Slashdot Mirror


Repulsive Force Discovered In Light

Aurispector writes in with news that the Yale team that recently discovered an attractive force between two light beams in waveguides has now found a corresponding repulsive force. "'This completes the picture,' [team lead Hong] Tang said. 'We've shown that this is indeed a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component.' The attractive and repulsive light forces Tang's team discovered are separate from the force created by light's radiation pressure, which pushes against an object as light shines on it. Instead, they push out or pull in sideways from the direction the light travels. Previously, the engineers used the attractive force they discovered to move components on the silicon chip in one direction, such as pulling on a nanoscale switch to open it, but were unable to push it in the opposite direction. Using both forces means they can now have complete control and can manipulate components in both directions. 'We've demonstrated that these are tunable forces we can engineer,' Tang said."

176 comments

  1. Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sweet! Next up, how lightsabers don't work.

    1. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Informative

      I always thought lightsabers don't work so much on the notion of light as the convergence of energy and solid matter where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy explaining why lightsabers cast a shadow and why training lightsabers don't cut. (And also why there are light bridges that are mentioned but never seen in star wars.) It just happens that light is given off in this mashup of state changes.

    2. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by TiberSeptm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always assumed it was a misnomer and they were just very skillfully manipulated plasma devices. We already have the technology to create "plasma windows" that can hold back atmosphere against a vacuum and plasma torches than can cut through cowboynelium. Why not bridges and swords of the highly charged fun-stuff?

    3. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, they cast a shadow because the actors are really holding flash gun handles with white sticks in them, and the blades are rotoscoped on later. Yup, they were just too lazy to get rid of the shadows/film at angles to avoid them.

    4. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they where just really powerful lasers with some kind of a small blackhole at the tip to suck in the beam.

    5. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Because you can't "block" other lightsabers based on such technology. I recall seeing one lightsaber video where the humor of the video was based on that notion. They were successful in creating an effective lightsaber in that it had a definite end point and would cut through anything, but when they attempted to cross swords, they just passed through one another... and then one of the people cut through the other one with the lightsaber he had. You can probably find it on youtube or on theforce.net somewhere...

    6. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never going to get laid... EVER...

    7. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who cares about lightsabers? With repulsors, flying cars will finally become a reality!

    8. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, really? I thought lightsabers don't work because of the impossibility of handheld gigawatt nuke reactors to control the several tesla magnetic field to confine the plasma at one meter wirelessly.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    9. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I thought they were really just a MADE-UP THING which we DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD WORK!

      Ah well, so much for reality vs. fantasy...

    10. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but when they attempted to cross swords

      I knew I shouldn't have watched Bruno

    11. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Yes but Star Wars tech has technologies with much higher energy densities than nuclear power. Otherwise there's no way the Death Stars could function the way they did and there's no way a single ISD could BDZ a planet...

    12. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Dracos · · Score: 1

      Only hard core Star Wars nerds would attempt to cross swords.

    13. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by nessus42 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They were successful in creating an effective lightsaber in that it had a definite end point and would cut through anything, but when they attempted to cross swords, they just passed through one another... and then one of the people cut through the other one with the lightsaber he had. You can probably find it on youtube or on theforce.net somewhere...

      Indeed you can find it on YouTube. Here it is:

                http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsZNiCSCLXw

      |>ouglas

    14. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Lightsabers are supposed to be closed circuits of energy that are held in shape by a confinement field (possibly the force imbued within the lightsaber crystals upon construction). Presumably it is the force that gives the blade its solid surface. Because lightsaber blades are closed circuits, they recycle their power and expend almost nothing unless they are in contact with a solid surface or another lightsaber. They do not cast shadows and even if they did, you would not be able to see it because the "blade" is microscopic in width. The fat blade that you see is mostly coronal light bleed, not the blade itself. As far as I know, any visible shadow in the films is an editing slip-up cast by the lightsaber prop. As you can see here and here, there are no shadows cast by the blades in the ideally lit Yoda training scene of episode 2, yet you can see the shadows of the lightsaber hilts. None of the Star Wars games that I know of have lightsaber blades that cast shadows either.

      Of course it's all fiction and there is no plausible explanation for how one could possibly work in the real world, so the discussion is pointless beyond a fun factor. This is only they way I've come to understand how they work through the films, books and games based in the Star Wars universe.

    15. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by LKM · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't cross the swords! It would lead to all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

    16. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      convergence of energy and solid matter where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy explaining why lightsabers cast a shadow

      I think you'll find they cast a shadow because the actors had to wield a bright blue brush-shaft whilst filming, before the CG was put in ;)

    17. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by icebike · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or perhaps they started to remove than and said, you know what, let's leave them in, and let the slashdot crowd try to explain the technology. Its not their job to fill in every detail of every imaginary technology.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    18. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by BOBSta · · Score: 1

      Old testament end of the world stuff? Cats and Dogs living together?

    19. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what they should have done? Color-coded the shadows as well so they could do all that fancy magicks with the computers to remove them.

    20. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by roger_pasky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Flash gun handles with white sticks in them... Yeah, right... and now you'll tell me tooth fairy does not exist.

      Thanks God we can still trust Santa Claus. Maybe next Christmas I'll ask for a real lightsaber with this technology.

    21. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by PermanentMarker · · Score: 1

      well as soon as we can escape from this tractor beam i'l explain ya.

      --
      I know you're out there. I can feel you now. I know that you're afraid. You're afraid of us. You're afraid of change.
    22. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      this lightsaber doesn't leave a shadow.

    23. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by mattcasters · · Score: 1

      The "Everything slimed by ghosts" kind of end of the world.

      --
      News about the Kettle Open Source project: on my blog
    24. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by erroneus · · Score: 1

      Yes! That's exactly the one I was talking about!

    25. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You *have* seen this, haven't you?

      http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/darpas-handheld-nuclear-fusion-reactor/

    26. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Zediker · · Score: 2, Funny

      Considering the powerful magnetic fields involved in order to contain the "plasma blade" and due to the way similar poles repel eachother, I dont see why plasma-based "light sabres" couldnt block one-another, since it would all be magnetic field interactions. The only downside is that this would likely cause the plasma-blade part of the device to fail somehow, unless there was some sort of stability mechanism to counter the other blades magnetic interference. Otherwise you'd end up with something like the Schwartz battle in Space Balls. This also doesnt go into the folly that your handle-section would be likely pulled right into your enemies blade-section from 20+ feet away...

      --
      I love to slaughter the english language.
    27. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by bsane · · Score: 1

      This also doesnt go into the folly that your handle-section would be likely pulled right into your enemies blade-section from 20+ feet away

      I think you just described 'The Force'.

    28. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Nickbou · · Score: 2

      Don't cross the swords! It would lead to all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

      Yeah, yeah, total protonic reversal. Please, this is not my first rodeo.

      --
      The LEGO of my childhood prepared me for the IKEA of my adulthood. ~me
    29. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by superdana · · Score: 4, Funny

      I always assumed it was a movie. ;)

    30. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm Santa Clause, the tooth fairy, AND the Easter bunny. Just ask my kids, they'll tell you. I never hid the truth from them and they never suffered from their lack of ignorance.

    31. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or a mirror that reflects it back. A magic mirror that stays in the right place. Star Wars is shite, isn't it?

    32. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Sabathius · · Score: 1

      Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip.

    33. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      Wrong, they don't work because they're the product of a work of fiction.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    34. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Skreems · · Score: 2, Informative

      I swear I read somewhere when I was much younger that in the originals they actually had blades covered in colored glass beads, and blasted extremely bright stage lighting at them during the fight scenes. That's why Darth Vader shines like Yul Bryner's head during the fight scenes, but not so much other times.

      Might have been just the first movie, since the later ones had them using the things in darker settings as well.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    35. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      You must have a very interesting resume...

    36. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by steelfood · · Score: 2, Funny

      Tell that to the 500,000 Jedi currently living in the former British colonies.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    37. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by DinDaddy · · Score: 2, Informative

      You are correct. For the first film, they were octagonal blades with rotating motors and scotchlite paint, which reflected light back to the camera from a large light shooting from just behind it.

      The effect was weak (see Vader's as he is walking towards the closing blast doors before they escape the deathstar) so they ended up animating over it in almost all the shots.

      The rotation motor is the reason Obi-wan's saber has a white electric cord coming out of the hilt and going into his sleeve in the shot where he first energies it for his duel. Something I am at a loss to explain why they would not have digitally removed in one of the more recent editions. You can also see dust and chips from the impacts in the closeups during their duel.

    38. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Documentary. And my light saber, the one that says BMF on it, it goes to 11.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    39. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by davester666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      They just discovered this?

      Lots of people wake up in the morning after a night at the bar, and get repulsed when the light turns on.

      It's been happening for a very long time.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    40. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by opiv6ix · · Score: 1

      I thought I saw a documentary a long time ago that said that they had to go over the duel scenes frame by frame and use a highlighter for the lightsabers. is that totally wrong, or did they have to backlight the blades they were using and then add color with the highlighters?

    41. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by wgoodman · · Score: 1

      this is old news; I've found my ex to be a repulsive force with the lights on for a long time!

    42. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! by anonymous+donor · · Score: 1

      Forget how they squeeze that much power in this thing, I just want their heat dissipation technology. Besides, if it's so powerful that it can cut through basically anything, then this thing must be really hot inside (lots of energy in small mass), Hot means UV, so skin cancer is probably among the occupational hazards (as well as a dangerously cool tan). Luke got a new hand so i suppose a melanoma wouldn't be a big problem either, but the blade would be also very bright, and that would cause some nasty retina burns. Uh, looks like it's not that good job after all. Oh and this thing might last quite a while, but it must run out of juice after some time -- "wait a moment, must change the batteries". Oh, batteries, are they rechargeable, and if they are what happens if you overcharge them? KABOOM! And if they aren't then they'd probably have quite a nasty environmental impact if they just discarded them, so they must be recycled somehow. We can't get it right on a single planet, they have a whole galaxy to worry about. And what happens if you run out of spares?

      --
      fortune favors the lucky
  2. This is why by masmullin · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ahhh finally a scientific explanation of why girls are repulsed by me! Its not my lude jokes... its light!

    1. Re:This is why by gardyloo · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, it's your spelling.

    2. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh finally a scientific explanation of why girls are repulsed by me! Its not my lude jokes... its light!

      It's not the light's fault your face looks like the south end of a northbound mule.

    3. Re:This is why by masmullin · · Score: 1

      science begs to differ my friend.

    4. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe he really did mean lude, as in Quaalude.

      Going around assuming lewdness where none exists can get you into big trouble.

    5. Re:This is why by compro01 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Going around assuming lewdness where none exists can get you into big trouble.

      In the US, it gets you elected to congress.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    6. Re:This is why by Sehnsucht · · Score: 1

      Like he said.

    7. Re:This is why by Mozk · · Score: 1

      Maybe he speaks Engrish and folgot how to spell "rude" correctry.

      --
      No existe.
    8. Re:This is why by icebike · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps it's his lack of apostrophes.

      http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/its.html

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    9. Re:This is why by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Actually it's because you're out of phase. With light, opposites repulse, whereas like attracts. So try your luck with boys instead!

    10. Re:This is why by EMeta · · Score: 1

      Because in Congress, lewdness always exists.

    11. Re:This is why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oblig Tom Lehrer:

      I can tell you things about Peter Pan and the Wizard of Oz is a dirty old man.

  3. Sounds familiar.... by OakDragon · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component...

    Just like my ex-girlfriend!

    1. Re:Sounds familiar.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh for the love of mod points.

    2. Re:Sounds familiar.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component...

      Just like my ex-girlfriend!

      Yeah mine ex-girlfriend too! Fucked in the head but really hot!

    3. Re:Sounds familiar.... by clarkkent09 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Just like my ex-girlfriend!

      So they make inflatable sheep that light up?

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    4. Re:Sounds familiar.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component...

      Just like my ex-girlfriend!

      Yeah mine ex-girlfriend too! Fucked in the head but really hot!

      You're doing it wrong.

    5. Re:Sounds familiar.... by JoeShmoe950 · · Score: 1

      or right?

  4. Now all we need by spacefiddle · · Score: 2, Funny

    is for an alcoholic millionaire to cram it into a suit of armor!

  5. Finally... by mldi · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... an explanation as to why so many WoW geeks shriek when they leave their parents'.... errrmmm.... their basements during the day.

    --
    If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
    1. Re:Finally... by Mendoksou · · Score: 1

      It burnss our eyeses preciousss!

      --
      DISCLAIMER: I am very rarely serious. If the above comment seems asinine makes no sense, it is most likely a bad joke.
    2. Re:Finally... by skeeto · · Score: 1

      And it's probably the cause of cave adaption.

  6. Yup. Been there, done that. by sootman · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Repulsive Force Discovered In Light"--well DUH. Anyone who's ever been in a strip club at closing time has witnessed this phenomenon.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:Yup. Been there, done that. by CyBlue · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* I scanned quickly to see if anyone else was thinking the same thing before replying higher. It was the first thing I thought about as well :-)

    2. Re:Yup. Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This fits in with my corollary to the theory of relativity where the further away someone is and the faster they are moving, the better they look!

  7. Angular momentum by TiberSeptm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Huh, I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness." I wonder if this can be used to explain that.

    1. Re:Angular momentum by TiberSeptm · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry about the double post, but I was reading an old paper on the subject. Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force. I wonder if this is the same thing as what they are seeing in the article.

    2. Re:Angular momentum by ryrw · · Score: 1

      Have you tried logarithms?

      Signed,
      literature grad student

    3. Re:Angular momentum by TiberSeptm · · Score: 1

      I get the joke, but if you read my first post you'll see that I'm asking if anyone thinks this right rather than asserting it to be an expert analysis of the phenomenon. You're right though, my expertise is reactor engineering. I haven't touched optics in years- but after reading the paper I've linked to elsewhere I'm pretty sure I'm right - though I admit it was hastily written and probably hard for a litterature graduate student to follow.

    4. Re:Angular momentum by Angstroem · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of ph[o]tons of the same "handedness."

      Bingo, Sir.

    5. Re:Angular momentum by tenco · · Score: 1

      Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force.

      If the beam is exiting the dialectric with a lower intensity as it normally would, where goes all the energy?

    6. Re:Angular momentum by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 2, Funny

      I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness."

      Ummm...yeah...me, too...

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    7. Re:Angular momentum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hmm... My optics training is a few years out of date, but given that this only happens in a waveguide and no new physics is discussed, what this may be is simply the non-linear interaction of the two electric fields in the material. High electric fields change the index of refraction in the material and therefore the speed of propagation. If the two beams are adjacent in the waveguide then the edges of their electric fields overlap (slightly). In phase and they add, out of phase and they cancel. So if you use a material that increases the speed of propagation in high electrical fields each beam will be "faster" on the side adjacent to an in-phase neighbor. If one side of the beam is traveling faster, the beam turns away from that side. What you see are in-phase beams turning away from each-other, but no angular momentum is needed to explain it. The effect is quite small in any case, but it is enough to bend a beam of light a few nanometers left or right to switch between two outgoing channels.

      What I want to know is over what kids of distances does this effect take place?

    8. Re:Angular momentum by mhall119 · · Score: 1

      I think he was acting as the fake expert, not implying that you were.

      --
      http://www.mhall119.com
    9. Re:Angular momentum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, don't say that. A literature grad student could surely help you with the

      dialectic

      part.

    10. Re:Angular momentum by steelfood · · Score: 1

      during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses

      So having known for many years that we're not supposed to cross the beams, I guess now we know why.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
  8. Deflector and tractor fields? by KDN · · Score: 1, Funny

    Light has an attractive and repulsive component. Sounds like Star Trek deflector and tractor beams to me. Who knows what they will be able to do with this in a hundred years or so.

    1. Re:Deflector and tractor fields? by Laxori666 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anything, as long as you divert enough power to the deflector dish.

    2. Re:Deflector and tractor fields? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      Maybe hovercraft like the Nebuchadnezzar.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    3. Re:Deflector and tractor fields? by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      No, no, no. That's only half of the problem. Don't forget the inevitable social side-story, where some kid's pet tribble has gotten into the jeffries tubes, and his mom will be angry if he doesn't get it out and safe the ship in the process.

    4. Re:Deflector and tractor fields? by yabos · · Score: 1

      You need a recursive algorithm to tie the warp core into the main deflector dish. Then you can use that to close the subspace anomaly. But make sure you reverse the polarity of the tachyon beam first.

  9. Repulsive force in light by naz404 · · Score: 1

    Augh! The light! It burns! It burnsssssss!

    1. Re:Repulsive force in light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They've booby trapped their sun somehow!!

  10. Nice. But. by terbo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While discovering new properties of old phenomena is interesting,
    does anyone ever question the 'bravado' of the wording of such
    discoveries?

    Does it inhibit later discoveries, in creating artificial limitations
    through language and subsequently expectation?

    --
    If you're interested in facts I'll tell you what they are and I'll give you sources - Chomsky on The Big Idea
    1. Re:Nice. But. by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Someone broke your
      Carrier Return

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    2. Re:Nice. But. by UncleTogie · · Score: 1

      Someone broke your
      Carrier Return

      When you find the USS Nimitz, look aboard and check to see if any "carriage return" keys are missing.

      Hint: Think OLD typewriters... and get off my lawn!

      --
      Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
    3. Re:Nice. But. by Hadlock · · Score: 2, Funny

      Everyone knows carriage returns were supplanted by carrier returns with the advent of aircraft carriers. They're looking at revising the term as Shuttle Return when the Space Shuttle Program is finally Shuttered.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    4. Re:Nice. But. by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      But my military Linux does not use any frikkin' Carrier Returns. It only separates the lines using Maginot Line Feeds.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    5. Re:Nice. But. by tenco · · Score: 1

      It only separates the lines using Maginot Line Feeds.

      That's handy. You only need a piece of paper to write a whole book on, this way.

    6. Re:Nice. But. by domatic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Probably not. Things are worded this way to explain them to laymen. Physicists are going to describe these phenomena with systems of equations and words and the equations will suggest deeper intuitive meaning to those used to working with them.

    7. Re:Nice. But. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post touches nicely on the interface between the mind and reality, a field that most science-oriented folk find quite uncomfortable. Thomas Hobbes nailed it down with his argument that knowledge derived from mathematics is inherently not knowledge of the real world. Giambattista Vico generalized the argument by maintaining that what is true and what is made are convertible; that is, we can truly know only that which we ourselves have created, and only to the extent it is exclusively our creation. Mathematics, as a prime example, is so pure simply because it is wholly a manufacture of Human minds, according to Vico. Albert Einstein put it similarly: âoeAs far as the propositions of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality.â

    8. Re:Nice. But. by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      That's odd. I thought there was
      NO CARRIER

    9. Re:Nice. But. by cinnamon+colbert · · Score: 1

      3 of the best things in life are a good aircraft landing, a good poop, and a good orgasm
      a night landing on a carrier is one of the few times you get to experience all three at the same time

    10. Re:Nice. But. by ioshhdflwuegfh · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Things are worded this way to explain them to laymen. Physicists are going to describe these phenomena with systems of equations and words and the equations will suggest deeper intuitive meaning to those used to working with them.

      Except that this is an experiment at nanoscale, so you won't find much equations there.

  11. Force source? by aeve · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?

    1. Re:Force source? by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Funny

      What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?

            Don't worry. I'm sure some physicist somewhere will soon invent a particle to explain it.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Force source? by TiberSeptm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Here is a very good paper that might give you some insight.

      http://www.opticsinfobase.org/DirectPDFAccess/7CB1DC52-BDB9-137E-C347E05AD6F7E2D4_84895.pdf?da=1&id=84895&seq=0&CFID=48237375&CFTOKEN=15548595

      "Angular momentum of circularly polarized light in dielectric media"

    3. Re:Force source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not a particle, it's a wave! Seriously, though, it comes from the wave nature of light - how it can interfere att differing wavelengths (or in this case, speeds) - and how you also have to have conservation of momentum. It's not another force like gravity or electromagnetism, but rather a side effect of the electromagnetic messenger particles, photons. You can think of it as electromagnetism, since a photon's energy is being converted into something else, but it's not a coulomb force. What's clever is that they've figured out how to use it for something.

    4. Re:Force source? by taucross · · Score: 1

      Why bother trying to identify the source of a force? It only leads to deeper, more confusing questions.

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    5. Re:Force source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That might shed some light on the subject?

    6. Re:Force source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's call it the Hong Tang Boson. Or perhaps another type of Tang.

    7. Re:Force source? by aurispector · · Score: 2, Funny

      After reading most of the posts, I began hoping that I had submitted an article to which NOBODY would make a serious comment. You went and ruined it, you bastard.

      --
      I have mod points. The reign of terror begins now.
    8. Re:Force source? by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      I thought it was just the 'for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' going on here. But then again, I'm just on my first cup of coffee and haven't thought about it very much yet.

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    9. Re:Force source? by noshellswill · · Score: 0

      I think this "field-gradient" force is in-principle old news ... so called optical tweezers. Been around for a decade. F ~ GRAD_E

    10. Re:Force source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Once, okay, I can overlook - but every post of yours it's misspelled. "dielectric"

    11. Re:Force source? by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      It's probably not a force in the same way that we have the weak, strong, electromagnetic and gravitational forces. My conjecture would be that it's something like light's equivalent of the Bernoulli effect.

    12. Re:Force source? by TiberSeptm · · Score: 1

      You see why I'm not an English major eh?

    13. Re:Force source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Somewhere in the multiverse this has already been done.

  12. tags by Odinlake · · Score: 0

    Post is tagged "disgusting", "repulsorblast" and "midichlorians"... Fascinating, the minds of whoever comes up with such tags all the time.

  13. Maybe with metamaterials. by TiberSeptm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Possibly, but this looks like the effect of light beams interacting inside of a target dialectric combined with the differences in light's angular momentum at the different speeds of c inside and outside the target. Aside from also cooking whatever you wanted to tractor, you might be able to accomplish this with very powerful laser pulses and "cloaking" metamaterials. Since the metamaterials bend the relevent light frequencey around a target you may be able to exert the force on the material, use a vastly powerful laser pulse, and not cook the target. This could impart enough force to be useful and could be used to maintain a cloud of such objects over vast distances using a web of laser pulses pushing and pulling the disparate objects into a desired position. Kind of a neat idea and a good intuitive leap to suggest tractor beams

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12961080/

    1. Re:Maybe with metamaterials. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude... Who are you?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    2. Re:Maybe with metamaterials. by Canazza · · Score: 1

      Tiber Septim...

      therefore, by association, he is Captain Picard...

      and Ebeneezer Scrooge :S

      --
      It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
    3. Re:Maybe with metamaterials. by paintballer1087 · · Score: 1

      Your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

    4. Re:Maybe with metamaterials. by jack2000 · · Score: 1

      He is the kind of person that drives mankind forward. Also he may or maynot be wanted by the time patrol...

    5. Re:Maybe with metamaterials. by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Tiber Septim?

      ibiS Tempter! Of course.

      Get me Jack O'Neill on the line right away!

  14. New lightbulb from GE! by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now emits 100% attractive light. That's twice as much as the next leading brand!

    1. Re:New lightbulb from GE! by muzicman · · Score: 1

      Well that explains all the damn Moths!!!

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flamebait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  15. How does this fit into the Standard Model? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

    Can anyone enlighten me? I thought there were only the strong and weak interaction, electromagnetism and gravity.

    Is this some effect of electromagnetism? Or of one of the other forces?

    Because if it were none of this forces, it would pretty much throw the whole standard model of quantum physics into a blender and force us to put it together again, wouldn't it?

    This is really really interesting to me!

    --
    Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    1. Re:How does this fit into the Standard Model? by GryMor · · Score: 1

      Light, aka, the photon, is the force carrier for electromagnetism, so it's either electromagnetism or gravity due to energy density. Gravity can effectively be ignored at the scales they are talking about, so it must be electromagnatism. This is confirmed if you RTFA and see that it's caused by light in dielectric materials.

      --
      Realities just a bunch of bits.
  16. So Earth Finally Discovers It! by TheWanderingHermit · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So Earth finally discovers the repulsive force from the ninth light ray that they've known about on the dying planet of Barsoom for millennia. Does that mean that soon we can have navies of huge floating ships like the Kingdom of Helium does? Or that soon we'll be able to see the two colors they know about on Barsoom that we've never seen on Earth?

    1. Re:So Earth Finally Discovers It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John Carter, you have a call on line 1 from Dejah Thoris.

  17. I work IT. by eosp · · Score: 3, Funny

    I already knew that light repelled me.

  18. Cockroaches... by carpefishus · · Score: 3, Funny

    This was previously demonstrated by cockroaches.

    --
    Facts take all of the premium out of arm waving - T. Reynolds
  19. Kabbalah by taucross · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Kabbalah refers to these two alternating properties of light as "direct light" and "returning light". Light alternates between these two opposing, yet mutually complementary characteristics as it is either reflected or absorbed by the observer (depending on the current configuration of the observer).

    --
    "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    1. Re:Kabbalah by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I'm not a student of Kabbalah (mildly interested though), but I'm pretty sure Kabbalah texts do not include the words "current configuration", in any reasonable translation.

      I find that most spiritual texts are (very valid) metaphor, and it's usually a big mistake to interpret them as (probably very invalid) physics.

    2. Re:Kabbalah by taucross · · Score: 1

      In Hebrew the word is 'partzuf' which means face, as in 'countenance'. You will find most reasonable texts (here is an example) translate this as 'configuration'. You're right though, it would be a big mistake to interpret them as physics. I was merely making an observation :)

      --
      "In the absence of the ability to establish the attribute of truth they tried to establish the noble attributes."
    3. Re:Kabbalah by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected :) Very unusual word for a scriptural text; I've never seen it used, outside of technical manuals.

      Thanks for the book link, I might take the time to read the whole thing :)

  20. and by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Billions of moths scream out in horror.

    1. Re:and by slider2800 · · Score: 2, Funny

      *kzzzt* ...and are suddenly silenced.

      --
      return $sig;
  21. just what we needed for optical computing! by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    finally, they've found out what was missing from the promise of a low-energy, low-heat, ultra-fast future in optical computing: Moving parts!

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  22. Your girlfriend was a photon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your girlfriend was a photon? Now I know some guys who like skinny girls, but that's ridiculous.

  23. Observation of distant objects.... by zekt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As I understand it, current thinking is that light bends because of gravity, and this is how distant planets and other distant objects are found.

    Could it be that it is, instead, is just light being pulled or pushed against something that is being observed, rather than an observation of the gravity that the body has?
    The next effect is the same I guess.

    --
    In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
    1. Re:Observation of distant objects.... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 1

      Could it be that it is, instead, is just light being pulled or pushed against something that is being observed, rather than an observation of the gravity that the body has?

      Or maybe that's all gravity is. If light == energy == matter, then why not? Maybe gravity and this attraction are the same thing. Maybe we're "this" far from figuring out the notion of anti-gravity.

      --
      Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
  24. Good Grid! They're right! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    It IS repulsive!

  25. Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! Jusssst GREAT... by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Funny

    Now, data (or Data) can join the dark side, and display a tension-deficit disorder

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  26. I discovered the repulsive force of light long tim by melted · · Score: 0

    I discovered the repulsive force of light long time ago here on Slashdot. There are even convincing demos to demonstrate the effect: Goatse, Tubgirl, 2 girs 1 cup and Lemon Party.

  27. Thanks for link!! NT by opencity · · Score: 1

    Thanks for link!

    --
    Physics is like sex: sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it.
  28. Doesn't this stuff excite you? by generic.individual · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There are a lot of jokes as replies, I assume partially because the summary sets them up so well and partially because it is rather dense subject matter. But doesn't this stuff excite you? Years ago a friend and I used to talk about how there should be a way to make computers out of light and we should just try for that, because, well, there isn't much faster. Articles like this mean its closer to reality. Even if it never happens in my life time it still excites me to know we are headed there.

    I am sure some physicist is now going to tell me how it's actually better to use some other quantum something for computing and how I don't understand light and subatomic particles/waves/strings/finnegans. I know I don't. I just like the idea of light computers.

    1. Re:Doesn't this stuff excite you? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      I believe there is one serious thread all the rest are people demonstrating their lack of a sense of humour :(

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    2. Re:Doesn't this stuff excite you? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      I agree that it's fascinating but....electricity travels almost as fast as light. I hardly think that would be the reason to go for optical computing.

    3. Re:Doesn't this stuff excite you? by imgod2u · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't....

      EM field changes do but current (pun intended) circuits are all based on the speed of electrons through a conductor (or semiconductor) which is far far far far far slower than light through a waveguide.

  29. How does this fit into the Standard Model? Nicely. by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    When light shines through a diffraction grating and spreads out into beams going right and left, we don't need to talk about some strange new "force" that pushed the rightward beams to the right and the leftward beams to the left, since it's still a manifestation of electromagnetism. But specifically quantum electrodynamics, not classical electromagnetism which isn't good at handling this stuff.

    In this case, the fundamental reality is, of course, that each photon splits up at the grating and its wave function takes all paths- interfering with itself everywhere in space. When the photon is discovered hitting a screen, it will strike in a place that reveals the least amount of information about the path it actually took, and there will be many such places, called "interference maxima". (It probably won't land in a place that makes it obvious how it got there- such places are interference minima.)

    The Casimir force is another "force" like this. Underneath it's still quantum electrodynamics.

    If you find this stuff interesting you should read Feynman's QED... basically Quantum Electrodynamics For Dummies. What you'll find is interesting:
    • Light can go faster than light or slower than light- but only briefly
    • Light really doesn't care about surfaces between air and water and glass or whatever
    • Light doesn't really go in straight lines, that's just sort of how things turn out

    These guys are sending beams of IR photons down a channel that is 220nm x 220nm, smaller than their wavelength. So transverse wave motion isn't a consideration at all... the light can barely fit in there and its wavefunction inside has no longitudinal component. I think it can be totally described with two scalar functions along the waveguide. The photons have apparently been through a beamsplitter or something and are being recombined out of phase. It's too bad the article doesn't provide any further details on how the photons were polarized (circular, linear, what?) or how the quantum interference between the two photon states results in transverse forces on the waveguide.

  30. Yawn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tesla??? didnt he demonstrate this before? yawn...

    www.twilightcampaign.net

  31. Re:I discovered the repulsive force of light long by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

    There are even convincing demos to demonstrate the effect: Goatse

    Yes, if you spread away any obstacles, the sun shines even where it usually doesn't...

  32. How does this apply to astrophysics? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do these newly-discovered forces change our interpretation of astronomical observations? Although the universe could be considered mostly empty, it does contain a hell of a lot of light. Could these forces be nudging stars and planets and things around? Does it have implications for gravitational lensing? Could it help to explain dark matter and energy?

  33. Particles and waves by severn2j · · Score: 1

    So, does this attraction and repulsion explain why photons act like a wave instead of individual particles?

  34. How is this different from the Yarkovsky Effect? by Progman3K · · Score: 1
    --
    I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
  35. Ubuntu User by dontgetshocked · · Score: 1

    Ok, where do I sign up for Ubuntu's light version? Since everything is going 64 bit and in the cloud!

  36. A 21st Century Repulsor Beam by SomeoneGotMyNick · · Score: 1

    Sorry Wesley Crusher. We came up with the idea first.....

    But feel free to take credit for it when you save the Enterprise.

  37. That's easy. by Minwee · · Score: 1

    All I ever needed to create something repulsive with light was Google Image Search.

  38. How Repulsive. by ryanvm · · Score: 2, Funny

    Ugh. That is so digusting.

  39. I'm definitely getting old by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    I got this. Some moderator not only didn't get the reference, they didn't even bother to look it up.

    Reading stuff like this at a too early age helped get me into physics rather than law...my bank account hates science fiction.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  40. So a gravity gun is possible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is epic. This means, theoretically, that on a nano scale, you can build a gravity gun, like the one in Half-Life 2.

  41. There is a joke in there somewhere... by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

    about photons from images of fat people having sex.

  42. No such benefits by SEWilco · · Score: 1

    An added benefit of using light rather than electricity is that it can be routed through a circuit with almost no interference in signal, and it eliminates the need to lay down large numbers of electrical wires.

    There's no interference from electrical signals, but there is interference from light. And rather than needing a large number of electrical wires, this requires large numbers of light waveguides.

  43. Gravity Gun! by sheepsimulator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    This means, theoretically, that the gravity gun is possible. At least, on a nano level. So all they have to do now is figure out how to create a gun with a light source powerful enough to move all of the nano particles stored in a bathtub, and HL2 will be a reality.

    1. Re:Gravity Gun! by JSBiff · · Score: 1

      "So all they have to do now is figure out how to create a gun with a light source powerful enough to move all of the nano particles stored in a bathtub without vaporizing the target, and HL2 will be a reality."

      There, fixed it for you.

    2. Re:Gravity Gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I'd be happy with jumping straight to the upgraded gravity gun ;)

  44. Repulsive Force Discovered In Light by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Explanation for Pioneer Anomaly?

  45. Next job for this team... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    Find anti-gravity already. I want my flying car!

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  46. heresy by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    In this case, the fundamental reality is, of course, that each photon splits up at the grating and its wave function takes all paths- interfering with itself everywhere in space. When the photon is discovered hitting a screen, it will strike in a place that reveals the least amount of information about the path it actually took

    Or the light wave propagates through the aether and this transversal force is simply bernoulli's principle.

    P.S. Michaelson&Morley didn't give a negative result, they found a result inconsistent with a FIXED aether, but fully consistent with a fluidic aether.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

    1. Re:heresy by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Your theory is aether right or wrong. I can't decide.

    2. Re:heresy by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      I can't decide.

      You don't get to.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    3. Re:heresy by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      Your theory is aether right or wrong. I can't decide.

      If you don't look directly at it, some people would say it's both at one ;-)

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  47. Does this account for dark matter? by maillemaker · · Score: 1

    Could this new-found force somehow be related to what is causing the universe to continue to expand? Or otherwise account for forces now attributed to "dark matter"?

    --
    A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
  48. Proof in the putting by Rambo+Tribble · · Score: 1

    The repulsive force of light has long been documented by those facing Saturday's inevitable dawn.

  49. Best wishes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    May the attractive and repulsive force be with you.