yes but... by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      I think I'm going to hand you a brilliant golden geek card for not knowing it! There is no way Austin Powers can hold a candle to Real Genius.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    6. Re:Yes but... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      I always thought his artificial intelligence research was a bit suspicious...

    7. Re:Yes but... by Kamokazi · · Score: 1

      You're on the right track, but while we're in there splicing genes, let's make them amphibious and cross them with bears. Then they can be Mutated Godless Killing Machines with Frickin' Laser Beams on their heads.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    8. Re:Yes but... by JohnSearle · · Score: 1

      I always thought his artificial intelligence research was a bit suspicious...
      Good catch.
    9. Re:Yes but... by wolfemi1 · · Score: 1

      You can pack a lot of that sort of thing into six years of Evil Medical School.

  6. Sharks? by Ganty · · Score: 0, Redundant

    But will it fit on a shark?

    Ganty

    1. Re:Sharks? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

      For very large values of shark.

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  7. Kegels by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 5, Funny

    [It] can perform for 30 femtoseconds once every ten seconds

    That's nothing! I can perform for 3 seconds once every ten minutes!
    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
    1. Re:Kegels by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      That's nothing! I can perform for 3 seconds once every ten minutes!

      Yeah, but can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    2. Re:Kegels by mdenham · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can hammer my six-inch penis through a spike with a board, does that count?

    3. Re:Kegels by Doug+Neal · · Score: 1

      That's nothing! I can perform for 3 seconds once every ten minutes!

      Yeah, but can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?

      Yep, blunt end first.
    4. Re:Kegels by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      A girl's gotta have standards.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
  8. WARNING... by SubOptimalUseCase · · Score: 1

    ...do not stare into the laser beam with the remaining eye ... oh ... nevermind.

  9. all these strange figures by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 5, Informative

    20 billion trillion watt per square centimeter = 2x10^26 Wm^-2
    300 terawatt of power = 3x10^14 W
    1.3 micron wide = ca. 1.7x10^-12 m^2 (for a square shape)
    30 femtosecond = 3x10^-14 s

    hope that clarifies things.

    1. Re:all these strange figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      hope that clarifies things.

      Nope, it doesn't!

    2. Re:all these strange figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      You should use the <quote> tags instead of italics for quoting now.

    3. Re:all these strange figures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should use the <quote> tags instead of italics for quoting now.

      Ok

    4. Re:all these strange figures by JustOK · · Score: 1

      what if i want to put my own comment in quotes?

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    5. Re:all these strange figures by HetMes · · Score: 1

      So, am I right in concluding that the pulse contains 'merely' 9 joules of energy? And that the power output of the device is 0.9W? Hence not quite able to warm up my meal? Awesome!

    6. Re:all these strange figures by Mike1024 · · Score: 4, Informative

      300 terawatt of power = 3x10^14 W
      30 femtosecond = 3x10^-14 s


      The duty cycle is 30 femtoseconds per 10 seconds.

      If the '300 terrawatts' of power is consumed for 30 femtoseconds per 10 seconds, the average power consumption over 10 seconds is (3 * ((10^14) W) * 3 * ((10^(-14)) s)) / (10 s) = 0.9 watts

      If, on the other hand, the 300 terrawatts is the average power consumption over 10 seconds, the power consumption when the laser is on is (3 * ((10^14) W) * (10 s)) / (3 * (10^(-14)) s) = 1.0 × 10^29 watts = 100,000 yottawatts

      Yotta- is the largest SI prefix, and the total energy output of the Sun is 383 YW.

      I suspect the former interpretation is more likely. This laser isn't so impressive when you realise it takes less power than my computer monitor... when my computer monitor is turned off.

      --
      "Goodness me, how unlike the FBI to abuse the trust of the American public." -- The Onion
    7. Re:all these strange figures by enoz · · Score: 1

      what if i want to put my own comment in quotes?



        Not only is the equine stiff, it's also starting to smell quite bad.
    8. Re:all these strange figures by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Funny

      hope that clarifies things. Duh, this is Slashdot. We want to know how many Libraries of Congress this laser can vaporize in a fortnight.
    9. Re:all these strange figures by JustOK · · Score: 1

      You must be new here. You won't notice the smell after awhile...unless you run into a beowulf cluster of equine exhaust.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    10. Re:all these strange figures by PGC · · Score: 1

      You always measure width in square meters?

      --
      The Dutch will inherit the earth. If not, we'll settle for a bit of ocean. Beta delenda est!
    11. Re:all these strange figures by howlingmadhowie · · Score: 1

      you always ask intonation questions?

    12. Re:all these strange figures by noidentity · · Score: 1

      I suspect the former interpretation is more likely. This laser isn't so impressive when you realise it takes less power than my computer monitor... when my computer monitor is turned off.

      But isn't the key feature that it dissipates this 1 watt x 10 seconds within a miniscule amount of time? It's similar to how a needle concentrates a force on a very small area, giving it great strength, or a hammer applies all the force built up over the swing into a very short time.

    13. Re:all these strange figures by GeeksHaveFeelings · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to point out it probably "takes" a lot of power to run than it outputs, which applies for any laser. Lasers aren't particularly great if just want a lot of emissions for little power input, mostly because they're expensive and inefficient. They're great for what they're used for (obviously).

  10. So what can you do with it? by NitroWolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So this is like a serious question:

    What can you do with this thing? Why does it exist? Just to say it's there, or does it have some function beyond bragging rights?

    1. Re:So what can you do with it? by SubOptimalUseCase · · Score: 1

      Zapping very small insects very quickly.

    2. Re:So what can you do with it? by Detritus · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is a lot of interesting materials science done with lasers that produce very short and very intense pulses of light. This laser might be useful for something like that. There is also the possibility of using it for long distance communication or ranging. Radar systems get decent range by transmitting short pulses of RF at very high power levels. The average power is low enough to keep power consumption and heat dissipation at manageable levels.

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    3. Re:So what can you do with it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever forget to turn the TV off when you go to work? Now you can leave a remote in your desk drawer and turn it off from there.

    4. Re:So what can you do with it? by laejoh · · Score: 0

      It's practical!


      You can use the laser to keep squirrels of the feeder!

    5. Re:So what can you do with it? by Wansu · · Score: 1

      Cut Commander Bond in two.

      James Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"
      Goldfinger: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"

      --
      Wansu, th' chinese sailor
    6. Re:So what can you do with it? by cecil_turtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obligatory xkcd reference.

    7. Re:So what can you do with it? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      Well, is it particularily necessary to do something with it for the moment? After discovering the basic principle of electromagnetic induction in 1831, Michael Faraday was asked by a skeptical politician what good might come of electricity. "Sir, I do not know what it is good for," Faraday replied. "But of one thing I am quite certain - someday you will tax it."

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re:So what can you do with it? by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1

      Certain reactions require an intense burst of energy to pull off, but once you do pull it off it's hard for nature to undo it.

      Materials, as someone else posted, is one principle use for this. Another would be to generate the temperatures required for fusion. I don't think this guy gets close (first cup of coffee, too lazy to check) but a powerful enough laser can heat material up to a plasma. And with the electrons stripped off an atom, you can try to squeeze them together to do the nuclear nasty.

      The advantage of this tiny laser is that the reaction would be cute and pocket sized.

      --
      "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
      --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
  11. Not so cool by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And, pray tell, what would a mere 9 joules pulse accomplish anything from a B1-B?

    That "300 terawatts" is nothing if you take into account how short the beam lasts.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:Not so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmm, joke... about ejaculating.... must resist..... Post Anonymously - check...

    2. Re:Not so cool by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I make a movie reference and all I get is a physics Nazi. Well at least the first reply got it.

      Really what did I expect, 3/4 of the people here weren't even born yet or were still shitting their diapers when Real Genius came out.

      I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"

      If you've never seen the movie, your ability to post on /. is hereby suspsended until you do.

    3. Re:Not so cool by Ceriel+Nosforit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I make a movie reference and all I get is a physics Nazi. Welcome to Slashdot. :)
      --
      All rites reversed 2010
    4. Re:Not so cool by odourpreventer · · Score: 1

      ?

      It's a physics article. Of course you get a physics debate.

      And what's with the name calling and ranting?

    5. Re:Not so cool by rkcth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      582 films, in 5 years, you post on slashdot and you don't consider real genius to be one of the movies you should see? You're clearly a geek, get the movie, you'll enjoy it and you'll get more jokes. It's easily available on netflix. There are only a handful of must-see geek movies, this is high on that list.

    6. Re:Not so cool by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I agree, it's a good movie. I think I saw it once on Comedy Central even, so you don't even need Netflix to watch it.

    7. Re:Not so cool by gadzook33 · · Score: 1

      If you've never seen the movie, your ability to post on /. is hereby suspsended until you do.

      Hear hear
    8. Re:Not so cool by slipnslidemaster · · Score: 1

      Or you could have just saved time and welcomed our new miniaturized laser wielding Overlords...

      --


      "What the hell is an aluminum falcon?"
    9. Re:Not so cool by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Over 100 movies in a year? And you call your viewing time limited? I get to see 2-3 a month, at most right now.

      It may not have been a great "teen flick" but it was certainly a good geek movie.

      Over 100 movies in a year and you haven't heard enough about this to check it out?

      Kid, I've served with geeks: I've known many geeks; geeks are most friends of mine. Kid, you're no geek.

      Consider your geek card revoked (if, indeed, you ever had one).

    10. Re:Not so cool by deesine · · Score: 1

      "I'm actually pretty comfortable about ignoring a mediocre 80s teen flick starring Val Kilmer."

      That flick is a geek classic, full stop. So, you should also feel comfortable when being called out cause you refuse to see a film that the vast majority of your fellow geeks have found ever so geeky.

      --
      damaged by dogma
    11. Re:Not so cool by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      I make a movie reference and all I get is a physics Nazi

      Don't feel too bad. One time I made a reference to "Federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison" and wound up spending the next two days explaining to someone that, no, I don't "support" prison rape, it was a reference to Office Space and one that should be known to any self-respecting Geek and/or /. poster.

      What kills me is the mods that don't get it either. There should be some sort of test before you get mod points ;) Knowledge of common /. themes and jokes should be required :P

      I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"

      Nah, that wouldn't have worked either ;) I tried and wound up -1 redundant.... how the second post in an article and the first one that brought up sharks could be "redundant" is beyond me, but there you go :P

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Not so cool by deesine · · Score: 1

      "Maybe if someone actually tried giving me an indication of why it's meant to be a good film I might show some interest."

      Apparently '99 of 100 geeks liked it' isn't enough because you had a bad experience with Office Space. You are the one...

      --
      damaged by dogma
    13. Re:Not so cool by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 2, Funny

      The geek doth protest too much, methinks.

      (Some people take themselves WAY too seriously!)

    14. Re:Not so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be some frikin' terashark...

    15. Re:Not so cool by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      I'm actually pretty comfortable about ignoring a mediocre 80s teen flick starring Val Kilmer.

      Well then you my friend would be missing out. That movie is chock full of inside jokes and funny references. Google a list of things in the movie, get the biggest bowl of pop corn you can find, some beer, put on your favorite bunny slippers, and sit back and see how many of them you can spot.

    16. Re:Not so cool by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      Regarding Real Genius:

      It is a genuinely entertaining movie. Val Kilmer's comedic timing is impeccable. It's a movie that speaks to many geeks because it is *filled* with geeks. I've known more than one geek for whom the characters in this film were their heroes.

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    17. Re:Not so cool by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      It's a moral imperative!

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
    18. Re:Not so cool by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      "582 films in the last five years."

      116 movies per year. That's just over two a week. Maybe you have more spare time than you thought...

      =Smidge=

    19. Re:Not so cool by somersault · · Score: 1

      Damnit, Chasing Amy is the only Vue Askew film I haven't seen yet (well I've not seen Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back yet, but I doubt the plot matters too much there)! :p I wonder what people on here would say if they knew that I haven't seen the Princess Bride yet >_>

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:Not so cool by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      With dialogue like this:

      Moles and trolls, moles and trolls, work, work, work, work, work. We never see the light of day. We plan this thing for weeks and all they want to do is study. I'm disgusted. I'm sorry but it's not like me, I'm depressed. There was what, no one at the mutant hamster races, we only had one entry into the Madame Curie look-alike contest and he was disqualified later. Why do I bother?

      How could you not want to see it?

    21. Re:Not so cool by kasparov · · Score: 1

      I grew up reading science fiction and was always one of the 'smart' kids that enjoyed science, math, and other geeky things. In an environment where kids who were good at sports (which I actually was, at the time) were the ones that were considered 'cool', Real Genius helped me imagine places where you could be considered cool for your intelligence as well. So, here I am, a boy somewhere around 10 years old, who can excel at the the physical stuff and fit in if I want, but I really enjoy the scholastic side of things a lot more. I honestly think that Real Genius made me more comfortable with my inner-geek. I thought of Chris Knight as a hero and aspired to be a socially well-adjusted geek instead of a jock or a living-in-moms-basement kind of geek. I also think I kind of imprinted on being attracted to geek girls because of this movie. :-)

      All in all it is a very enjoyable movie--quite funny, with a lot of memorable quotes.

      --
      There's no place I can be, since I found Serenity.
    22. Re:Not so cool by Cederic · · Score: 2, Informative


      Chasing Amy is better than Mallrats and Dogma - wittier, more based in reality (one thing that made Clerks so effective - it was very believable) and the characters are easily identified with. Well, sort of. Their confusion and emotional state is easily identified with.

      The Princess Bride is however worth seeking out. The sheer number of quotes (and misquotes) on the internet from that one film make it worth watching alone (so you can understand what they're all on about) but it also happens to be fantastically well written, very witty, nicely acted, beautifully shot and features some great insults, classy one-liners, a hero you want to believe in and a sword fight that'll leave you breathless.

      Damnit, now I'm going to have to go and watch it again myself - yet another reason I can't watch Real Genius. I am however impressed at the size of this very offtopic thread of conversation in a discussion on high powered lasers.

    23. Re:Not so cool by whereiswaldo · · Score: 1

      I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"

      Yet another suggestion: a Beowulf cluster of these things could operate continuously and really wreak some havoc. The cluster would be so big though... I'd have to tell you about the twinkie.

    24. Re:Not so cool by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Dude, watch the movie. It's a moral imperative.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    25. Re:Not so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if someone actually tried giving me an indication of why it's meant to be a good film I might show some interest. And if you haven't seen The Sixth Sense, you should definitely see it too. For an indication of why it's good, the protagonist played by Bruce Willis is actually dead right from the start of the movie but he doesn't realize it, which sets up a great twist at the end when you would have discovered this fact.
    26. Re:Not so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you seem to love crap.

    27. Re:Not so cool by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Given how many films were released before I was born, how many are released each year, and how many of those are likely to be of interest to me, I'm actually pretty comfortable about ignoring a mediocre 80s teen flick starring Val Kilmer.

      You're obviously an idiot. I mean it's not that it's that important, but you are clearly a movie buff. You are probably a geek (since you're here). But to have a movie-buff geek say that Real Genious is a "mediocre 80s teen flick" is just laughable. You obviously haven't seen and don't know what you're talking about and, as such, should refrain from commenting on it until you do.

      As others have said, turn in your geek card until you've seen it.

    28. Re:Not so cool by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Maybe if someone actually tried giving me an indication of why it's meant to be a good film I might show some interest.

      Because it's a funny movie. But it's even more funny to geeks like us that can appreciate certain humor and attitudes in the movie.

      If you have a sense of humor and you're anything approaching a geek, you'll enjoy the movie. Unless you've made up your mind not to.

    29. Re:Not so cool by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Knight: "If you think that by threatening me you can get me to be your slave... Well, that's where you're right. But - and I am only saying this because I care - there's a lot of decaffeinated brands on the market that are just as tasty as the real thing."

      Hathaway: "I'm not kidding, Chris."

      Knight: "Neither am I, Jerry."

      And, of course, one of the most classic lines: "Would you consider that a launch problem or a design problem?"
    30. Re:Not so cool by Cederic · · Score: 0, Troll


      The thing is, all the fuss people have caused here on Slashdot (including one kind soul that donated all his mod points towards rating my posts 'overrated' instead of the more accurate 'offtopic') did make me go and check elsewhere for a second opinion on this film.

      Everyone else says it isn't a good film. Including several film reviewers whose opinions I respect.

      Worse, the things they do think are good about it are the sort of things that I haven't enjoyed in other American films. The style of comedy appears to work well for all of you, but frankly I'm not from the US, I haven't been through the US educational system, I wont get the in-jokes, I don't have the cultural reference base and I just don't go for that style of comedy.

      I'm half inclined to check the film just to see why everyone on here loves it so much. I'm just too certain I'd be setting myself up for disappointment. If I do spot it on TV while I'm doing something else then I may well stick it on in the background, but I'm certainly not going to spend money trying to track it down. (and I don't download movies. sorry.)

      I'm only even continuing this conversation because I'm intrigued by the responses I'm getting. And because I'm bored. And because it's 7.34am and I don't have to be at work until 8.30 and it's a ten minute walk.

    31. Re:Not so cool by Enlightenment · · Score: 1

      Ladies and gentlemen, calm down. The guy will never post on /. again... as soon as I figure out his password. Right now I'm on aaaaaaaaaaabaaaaa.

    32. Re:Not so cool by raptorv99 · · Score: 1

      No No No. We should mount it on the moon and call it a "death star".

      --
      The finest shade.
      And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul? Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul.
    33. Re:Not so cool by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      Be careful where you put the digits "3" and "4" next to each other.

      Really what did I expect, was posting Rule 34 on said movie reference.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    34. Re:Not so cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "at least I'm trying to catch up on the films made during my formative years and not insulting people that choose not to."

      Ah. If only during those formative years you could have seen the almost never seen movie "How to not be a bag o'douche"

    35. Re:Not so cool by theun4gven · · Score: 1

      That's no moon... oh wait.

    36. Re:Not so cool by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      That "300 terawatts" is nothing if you take into account how short the beam lasts.

      That's like saying the kinetic energy of a bullet is nothing when averaged over an hour.

    37. Re:Not so cool by Charcharodon · · Score: 1

      /. Duh?

    38. Re:Not so cool by coolGuyZak · · Score: 1

      That line is even funnier if you read the original script. The grumpy scientist he encounters at the interview, Dr. Dodd, originally replied differently:

      CHRIS: ...Nice to meet you Dr. Dodd. Isn't the Telcom raining debris all over Europe?
      DODD (smiling, but angry): That was a launch problem, not a design problem...

      It also set Sherry Nugil up with a genius fetish, which provides more context for when she attempts to sleep with Mitch, etc:

      SHERRY (O.C): (between kisses) Talk smart to me.
      CHRIS (O.C.): What?
      ANGLE ON CHRIS AND SHERRY
      They are lying in the middle of the dish. Passion mounts, fingers cope with belts and buttons, clothing falls away; my god, these people are having sex.
      SHERRY: Please I need it. What was your favorite course?
      CHRIS: I guess right now I'd have to say Fluid Mechanics.
      SHERRY: Oooooooooh...
      CHRIS (responding to something interesting Sherry just did with her hips): And Gym.
      SHERRY: Please.
      CHRIS: Sorry.
      SHERRY: What's your research with Artherton?
      CHRIS: Ultra-high power laser as an energy force for fusion. Tremendous boon to all mankind. And womankind, too.
      SHERRY: Fusion, more fusion.
      CHRIS: It's the process for obtaining enormous amounts of energy from forms of hydrogen, like Deuterium and Tritium.
      SHERRY: Oh, my God, more.
      CHRIS: Extracting the fuels is no problem.
      SHERRY: Hmmmm.
      CHRIS: Getting them to combine and release the energy is the problem.
      SHERRY: Oohh, yes
      CHRIS: It takes temperatures of 100 million degrees Celsius.
      SHERRY: Oh, God.
      CHRIS: So, I'm...
      SHERRY: Yes.
      CHRIS: ...building...
      SHERRY: Yes.
      CHRIS: ...a laser...
      SHERRY: Oh, yes.
      CHRIS: ...that pulses...
      SHERRY: Hmmmmmmmm.
      CHRIS: ...very hot...
      SHERRY: Ohhh...
      CHRIS: ...and causes...
      SHERRY: Yes.
      CHRIS: ...Fusion...
      SHERRY: Ahhhhhhhhhhh.
  12. FS-Lasers are cool beasts by imsabbel · · Score: 5, Informative

    Because focussed correctly, the extremely high field strenght in the focal point can create effects that at first seem physically implausible.

    For example there is one effect that seems to "break" quantum phyiscs (or more exactly, the photo-effect): You can excite electrons out of energy levels that are bound stronger than the photon energy. Even if they are bound _a_ lot stronger. The electric fields can be strong enough to strip atoms from everything down to and including the k-shell (I have one seen a presenter show a silde mentioning 37-photon effects...)
    This can be used to create hard x-rays, or, of course, as a particle accelerator: You can GeV on ion energyies from them with a relatively simple setup.

    This is of course for "normal" FS-Lasers, wich fill not much more than a large optical bank. But something tells me that _this_ one can make even more intersting stuff happen :)

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    1. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by JohnFluxx · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I got annoyed at the way the photo-electric effect was taught. It had always seemed 'obvious' that if a single photon didn't have enough energy to free an electron, then maybe two photons struck the metal at the same time.

      I found out later that my hunch was correct - it's just unlikely for two photons to hit an atom at exactly the same (to within a plancks time) with a low powered laser.

      While I'm on the subject of laser, another cool things about high powered lasers is that the photons can collide. If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter. This has always fascinated me since it shows that the distinction between matter and light is a very fine one indeed.

      Another cool thing about this laser is that the pulse is very short. Now because the position is being constrained (since it's a short pulse), it must mean that the momentum is very uncertain. (You cannot know the position and velocity of something at the same time). This in turn means that the laser has a whole range of wavelengths - it does not have a specific wavelength. Which, to me, makes it very un-laser-like. It's not coherent, monochromatic, etc.

    2. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by jd · · Score: 1

      IIRC, femtosecond pulse lasers usually get mentioned with all kinds of freakish things, like ultrablack materals. In this case, I suspect the problem will be finding any material afterwards for reasons other than stealth.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by ortholattice · · Score: 4, Informative
      I found out later that my hunch was correct - it's just unlikely for two photons to hit an atom at exactly the same (to within a plancks time) with a low powered laser.

      A Planck time (10^-43 s)? How do you conclude that number?

      If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter.

      The actual mechanism, I believe, is that a photon can momentarily fluctuate into a charged fermion/antifermion pair, and the cross-beam interacts with those particles.

    4. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right about the short pulse duration producing a non-monochromatic pulse. What you actually get is a vast number of laser beams operating at a very slightly different frequency (each on an adjacent cavity mode) being produced in phase. It is kind of like a beat pattern produced by many in phase, colinear sources. These produce a laser pulse with a very short coherence length and significant bandwidth. The process for making these pulses is known as modelocking.

    5. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the beams collide, then maybe you'll get the effect produced in the GhostBusters movie. (Remember when they let the 3 beams cross?)

    6. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      You shouldnt argue in terms of planck units. They simply dont fit well into the physics (being on the border of the laws).

      Its a much easier picture if you just think about the particle / wave aspect of photons:
      Photoeffect is, basically, strictly particle. But considering the wave nature of photons, you have a wavepacket that has a physical size. This allows for many photons to have a probability of existing in the _same_ spot, at the _same_ time. Now all you need is fermis golden rule, and some matrix elements to calculate the probabilties.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    7. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I got annoyed at the way the photo-electric effect was taught. It had always seemed 'obvious' that if a single photon didn't have enough energy to free an electron, then maybe two photons struck the metal at the same time.

      OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND TIME CUBE.

      Seriously though, at the same 'time'? What is this 'time' thing of which you speak? Did I miss a memo, did we discover the quantum unit of time? Because if not... well, let me just leave that sentence hanging for you.

      A question I would like the answer to is how long does it take for an atom to radiate a photon after being struck with a photon of sufficient energy to cause reradiation? If the period is sufficiently long it seems intuitively clear that multiple photons may strike an atom before causing the emission of a photon.

      Also, do photons really collide, or do they have some other interaction? Putting aside the physical and metaphysical question of whether anything ever really collides, we do see photons behave very strangely (e.g. diffraction.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      > A question I would like the answer to is how long does it take for an atom to radiate a photon after being struck with a photon of sufficient energy to cause reradiation?

      This is determined by the uncertainty principle as well. The uncertainty (and thus average time) is determined by the energy. The larger the energy, the larger the uncertainty in the time, and so longer before the atom decays.

      You can have one photon cause an atom to excite, then a second photon to cause the atom to excite further. But this is different from two photons acting together to cause a single excitation - the difference between that it doesn't require an inbetween step to be available.

      In another reply, someone said that photons 'collide' by decaying into other particles, which then collide with each other.

    9. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by Trogre · · Score: 1

      While I'm on the subject of laser, another cool things about high powered lasers is that the photons can collide. If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter. This has always fascinated me since it shows that the distinction between matter and light is a very fine one indeed.

      Sounds like the makings of in-air holograms there. Help me Oobie Do Banoobie.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    10. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by mav[LAG] · · Score: 2, Funny

      So is crossing the streams good or bad?

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    11. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 1

      This is determined by the uncertainty principle as well. The uncertainty (and thus average time) is determined by the energy. The larger the energy, the larger the uncertainty in the time, and so longer before the atom decays.

      I think the reverse is true. Large energy transitions tend to have short characteristic time scales (think of reaction rates in chemistry). The uncertainty principle gives you a lower bound on the product, not the quotient. Also, there are often obstructions due to, e.g., nonconserved angular momentum, which can make metastable states very long-lived.

      In another reply, someone said that photons 'collide' by decaying into other particles, which then collide with each other.

      Photons don't directly interact in perturbative QED, but if you happen to have some charged matter (such as electrons) lying around they can interact with that. You have a nonzero amplitude for pair production anywhere, and this is enhanced in regions with high EM field strength. In theory, you can get nonlinear corrections to Maxwell's equations in a vacuum by interacting with them, but I haven't heard of any experimental observations. There are a lot of Feynman diagrams with only photons as external edges, but photon-photon interactions require at least fourth order in the coupling constant (which is rather small). I think the interactions you hear about involve some kind of medium made of atoms.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    12. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      Uh yes, I got my energy and time wrong - like you say.

    13. Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts by JohnFluxx · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't be very predictable.

      For that sort of thing, you are better off focussing the air to a point to break down the air and create a tiny plasma. This would look like a 'pixel' in the air.

  13. Now all they have to do.. by ignavus · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Now all they have to do is use it against the RIAA.

    --
    I am anarch of all I survey.
  14. WARNING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not stare into laser with remaining city block.

  15. Yeah, your ex mentioned that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    She was not impressed.

  16. Most powerful laser in the universe? by LS · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I guess these researchers don't consider the possibility that there may be advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Perhaps they should say the KNOWN universe

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the most powerful laser in America. That's enough to make it the most powerful laser in the universe.

    2. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by ccguy · · Score: 1

      I guess these researchers don't consider the possibility that there may be advanced extraterrestrial civilization. Perhaps they should say the KNOWN universe
      If they said that, someone would come here saying that just because it's not KNOWN to us (or them) it doesn't mean it isn't known by anyone else...surely if there's such a powerful laser in the universe someone (possibly not on Earth) must know about it.

      The thing with being a pedantic is that there's always someone who can beat you to it, AND it's likely to be a slashdot regular :-)
    3. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Funny

      i'm sure they did consider that possibility, hence the work on high powered lasers.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    4. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by mark_wilkins · · Score: 1

      The original article quoted the physicist saying "I don't know of another place in the universe that would have this intensity of light. We believe this is a record."

      Saying it's a "record" means it's beat all the other measured light intensities known to us. There's nothing about that that even implies that he thinks that there's no actual higher light intensity somewhere else, only that if there is he doesn't know about it, and he thinks nobody else does either.

    5. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by solitas · · Score: 1
      The thing with being a pedantic is that there's always someone who can beat you to it, AND it's likely to be a slashdot regular :-)

      "pedantic" is the adjective; "pedant" is the noun.

      Gotcha.

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    6. Re:Most powerful laser in the universe? by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Who says they have to be "advanced extraterrestrials." Why don't we just make sure we allow for the possibility that Jesus and the FSM have gotten together and made a more powerful laser on the far side of Mercury.

      They are not extraterrestrials but there is just as much evidence of their existence (maybe more!) as there is for extraterrestrials.

      Besides, even if there are advanced extraterrestrials out there, if they don't have sharks and popcorn why would they invent lasers in the first place?

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
  17. U of MI Produces Strongest Laser Ever by punic64 · · Score: 1

    For Gawd sake, don't tell the sharks.

  18. Caution... by Lazarian · · Score: 3, Funny

    Do not stare into laser with remaining head.

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

      Like Zaphod would ever listen to THAT.

  19. Possibly... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Possibly the most powerful laser in the universe...

    Possibly not very impressive to a squadron of Klingon attack cruisers...

    1. Re:Possibly... by Provocateur · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yet impressive enough for a Klingon officer to turn and say,

      "Commander, this confirms that the inhabitants are hostile. Shall we assume battle stations?"

      Commander: "We are Klingons. What other stations do we have?"

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
  20. Large spinning mirror by tokki · · Score: 3, Funny

    All you would need is a tracking system and a large spinning mirror, and you could vaporize a human target from space.

    1. Re:Large spinning mirror by randmairs · · Score: 1

      Just where did they point this thing and why is my coffee cup leaking?

    2. Re:Large spinning mirror by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      The disco of death!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    3. Re:Large spinning mirror by Kojiro+Ganryu+Sasaki · · Score: 1

      I'm personally more worried about my tinfoil clad popcorn storage facility.

    4. Re:Large spinning mirror by driftingwalrus · · Score: 1

      Just what did you think a secret phase conjugate tracking system was for, Kent?

      --
      Paul Anderson
      "I drank WHAT?!" -- Socrates
  21. Take this with a Grain of salt by wooferhound · · Score: 1

    What would happen if you focused this laser onto a Grain of Sand ?

    --
    We are Dead Stars looking back Up at the Sky
    1. Re:Take this with a Grain of salt by lazy_playboy · · Score: 1

      I calculate that it'd heat the grain of sand by 9 million kelvin (9Joules into a 10microgram grain with heat capcity of 1000J/KgK).

  22. i wish i had mod points by Smartcowboy · · Score: 1

    roflwpimp

  23. What comes next... by TBerben · · Score: 5, Funny

    Student: What are we going to do with this immensely powerful laser, professor?
    Professor: We shall commence "Phase 2", we shall place the "la-ser" on something called "the moon"
    Student: And then we can hold the world ransom for a horrendously large amount of money :D
    Professor: Hell no! We're going to wipe all other universities off the face of the Earth!

    1. Re:What comes next... by moosesocks · · Score: 1

      Professor: Hell no! We're going to wipe all other universities off the face of the Earth! Funny that. Most would be perfectly happy just to settle for tenure :-)
      --
      -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    2. Re:What comes next... by Luscious868 · · Score: 1

      Professor: Hell no! We're going to wipe all other universities off the face of the Earth!
      Student: Let's start with Ohio State! Hold on to your nuts Buckeyes!

      Fixed.

  24. In the universe? by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1

    it is the most powerful laser in the universe

    Only if there is no other intelligent life in the universe in which case any technology that is the best in some way on earth is also the best in the universe.

    Anyway, what can it do? You'd think they would give some examples of burning holes through stuff.

    --
    Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    1. Re:In the universe? by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think they were refering to the known universe and alluding to natural lasers.

      In contrast the best particle beams on the planet get a few gold atoms to near light speed, while the natural ones can easily get the planet Jupiter moving at that pace.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    2. Re:In the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look at the numbers - it's focused on a micron-sized area. This is going to burn no holes - it does micro-vaporization, hence micro-plasma study, various non-equilibrium processes and so on.

      --
      perverse /. captcha: inform

    3. Re:In the universe? by evanbd · · Score: 1

      And, at least for protons (as opposed to larger atomic nuclei), something out there has anything we can build beat by a wide, wide margin...

    4. Re:In the universe? by TropicalCoder · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Anyway, what can it do?

      Discussion so far seems to have missed one little line, where they say it may be powerful enough to boil the vacuum of space, and perhaps bring virtual particles into existence. Think about that for a minute - matter from nothing... kind'a scary, isn't it? Like in those super particle accelerators where they just might end up creating microscopic black holes. So one of these little black holes would start sucking in matter and not stop until the whole world is consumed. Well there we go - this laser could be the antidote for that. We have all these particles popping into existence over there at the that university with the laser, and a little black hole on the other side of the ocean sucking up matter, and an infinite loop between creating and destroying and us all caught in the middle. I think physics is getting into dangerous territory.

    5. Re:In the universe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think physics is getting into dangerous territory.
      That's nice. Black holes are not cosmic vacuum cleaners that will eventually suck up everything in the universe. Thank you for making it very obvious that you know nothing about physics and thus should be ignored.
    6. Re:In the universe? by DTemp · · Score: 1

      Or, to put it in less condescending terms, a black hole tiny enough to be created in one of earth's particle accelerators would only last a very short amount of time before it disintegrated.

    7. Re:In the universe? by old+and+new+again · · Score: 0

      Think about that for a minute - matter from nothing... and chicks for free?
    8. Re:In the universe? by ars · · Score: 1

      It's not from nothing, the matter would be created from the energy of the laser. Lookup pair production.

      And I wouldn't worry about blackholes, some cosmic rays have a lot more energy then this, and they haven't caused any problems yet.

      --
      -Ariel
    9. Re:In the universe? by Salsaman · · Score: 1

      Uh, no. If you have a black hole, the last thing you want to do is feed it.

  25. Beware, dogs all over the universe! by greylingrover · · Score: 1

    I can only imaging what hell LaserCats will cause with these 300 terawatt devices...

    --
    --- Shoo-be-doo-be-do-wop-say-what-yeah!
  26. MOD PARENT INSIGHTFUL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this story, the above comment should be modded +1, Insightful, not +1, Funny.

  27. Don't be too proud by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of this technological terror you've constructed.

    Okay, it is impressive, but what the non-scientists might be missing here is that energy in Joules is the product of time and power. For a unit of energy you get more Watts as you have less Seconds. It's like rolling a ball of modelling clay out, the longer it grows the thinner it gets.

    Billons of Watts is a large amount of power

    Femtoseconds is an extremely short amount of time.

    So, the energy delivered by this isn't as much as some other lasers (like a continuous beam amonium chemical maser that can be used as an anti-aircraft weapon). The term "high power" laser doesn't really mean what you think. You'll be wanting a "high energy" laser for your sharks Sir.

  28. Ohio State... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...suddenly begins new research into building even LARGER laser.

    1. Re:Ohio State... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      One should think that they need the universe's most reflective mirror before they go building a larger laser.

    2. Re:Ohio State... by admactanium · · Score: 1

      ...suddenly begins new research into building even LARGER laser.
      yes, they've been looking for the necessary technology to light their couches on fire within a femtosecond after a football game.
  29. How many ants by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder how many ants I could kill with that laser...
    that's the first idea that came to my mind hehehe

  30. Real Genius by 0x000000 · · Score: 1

    Was not that far off with their idea of making a VERY big laser?

    --
    cat /dev/null > .signature
  31. I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by longbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Inquiring minds want to know... to run this thing, do they have an on-premises nuclear reactor, or just an obscenely high electric bill? TFA is short on details in that department.

    I know it's not actually using that full rated 300 terawatts ("300 times the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity grid") in such incredibly short bursts, but nonetheless, it's still got to eat a lot of juice.

    --
    I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    1. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by Whiteox · · Score: 1

      Yeah. It's not very green is it!
      So much for politically correct carbon neutral advancements in applied physics.......

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    2. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by longbot · · Score: 1

      Actually, this sort of development might well lead to advances in fusion power, given time.

      So it's not really ALL bad.

      --
      I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it! --Longbottle
    3. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by palmersperry · · Score: 1

      Inquiring minds want to know... to run this thing, do they have an on-premises nuclear reactor, or just an obscenely high electric bill? TFA is short on details in that department. I'd imagine they have a really large bank of capacitors?
    4. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Read the other comments, it takes something like 9 joules, no huge electric bill needed.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    5. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article again. You see how freaking short the burst is?

      About 1 watt dude. 1 watt

    6. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by NormalVisual · · Score: 1

      The average output power is 9 joules, not the total power consumption. I'm sure it draws quite a bit more. I've seen lamp-pumped ultraviolet YAG lasers that draw well in excess of a thousand watts of power to produce a 1.5 watt average output because of all the internal losses.

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    7. Re:I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Hey! Ignorant people arguing here! Take your "facts" elsewhere!

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  32. Mine's bigger by tal_mud · · Score: 1

    "researchers speculate it is the most powerful laser in the universe"

    They say that the applied Physics dept. at Alpha Centauri almost got funding for a Laser that was twice as powerful, but the funds got sidetracked to fund a SETI project.

  33. Safety Warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not look into this with remaini -oh shit.

  34. At what do they point it? by battamer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Out of honest curiosity, at what do they point such a strong laser? My movie-fed ignorance has me imagining the beam burning through walls.

    1. Re:At what do they point it? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      walls, buildings, mountains, planets...

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  35. ... and that amounts to by ebcdic · · Score: 5, Informative

    ... 9 Joules delivered in each pulse, one every 10 seconds. Giving an average power of about 1 Watt. Ideal for taking over very small universes.

    1. Re:... and that amounts to by raehl · · Score: 1

      Ideal for taking over very small universes. ... that happen to have addresses ending in "Ann Arbor MI".

    2. Re:... and that amounts to by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Again with the Joules. Joules say nothing about how quickly the energy is imparted. Would you rather carry 10 lbs once a minute, or 600lbs once an hour? They're both the same amount of work, after all..

  36. Re: Magnifying glasses by ozbird · · Score: 2, Funny

    "If you could hold a giant magnifying glass in space and focus all the sunlight shining toward Earth onto one grain of sand, that concentrated ray would approach the intensity of a new laser beam made in a University of Michigan laboratory ..."

    Please, won't someone think of the ants?!

  37. How do they power it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article states:

    "It contains 300 terawatts of power. That's 300 times the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity grid."

    So, where exactly are they getting the power for this thing? Does this explain why my lights were blinking the other day? I figured it was The Cheat, but perhaps...

    1. Re:How do they power it? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      capacitors, genius

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
  38. Yes Mr. Biglesworth!!!! by lindoran · · Score: 1

    all i have to say is "1 Million dollars"..... (* evil grin, pinkie curled at side of mouth *)

  39. Take THAT Butterflies by kd3bj · · Score: 1

    Now watch as our evil overlords are brought down. Color them dead.

  40. Found on a sign on the front of the laser... by waterford0069 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Do not look into laser with remaining eye"

  41. no need by wireloose · · Score: 1

    Just start with whale sharks.

    1. Re:no need by F34nor · · Score: 1

      Or some megalodon DNA trapped in fossilized remoras!

  42. Rubbish by littleghoti · · Score: 4, Informative

    Article is wrong. Vulcan in the UK is a 1 petawatt laser, which is 3 times more powerful, and has been running since 2004:
    http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/news/CLF_News/vulcanpetawatt.htm

    They even have a plaque from the Guinness book of records.

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

      Indeed, not even the most powerful in the US. There's also a Petawatt laser at the Z-Machine at Sandia National Labs (http://www.z-beamlet.sandia.gov/index.html). And multiple other Petawatt lasers are currently under construction...

    2. Re:Rubbish by brian2hand · · Score: 1

      You forget they are americans.
      These arrogant bastards think they are the world. So as far as they are concerned, if it is the best in america, it is the best in the world..
      They are so far up themselves, they would know the difference anyway. Let them keep deluding themselves.

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

      This is the most INTENSE laser, not the most powerful. It's different.

  43. Re:Now all they have to do.. (location) by mnemotronic · · Score: 1
    --
    The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  44. they now have the "ultimate power in the universe" by cashman73 · · Score: 1

    Ok, maybe just the planet,... still a long way to go before planet Mars has to worry,... Or, do we take out Venus instead? Venus is a peaceful planet, which might make for a more effective demonstration to scare those pesky, war-mongering Martians,... ;-)

  45. OK OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You win the Obstinate Geek Award. (Real Genius is a geek classic. Get off your ignorant horse and see it already!)

  46. Don't cross the beams. by rHBa · · Score: 1

    If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter. No! You said crossing the beams would be BAD!
  47. If we point this thing to the right spot ... by FernandoBR · · Score: 1

    ... in the sky, could we put the gas in Uranus on fire?

    --
    -x- Sorry my bad English. I'll have him tarred and feathered. -x-
  48. Most powerful laser in the World = NIF by doppe1 · · Score: 1
    some of the researchers speculate

    Maybe some of the researchers should do some research into their speculations, it's not even the most powerful laser in the US.

    The National Ignition Facility (NIF) https://lasers.llnl.gov/ at LLNL is orders of magnitude larger than this and its not even fully up and running yet https://publicaffairs.llnl.gov/news/news_releases/2007/NR-07-11-05.html

  49. Green, purple... by mnemonic_ · · Score: 1

    Groovy pic.

  50. PING (Re:So what can you do with it?) by neurocutie · · Score: 1

    There is also the possibility of using it for long distance communication or ranging.
    Long distances ? maybe, but not very good for Quake, etc...
    C:\>ping home

    Pinging home [192.168.1.1] with 32 bytes of data:
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
    Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63


    Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1:
    Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
    Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
    Minimum = 10000ms, Maximum = 10000ms, Average = 10000ms

  51. Muhahaha! by Beefslaya · · Score: 3, Funny

    They are going to focus it on the Horseshoe, and vaporize Jim Tressel.

    Watch for the spread offense.

    Go Blue!

    1. Re:Muhahaha! by teknopurge · · Score: 1

      Q: How do you get an Ohio State Grad off your porch?

      A: You pay him for the pizza.

      I'll be here all week....

  52. This just in from Eta Carina... by starglider29a · · Score: 1

    http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap971129.html

    I'm not sure I believe that Eta Carina is producing natural laser, but if it is, I'll bet it's more powerful than the M-Go Blue Ray. And apparently has a very precise aiming mechanism to hit us so that we can detect it. If not, it's spewing all that radiation in all directions and we got lucky to detect it. That is more than 9 joules.

  53. Depends what you're measuring. by DTemp · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Vulcan has more power (wattage). But this UofMI laser focuses the blast onto a smaller area, and it lasts less than 1/10th the time. So, the beam is more intense.

  54. with my "laser" by g4b · · Score: 1

    I heard it has a gigantic sign on it for chuck norris:

    "In cases of emergency, feel free to break out titanium wired plexiglass"

  55. U MI Phys. student, "It'll dot an 'i' real good... by leftie · · Score: 1

    "...introducing my Dissertation topic... "The Effects of the U MICH. HERCULES laser system upon tubas and grass athletic surfaces.""

  56. Yes, but can you burn ants with it? by xkr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    (this side of your brain intentionally left blank)

    --
    I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
  57. Re:Cool I won by lazloknows · · Score: 1

    a Winnebego, a percentage of the prizes and retirement!!!

  58. Feasibility by Sam+Douglas · · Score: 1

    Now we just need to work on the minor technical details of getting enough power in a mobile form that can be attached to Elasmobranchii to power the laser.

  59. But does it blend? by popmaker · · Score: 1

    n/t.

  60. Serious Science by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

    Professor "We only do serious science around here...now my illustrious hard working assistant Jonson shall respond our my behalf"
    Johnson "Our laser is bigger than yours...Nyaa Nyaa"

    1. Re:Serious Science by EEPROMS · · Score: 1

      Professor "We only do serious science around here...now my illustrious hard working assistant Jonson shall respond on our behalf" Johnson "Our laser is bigger than yours...Nyaa Nyaa"

  61. Ah, a "high cinema" snob. by Valdrax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ah. I see your problem. You're a "High Cinema" snob who's too "good" for an 80's popcorn classic, and you're too stubborn to admit that you were really just piggy-backing on the first post to elevate the attention to your post like some sort of forum remora once someone pointed out your ignorance of the joke.

    Congratulations. You have now made a fool of yourself in front of a crowd by trying to prove that you're better than them for being ignorant of "low cinema." Few things are more sad than a defense of ignorance. Also, giving your autobiography in response to questions about your taste on the internet just shows your own insecurity. Lurk more.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  62. sheesh by mikew909 · · Score: 1

    enough with shark references already... we get it already!

  63. Yodawatts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Urm! Very powerful this laser is.

  64. 31 J in those 30 femtoseconds by pheldens · · Score: 0

    doesn't sound too impressive to me ;p somebody calculate this through

  65. Bond is applicable to everything by FlyingHuck · · Score: 1

    I too have a new toy, Mr. Bond.

  66. fun by mitchplanck · · Score: 1

    anyone up for a game of laser tag?