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.

37 of 244 comments (clear)

  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

  2. 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 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.

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

      Undergraduates.

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    4. 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.

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

      They aimed it towards Columbus, Ohio.

  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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 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
    2. 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.
  6. 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 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
    2. Re:So what can you do with it? by cecil_turtle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Obligatory xkcd reference.

  7. 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 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).

  8. 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 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.

  9. Re:The power to destroy a planet... by Andrew823 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...it's a gigantic spherical shark?

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

    Do not stare into laser with remaining head.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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
  14. 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!

  15. 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.
  16. Re:Sharks? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Funny

    For very large values of shark.

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  17. ... 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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!

  21. 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").