Slashdot Mirror
NASA Wants To Make Tractor Beams a Reality
intellitech sends this quote from a NASA news release:
"Tractor beams — the ability to trap and move objects using light — are the stuff of science fiction, but a team of NASA scientists has won funding to study the concept for remotely capturing planetary or atmospheric particles and delivering them to a robotic rover or orbiting spacecraft for analysis."
Reader Bob the Super Hamste adds, "The article along with the BBC's coverage discuss briefly three methods of how this can be done with lasers. The first method called 'optical tweezers,' in which a molecule is trapped where two beams cross (PDF). However, it requires an atmosphere to work. The second method using solenoid beams has already worked in the laboratory (PDF). The third method using Bessel beams has yet to be experimentally proven."
He has more experience working with them than anyone else.
Cue Congressional interference in 5...4...3...
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
What part of the word "beam" do you misunderstand? They're not talking about steel girders here.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - Evelyn Beatrice Hall, re Voltaire
This is NASA, doing it with light, instead of Hollywood doing it with (insert witty insulting implication here _____ )
Um... just brainstorming here ... Jar, lid w/spring, tether, done.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Any sort of EM radiation can be beamed; the term is not exclusive to visible light.
Ever heard of a radio?
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
someone hacks a wireless router and uses the antennae to produce a tractor beam? The "threat" of strangers reaching through the internet and tractor-beam molesting children will stop the funding pretty quickly.
fricken laser beams?
Simple logic!
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Hey, everyone knows to never do this.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I don't know.... Still seems and wildly outside of their area of expertise, but it isn't as if NASA has anything better to do without the budget for actual space with rockets and people. Very neat though, if only applicable for molecules.
Is anyone else disappointed that it is the BBC that has to cover this rather than an American source? I'm not saying that they aren't great reporters, just that it is disappointing that there is so little interest in America.
I mean, would finally be a way to get hot burritos out of the microwave safely.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Is anyone else disappointed that it is the BBC that has to cover this rather than an American source? I'm not saying that they aren't great reporters, just that it is disappointing that there is so little interest in America.
MSNBC, Forbes, and Wired have it and, er, that's it. On the one hand it is disappointing to see such a lack of interest, however on the other hand I fear that more mainstream sources would pay more attention to the cost while conveniently overlooking the benefits or feasibility, so maybe the less they say about it the better. This is the kind of thing that congressional Republicans get up in arms about because it sounds nice and vague, something pie-in-the-sky that they can spin as "more government waste" rather than an invaluable contribution to human development.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The most generic relevant definition could indicate anything that can be "emitted". I suppose for a traditional tractor beam it would have to be something you could emit in a straight line, so radio waves may not be ideal, but I'm not a scientist.
Can you name a show in which the tractor beam was not depicted as a ray of light?
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_pack#Crossing_the_Streams
Dilbert RSS feed
Who Wouldn't?
Doesn't require an atmosphere and can be done with one beam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_tweezers
.: Semper Absurda
A few molecules won't be enough of a sample, and this thing won't scale much further.
Just tell the Republicans it is to fight communism, uh, drugs, children, terrorism, or whatever their current war is against and they will be happy to put in a gazillion dollars.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Any sort of EM radiation can be beamed; the term is not exclusive to visible light.
Right, and any sort of EM radiation is light. The term is not exclusive to visible light (which is why when talking in a scientific context one says "visible light" to distinguish).
The enemies of Democracy are
Can you provide a reference that the visible light was depicted as the effective mechanism, rather than as a side effect?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
This is just another case of light being used improperly to refer to anything to do with EM waves for "simplicity".
Actually it's another case of "light" being used correctly to refer to anything to do with EM waves, underestimating the "simplicity" of the audience.
Which is a fair point for people who are only used to the colloquial usage of "light" which is equivalent to the scientific "visible light", but not for tossers who want to turn around and say that it's incorrect in a scientific context.
The enemies of Democracy are
Can you provide a reference that the visible light was depicted as the effective mechanism, rather than as a side effect?
First filter criterion: Does the show depict laser beams as visible from any direction in space?
The enemies of Democracy are
0th filter criterion: does the show claim that the beams in question are lasers?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Naw, I wouldn't make that a filter criterion at all, because even if they weren't explicitly stated to be lasers, one could hypothetically deduce this from other clues. So while it would make a good point of discussion, it doesn't serve as a good filter.
The point of the 1st Filter was that if they show things that are supposed to be lasers, but are visible from any angle in space, then there's no point in further investigation. Because in that universe/the writers' heads, a "laser" is the thing what makes a glowy line in space. So either the answer is "No the tractor beam doesn't use lasers because even the thing they call lasers aren't lasers", or if you accept the in-universe definition then the answer is "If the tractor beam makes a glowy line in space then its a laser because that's what a laser is."
Which either way is a banal and trivial answer and not worth thinking about further. Thus, a good filter. :)
The enemies of Democracy are
Hmm are you sure you don't have that backwards? IE, all light is EM radation?
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
Just tell the Republicans it is to fight communism, uh, drugs, children, terrorism, or whatever their current war is against
All of the above. Communist child terrorists smuggling drugs over the border. Oh and they're illegal immigrants too.
All the world's a CPU, and all the men and women merely AI agents
I think it's fair to assume the opposite unless the show makes a direct claim to the contrary.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
*my head asplode*
The enemies of Democracy are
Star Wars, 1977
It was referred to as a "tractor beam", yet it was not visible light.
Now, I'm not sure what the point of naming "Star Wars" in anything that is even slightly related to science though.
There was a documentary on this in the 1980s where scientists were using beams to trap ghosts. Seemed to work pretty well then, I don't know why this has taken so long.
Well I'm still waiting for that space shuttle from them...
Of course not. *pat pat*
The enemies of Democracy are
Why not focus on funding the construction and launching of a spacecraft worth slapping a tractor beam ON first.
Nope, they aren't lasers, and that's why your entire perception is wrongheaded. It's your head that's telling you lasers. The writers, in fact, told you differently -- they said "tractor beam", which is, as we know, not a laser. They said "Phaser", which is also not a laser. In *fact*, if you'll recall, there have been episodes where the *opponent* used "LASERs". much to the amusement of the trek crew... but thanks for playing! :o)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Republicans don't like children?
why aren't they extinct?
-- no sig today
Not just EM radiation. Sound can be beamed ; particle radiation can be beamed (alpha, beta ; gamma is light). Anything that has a direction to it can be beamed.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
No Lasers in Vacuum, it kills the sharks!
LOL. It's your head that's telling you that we're suddenly only talking about Star Trek even though it's not been mentioned specifically at any point in the sequence of comments leading up to this point and the original thread establishing the context of "any show". It's also your head that's telling you that I'm only talking about "lasers that are tractor beams".
I'm talking about any show and I'm talking about lasers in said show. Whether or not the tractor beams in said shows are also lasers is the thing we're talking about trying to establish. This is why I specifically discussed lasers on their own, separate from the question of what the tractor beams are.
My point is: depending on their depiction of lasers in the show, figuring out if their version of tractor beams uses lasers or not is a moot point.
So, way to not understand and thus completely fail to address the point due to catastrophic context failure.
P.S. "they said 'tractor beam', which is, as we know, not a laser" is begging the question.
The enemies of Democracy are
If you no longer believe in this technology, then you obviously suck.... because you're now an ex tractor fan.
unless he's watching it
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.