Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Create World's First Atomic X-Ray Laser

New submitter newmission33 writes "Government researchers have created the fastest, purest X-ray laser pulses ever achieved, and have fulfilled a 1967 prediction that an atomic scale X-ray laser could be made in the same manner as visible-light lasers, according to a statement released Wednesday. Researchers at the SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory used the Linac Coherent Light Source to aim a powerful X-ray source beam, a billion times brighter than any previous source, at a capsule of neon gas and triggered an 'avalanche' of X-ray emissions to become the world's first 'atomic X-ray laser.'"

145 comments

  1. 1950s buzzword salad by SoupGuru · · Score: 5, Funny

    Throw in a "jet" and "rocket" and I think we'll be all set.

    --
    What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
    1. Re:1950s buzzword salad by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      "Slipstick"

      --
      No sig today...
    2. Re:1950s buzzword salad by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 3, Funny

      We are LIVING in the FUTURE, people! Now we can have x-rays of sharks with x-ray lasers strapped to their fricken heads.

    3. Re:1950s buzzword salad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Politbyro will be shocked to hear the Americans have their nuclear lasers. After a long discussion it will be decided that the Soviet Union should immediately begin the preparations for countering this threat by the capitalistic America. During the session a distinctive cry was heard: "But I though they had it already at 1963!" No members will be banished to Siberia, this time.

    4. Re:1950s buzzword salad by Stormwatch · · Score: 4, Funny

      "Nylon"

    5. Re:1950s buzzword salad by Shark · · Score: 2

      I call that invasion of privacy.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    6. Re:1950s buzzword salad by snicho99 · · Score: 1

      This'll really put the whole "sharks can't get cancer" thing to the test.

      --
      -Steve http://www.stevennicholson.com
    7. Re:1950s buzzword salad by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

      "space age polymers"

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    8. Re:1950s buzzword salad by dave420 · · Score: 1

      They do get cancer.

    9. Re:1950s buzzword salad by necro81 · · Score: 2

      We are LIVING in the FUTURE, people! Now we can have x-rays of sharks with x-ray lasers strapped to their fricken heads.

      I call that invasion of privacy

      Yaaar, sounds like an invasion of piracy, if you be askin' me!

    10. Re:1950s buzzword salad by bennomatic · · Score: 1

      Duh... Sharks!

      --
      The CB App. What's your 20?
    11. Re:1950s buzzword salad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharks do get cancer. That myth was started by this scam artist salesman in order to help sell his BS shark cartilage anti-aging products and book.

  2. Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Analyze those bacteria!

    1. Re:Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      That will be difficult since your average bacterium lacks an anus - wait, what?

    2. Re:Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God damn, if only I had mod points...

    3. Re:Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is fun replying to my own messages.

    4. Re:Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only on Thursdays.

      See you next Wednesday

    5. Re:Quick! Get the LASER! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's "analize"

  3. is an xray pump laser truly needed? by wierd_w · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't mean if this is useful or not, the article clearly states how it is.

    I mean, the pump laser, the one that excites the lasing medium (in this case neon gas). Does it have to be x-ray?

    Would a coherent beam of some other, more easily produced frequency, or even a highly charged cathode beam, be sufficient to induce the xray emission cascade as well?

    1. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by interval1066 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "A laser is coherent light? So it talks?"

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by toQDuj · · Score: 5, Informative

      As far as my knowledge goes, yes the pump laser has to be X-ray. The energy of the emitted photons from the laser are always lower than the excitation energy of the lasing medium. So you need the high photon energy of x-rays to excite the medium to lase photons of lower (but still x-ray) energy.

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
    3. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

      You might try to excite the medium with an electron beam, but when the electrons hit the vessel you have the neon in, they'll make x-rays anyway. The trouble is they'll scatter.

    4. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a big rave next weekend. I'd like to take one of these. Where do you purchase them?

    5. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by jd2112 · · Score: 4, Funny

      "A laser is coherent light? So it talks?"

      More intelligently than many of the threads on Slashdot.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    6. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by rubycodez · · Score: 3, Interesting

      while normally true there is a type of laser called an up-conversion laser, whereby two or more photons excite an ion to release energy greater than the pumping frequency.

    7. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by John+Hasler · · Score: 5, Informative

      The LCLS isn't really a laser. It's a coherent synchrotron radiation source. But yes, intense x-rays are required to knock electrons out of the inner shells of the neon atoms.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    8. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      For this type of atomic X-ray laser I think the pump needs to have a higher photon energy that the lasing output. It is very much like a conventional laser except that the transitions occur at higher energies. If this is the experiment I am thinking of it was done a while ago but probably just published. Its a very nice demonstration.

      Joe Frisch
      SLAC / LCLS

    9. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      Don't forget about parametric conversion or harmonic generation. I'm not sure how well developed our x-ray nonlinear materials are though.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    10. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      What if you strongly ionized the neon prior to pump excitation?

      If you shred off the outer valences, and simultaneously expose the gain medium to a very strong positive static potential, the neon ions would be much easier to excite.

      Part of the energy in the emission would come from the already altered groundstate of the gain medium, rather than having to come from the pump source.

      Eg, you use a very hard UV laser, (much easier to make) and hold the neon in an electrically agitated state.

      It might not be as "clean" in terms of being a pure xray laser..(electrons bumped out of the containing vessel by the uv photons would be snatched up by the very electron hungry neon ions, releasing other species of photon.) But it would be easier to assemble.

    11. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 2

      It was a line from the movie Real Genius

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    12. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by ridgecritter · · Score: 1

      Not having read the research, I feel unencumbered by facts so I'll speculate. Irresponsible, I know, but such fun!

      Maybe it wouldn't take an X-ray excitation source if a lower energy source were bright enough. I presume there's some energy transition in the Ne electronic structure that SLAC's X-ray flashlight pumps to make the coherent X-ray emission they seek. Maybe the X-ray pump is high enough energy that each X-ray photon has enough energy to pump the Ne transition. This sounds like linear absorption to me. So the question is, can this transition be pumped by photons of lower energy that individually don't have the energy to excite whatever transition in neon's electronic structure that gives them the X-ray output?

      Maybe.

      If two (or more?) photons, each of which has less energy than is needed to excite an absorption mechanism, arrive at the potential absorber within a sufficiently short time, and if th sum of the two photons' energies is greater than that needed to effect excitation, the excitation can happen. See "two photon absorption".

      So perhaps, if you had a source of low energy photons that was bright enough (enough photons/unit time), multiple photon mechanisms might pump a Ne X-ray laser. Maybe we wouldn't have to have SLAC to make it happen.

      Don't know if this is possible or practical. I think it's possible, but I think the absorption probabilities are pretty low so it would take a hella bright low energy source to match the SLAC X-ray pump flashlight re Ne excitation rate.

      I'd be delighted if somebody who actually knows about this stuff could set me straight.

    13. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by EdZ · · Score: 1

      It would have to be a higher energy (shorter wavelength) pumping input, e.g. a gamma ray pulse.

    14. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by EdIII · · Score: 2

      It might not be as "clean" in terms of being a pure xray laser..(electrons bumped out of the containing vessel by the uv photons would be snatched up by the very electron hungry neon ions, releasing other species of photon.) But it would be easier to assemble.

      I have this image in my head.....

      Crazy Karlov's Weapon Emporium

      Karlov - "Why go to all the expense of purchase of commercial Death Ray? For just a fraction of price I build for you economical Death Ray from used weapons lab parts sold at auction by my cousin Mikhail. Ehhh, 70% powerful as those really expensive "military grade" models. Might leak some radiation and possibly explode, but nobody lives forever right!? Besides, one fried asshole smells like another fried asshole. I sweeten deal with some hand grenades and American cigarettes. Take home to kids. Of course, any weapon explodes, you get 50% of next purchase!"

    15. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by bobamu · · Score: 1

      The laser in "oskar, kina and the laser" talked. Spanish TV was strange in those years.

    16. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      At first I thought they were talking about a nuclear pumped laser.

      Its interesting to see a new bright and fast x-ray source for study. The short pulses of the atomic x-ray are useful for micro/nanoscopic imaging as you emit a pure, ultra bright yet short pulse of x-rays that penetrate the subject without frying it. Think of it as a camera flash that allows you to see through things without cooking/vaporizing them and is fast enough to capture things happening in a quadrillionth of a second. I only wish a light source such as the NSLS2 were capable of pumping the x-ray lasers from their beam lines. It looks like this system will have to be built from scratch to implement it at existing research centers.

      Currently, bright x-rays are created by synchrotron emission which is caused by bending an electron beam to emit photons in a specific wavelength (Also called a "free electron laser" or FEL). They further tune the spectrum using a crystal monochromator that is composed of two silicon mirrors that are rotated and change the angle of incident which selects a specific wavelength(but not a perfect single wavelength). Believe it or not, its the distance between atoms in the crystal structure of the silicon that is within the physical wavelength of the x-rays. The angle changes the aperture between the silicon atoms filtering out only the wavelength that fits between and reflects off them (interesting fact: gamma rays, which lie just above x-rays in the electromagnetic spectrum, cannot be filtered. There is no known substance with a crystal structure small enough to refract the 1 picometer wavelength). The only drawback is the light is continuous wave and not chromatically pure. This atomic x-ray laser is capable of an ultra fast pulsed single wavelength. I believe they currently use shutter systems to control x-ray exposure of synchrotrons. Awesome stuff, I have toured the NSLS twice and have a friend who works there in the machine shop building fixtures, vacuum chambers and other vacuum apparatus.

    17. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      What if you strongly ionized the neon prior to pump excitation?

      If you shred off the outer valences, and simultaneously expose the gain medium to a very strong positive static potential, the neon ions would be much easier to excite.

      ...then reverse the polarity of the deflector dish. Right? I like to think im an intelligent person, but some of you people make me feel like im still in pre-school.

    18. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

      Think of it this way (extremely simple example follows):

      If you want to get to the meat of a walnut, you first have to crack the walnut shell. This requires some effort on your part.

      If, instead, you didn't have to crack the shell but had a bowl of walnut meat sitting in front of you, it requires much less effort to eat it.

      Same thing (I hope) with what the OP said. Instead of having to strip the "outer shell" of the ions at the same time you try to excite them, stripping them first THEN exciting them becomes much easier.

      If what I just said isn't remotely close to what was stated, I'll go back to pre-school along with you.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    19. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I like to think im an intelligent person, but some of you people make me feel like im still in pre-school.

      Same here, and that's how I like it. It's nice having conversations with people smarter than me (or at least more educated in fields I know little about) after dealing with normtards all day. A day I learn something is a good day, and I often do at slashdot.

    20. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      "The LCLS isn't really a laser. It's a coherent synchrotron radiation source. "

      Oh well fsck that clears it up! :) LOL

    21. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is Mitch by any chance adopted?

    22. Re:is an xray pump laser truly needed? by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      You get: two thumbs waaay up.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  4. This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sounds way more impressive than it probably actually is.

    1. Re:This by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      Nonsense.

      This is a fantastic advancement. Remember those photographs of alkanes that showed the P orbital zones slashdot ran a story on sometime last year

      Remember how fuzzy they were?

      This badboy would make thoe pictures much, much clearer.

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

      So. Do you have a Link to the Alkane-Photographs?

    3. Re:This by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8225491.stm

      These were taken with an AFM, (atomic force microscope. Essentially a single atom stuck to the end of a nanoscopic cantelever) but this xray laser light source would theoretically permit direct image capture, at very high speeds.

      Xray wavelengths are very tiny. The only light with a smaller wavelength is gamma ray emissions.

      Xrays are frequently used to study crystal structues, but the very precise nature and rapid activation speed of this source makes it useful for a whole lot more.

    4. Re:This by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Remember how fuzzy they were?

      This badboy would make thoe pictures much, much clearer.

      Actually, those pictures are fuzzy partly because the orbitals themselves are fuzzy. You probably can't get much more detail than that; the detail doesn't exist.

      At any rate, X-rays interacting with a single molecule like this one would likely knock electrons right off of it, thereby disrupting the very thing you're trying to image. Crystal X-ray diffraction imaging doesn't have that problem because of the countless copies of molecules available.

    5. Re:This by toygeek · · Score: 5, Funny

      You probably can't get much more detail than that; the detail doesn't exist.

      You just have to Zoom, then Enhance.

    6. Re:This by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      hmm i wonder when when they will build a gamma wave laser so we can image fundamental particles.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    7. Re:This by Ruie · · Score: 3, Informative

      That's how LHC works, they just use particles other than gamma rays. 3.5 TeV corresponds to wavelength of 2e-19 m.

    8. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to uncrop first.

    9. Re:This by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Remember how fuzzy they were?

      Actually, those pictures are fuzzy partly because the orbitals themselves are fuzzy.

      ::sigh:: "it can't be helped."

    10. Re:This by dkf · · Score: 1

      Xray wavelengths are very tiny. The only light with a smaller wavelength is gamma ray emissions.

      Actually, there's a huge overlap. It would be more accurate to say that it's called X-rays if it is from a synthetic source and gamma rays if it is from a natural source. The most common nearby natural source is transitions in unstable nuclei. Of course, those high-energy short-wavelength photons don't care what they came from; it's not like they're labelled or anything like that...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    11. Re:This by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      It still happens in XRD though, and is potentially a problem when trying to image protein crystals, which are tough enough to image accurately as it is without your probing source ionising atoms in your sample.

    12. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're so wrong. http://www.nature.com/nmeth/journal/v8/n4/full/nmeth0411-283.html

    13. Re:This by kiwhite · · Score: 1

      Not a problem in most cases if you think about relative timescales of scattering vs. atomic transitions...

  5. Not x-rays by stms · · Score: 0

    They weren't x-rays they were z-rays but z is just as good as x in fact better.

  6. I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but I want one!

    1. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Informative

      Disect the terms.

      Atomic = the lasing medium is made of single, free atoms of the same element.

      Xray = emits photons in the xray portion of the spectrum.

      Laser = light is amplified by the stimulated emission of radiation. A source light source causes electrons in the laser's gain medium to fall out of their normal orbitals. When the fall back in, they emit a photon of a very specific wavelength. These photons bump more electrons out, more photons get produced, and the beam amplifies.

      So, an atomic xray laser is a laser using atomic monomers as the gain medium, that produces coherent xray radiation.

      Now then. Xray radiation is a powerful ionising radiation. This is not a toy. It does very bad things to living tissue, and can destroy chemical bonds purely from the beam's energy. It is a penetrating radiation, and is therefor dangerous even through walls. Keep out of reach of children and slashdot posters.

    2. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      HIgher energy X-rays are penetrating, but these are of fairly low energy. The Nature abstract (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/nature10721.html) gives a bit more info. The X-ray energy is 849 eV. X-rays at this energy which are actually attenuated pretty well by air, and certainly by walls.

    3. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by wierd_w · · Score: 1

      Fantastic. I shall read it when I have more time!

    4. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Kozz · · Score: 1

      You make me wish I'd paid greater attention in my high school chemistry course. Thanks for the details! :)

      --
      I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
    5. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Informative

      We treat the X-ray safety in a way similar to the high energy beam safety at the lab. Shielding, interlocked doors, monitoring, etc. For the soft X-rays in this experiment there is very little risk, they don't go far through air, but for hard X-ray operation we need to use more protection.

      -- -Joe Frisch

    6. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by gmanterry · · Score: 1

      I bet the TSA has one first.

      --
      Since when is "public safety" the root password to the Constitution?
    7. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't care what you say, I'm totally bring one to the next Burning Man Festival.

    8. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Dekker3D · · Score: 1

      Hardcore X-ray operation-... now WITHOUT protection!
      (Surely I can't have been the only one to think this)

    9. Re:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We treat the X-ray safety in a way similar to the high energy beam safety at the lab.

      "Warning! Don't look directly ... anywhere ... with remaining good eye while it's in laser beam's path"

  7. Hello, San Diego by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "atomic"... Spooky.

  8. Obligatory... by webdog314 · · Score: 1

    "The Crossbow Project. There's No Defense Like a Good Offense."

    1. Re:Obligatory... by cashman73 · · Score: 1

      What else did you think a super phase conjugate tracking system is for?

    2. Re:Obligatory... by Bieeanda · · Score: 1

      Yes, but would you be prepared if gravity reversed itself?

    3. Re:Obligatory... by tickticker · · Score: 1

      I'm just pondering the immortal Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

    4. Re:Obligatory... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      "The Crossbow Project. There's No Defense Like a Good Offense."

      I find this offensive. Furthermore, you neglect to acknowledge several defensive strategies than are like a "Good Offense"... Such as derogatory remarks followed by the phrase "No Offense".

  9. Family Guy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chorus: A.N.N.A. rules!

    Peter: 'Cause I kick all the bad guys in their jewels!

    Chorus: A.N.N.A. won!

    Peter: Thanks to my gamma ray atomic gun

    Chorus: Dance and shout, he's the world's greatest ninja there's no doubt

    Peter: Though they try to defeat me, they can all just freakin' eat me

    Brian: 'Cause he blew all of us away

    Peter (and Chorus): On the planet of Siam there's no one as tough as I am, just as surely as Paul Lynde was gay!

    http://familyguy.wikia.com/wiki/A.N.N.A._Rules

  10. Death ray by sakdoctor · · Score: 1

    I bet this could be used to make a death ray.

    1. Re:Death ray by bratwiz · · Score: 2

      How come its always DEATH rays. Why not make a LIFE ray???

    2. Re:Death ray by eggstasy · · Score: 2

      You mean sperm?
      Seriously now, what do you expect, magical healing? Ressurection?
      It's usually easier to destroy something than it is to create it.
      All you need to do is give entropy a little helping hand.

    3. Re:Death ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't want to be picky, picky but sperm is not actually a -ray-. Please consult your mummy and daddy, they will help.

    4. Re:Death ray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made my Giant Death Ray to *help* mankind, not destroy it.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HgejSCHRi8

    5. Re:Death ray by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Because governments don't treat Mad Scientists with respect for Life Rays. At best you get a University Job for about 50k a year (Depending on location), plus money you get from grants however you need to do that for more research, and you still need to teach an Undergrad class. Any other demands you may have will be debated down from some slack jaw yokal who will call your demands "Devil Talk".

      If you have a Death Ray, Government must bow before your might, consent to your demands and pay you Billions of US dollars in compensation. And probably give you a front row seat at the UN.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Death ray by Stargoat · · Score: 2

      Really? 'Cause on that anime I saw last night, ray would definitely be appropriate.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    7. Re:Death ray by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hmmm. Meant to publish that anonymously. Whoopsie. Hope I never run for office.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    8. Re:Death ray by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      We already have one a mere eight light-minutes away!

    9. Re:Death ray by eggstasy · · Score: 1

      My parents are dead, you insensitive clod. My mother died last year and my father died in 2003. But thanks for the sound advice.

  11. Memories... by Fawkes-force5 · · Score: 2

    of reading Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, and wishing I could find an abandoned museum with a freakin' x-ray laser in it.

    1. Re:Memories... by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      of reading Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle, and wishing I could find an abandoned museum with a freakin' x-ray laser in it.

      Yes, I too suffer from not being able to find certain artifacts within my own memories...
      Now where did I put that Epsilon-Ray laser?

  12. But will it blend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    But will it blend?

  13. Not like a standard laser by Laser+Dan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I wouldn't call this laser "the same manner as visible-light lasers" really, it lacks one of the fundamental features of a normal laser - self amplification via feedback from mirrors.
    It sounds like this could be the _basis_ for a laser, as a pump source causes superluminescence, but without feedback it won't be particularly directional.
    Perhaps if it can be triggered to start the avalanche at one end a directional burst could be achieved though, kind of like a nitrogen laser.

    1. Re:Not like a standard laser by wierd_w · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I can't think of any materials with which to create an xray mirror... not of sufficient quality anyway. Without some of those, and an xray beam splitter, you couldn't possibly self amplify...

      If this were built on a very tiny scale, so that the neon atoms were all in a row (trap them inside a nanotube maybe?) Perahps a nanoscale version could be made directional? (Or at least have a directional bias)

    2. Re:Not like a standard laser by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      This would be neither as directional nor as coherent as a conventional laser because of the lack of those mirrors. Those are properties that follow from having a high quality resonator. It may be (IMO is) impossible to duplicate those properties with x-rays.

    3. Re:Not like a standard laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I could be way off base, but ISTR hearing that X-rays reflect well off some metals (or metal-on-glass) at low (grazing) angles of incidence, which would permit a multiple-mirror resonance circuit. Of course, it'd be hell to align, and the multiple reflections might cause too much loss...

    4. Re:Not like a standard laser by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Informative

      Grazing incidence mirrors work well - we use them to steer the main X-ray beam. The mirror system we have works up to 24 KeV X-rays but with shallower angles you could go higher.

      You can also use crystals to reflect X-rays over large angles - even 180 degrees using Bragg diffraction. The limit here is that the X-ray beam needs to be almost exactly a single wavelength.

      --- Joe Frisch

    5. Re:Not like a standard laser by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The main LCLS X-ray laser also works without mirrors, but it has so much gain that the final beam is pretty close to transform limit in the transverse - almost a coherent as a conventional laser.

      --- Joe Frisch
      SLAC

    6. Re:Not like a standard laser by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      A resonator is not an essential feature of a laser (Light Amplification by Stimulated emission of Radiation).

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    7. Re:Not like a standard laser by seeker_1us · · Score: 1

      Yes, a resonator is an essential feator of a laser. The acronym is a bit of a misnomer. A light amplifier itself does not make a laser. A Laser must make coherent light, and that happens through 1) a gain medium and 2) an oscillator.

    8. Re:Not like a standard laser by Ruie · · Score: 1
      LASER - light amplification by stimulated emissing of radiation. So it could just be an amplifier. However, even if you want directionality the resonator is still not necessary - you just need to assure that the mode of your choice has higher gain than other modes.

      For example, make your lasing medium into a long thin rod - it will emit along the rod axis (in both directions).

    9. Re:Not like a standard laser by c0lo · · Score: 2

      Yes, a resonator is an essential feator of a laser.

      No, it's not as this example demonstrates.

      Even better, a quote from here:

      Because of high gain in the lasing medium, short upper-state lifetimes (1–100 ps), and problems associated with construction of X-ray mirrors, X-ray lasers usually operate without any resonator.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    10. Re:Not like a standard laser by toQDuj · · Score: 1

      ...which is not that bad for a laser [to be monochromatic].

      --
      Every experiment which ends in a big bang is a good experiment.
  14. Burning question by actionbastard · · Score: 1

    Where are the atomic-level sharks with atomic-level lasers attached to their heads?

    --
    Sig this!
    1. Re:Burning question by joe_frisch · · Score: 3, Funny

      The main X-ray laser is about a mile long. We are working on breeding bigger sharks......

  15. 100 years from now by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    This will probably be handheld.

    1. Re:100 years from now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds about right, although 100 years would make it one Star Trek technology that's only on time instead of early.

    2. Re:100 years from now by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      This will probably be handheld.

      Bah. Wicked Lasers will be selling it for $300 in 5 to 10 years. ;-)

  16. Does anyone know by lintmint · · Score: 2

    Where I can get a few fricken sharks?

    1. Re:Does anyone know by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      If you want fricken sharks you must frack them yourself.
      No one's foolish enough to believe they're toothy mermaids anymore.

  17. Scientists Are Awesome by sammcj · · Score: 2

    Just saying...

    1. Re:Scientists Are Awesome by interval1066 · · Score: 1

      Still waiting on my jet pack... (tap tap...)

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    2. Re:Scientists Are Awesome by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      That's engineering, not science. And they've had them since the '60s, if you have the cash go for it.

  18. not a physicist but... by PJ6 · · Score: 1

    the first use I thought for such a device was to make home-size non-Uranium nuclear reactors (Thorium, Hafnium) a practical reality.

    1. Re:not a physicist but... by necro81 · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, I don't think this will be useful for that at all, for two important reasons:

      1) X-rays, although pretty potent in the grand scheme of things, are too wimpy to influence, and certainly cannot initiate, nuclear reactions. X-rays tend to interact with the electron cloud around atoms, and so don't penetrate down as far as the nucleus. Bombarding a slug of some fissile material with X-rays will only yield a lot of scattered X-rays; the nuclear decay will be more or less unaffected.

      2) The facility that did this research to produce this X-ray laser is big. Really big. The X-ray light they used to stimulate the subsequent X-ray emissions is at the tail end of a mile-long linear accelerator. Although you can make free-electron lasers that are smaller, it's unlikely you'll see one of these in your average home anytime soon.

  19. fastest? by ebonum · · Score: 1

    My guess is the x-rays travel at 299,792,458 m/s - just like every other photon.

    Perhaps the poster's meaning is "pulse with the shortest duration"

    1. Re:fastest? by wierd_w · · Score: 2

      Don't forget the avalanche period.

      A laser is a stimulated light source. It emits under stimulation. Part of that stimulation is self generated.

      Like a transistor, it continues to operate for a short time when the source of the stimulation gets shut off. Likewise, when the beam is turned on, it takes a tiny amount of time for the photon avalanche to occur. (Speed of photon propogation is not the same as C in vaccuum.)

      Thus, the speed of the laser is how fast it is on/offable.

  20. that's not the fun kind of x-ray laser by rubycodez · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Excalibur

    (when head-mounted on shark, you don't get your shark back)

    1. Re:that's not the fun kind of x-ray laser by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      seems it would be easy to defeat by launching waves instead of just one large wave.

    2. Re:that's not the fun kind of x-ray laser by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Back in the days of a mostly ground based ICBM force, delaying launch means losing the weapons to inbound ones.

  21. This Might Be Very Useful in Semiconductors by Nova+Express · · Score: 2

    With fabs already using DeepUV lasers and phase-shifting masks, the ability to do x-ray pulses would seem to me (I am not a phsyicist) to make it possibly to use for wafer lithography to produce much smaller chip geometries than we have today. A pulse laser would make it much easier to do that without damaging the chip (since x-rays are very freaking energetic indeed). So Moore's Law might get a new lease on life, assuming that this technology is capable of being commercialized.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:This Might Be Very Useful in Semiconductors by treeves · · Score: 1

      IIRC ASML already claims to have an EUV scanner capable of 69 wafers per hour throughput, using discharge-produced (tin?) plasma.
        I really doubt any company is going to want to spend a ton more cash and several years to get ANOTHER method of EUV imaging working after all the time and $$ it has taken to get where we are today.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    2. Re:This Might Be Very Useful in Semiconductors by necro81 · · Score: 1

      The latest I heard indicates that EUV is still having a tough time getting going. The light source isn't bright enough, so throughput is too low to be commercially viable. ASML may claim to have a source capable of exposing 69 wafers per hour, but it's not like those machines are rolling off the assembly line right now.

      Some other people out there are investigating using free-electron lasers to produce EUV, either directly as the output of the FEL, or by using the FEL to stimulate EUV emission in some other medium. A major benefit of FEL's is that they are highly tunable: you can get a huge range of output frequencies, so theoretically one could use the same equipment to migrate from EUV to X-ray lasers as lithography technology advances. Although tabletop FELs exist, I wonder if it would make sense to consider having one really big one for an entire fab facility, and using it to stimulate the EUV at the level of each lithography machine. This would be not unlike how big particle accelerator or telescope facilities work (one source, multiple instruments).

    3. Re:This Might Be Very Useful in Semiconductors by treeves · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the fabs really want 100+ wafers/hr, and I'm not sure about the debris problems with DPP EUV sources being solved, but brightness seems to be getting there, and to totally switch technologies seems like a big risk. I know, sunk cost fallacy and all that...

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
  22. Footfall by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool, we will be ready to take on the Fithp when they attack us

  23. aRe:I don't know what an atomic x-ray laser is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would like to point out that the neon is not actually a gain medium. They lose an enormous amount of power in this process; however, they get a much tighter distribution of frequencies and are able to more precisely control the pulses. The source of radiation for this is a laser. It's a free electron laser; until now, nobody was ever able to get any atomic medium to meet lasing conditions.

    The reason this is is interesting is that as laser frequency increases (and thus photon energy) it becomes extraordinarily difficult to maintain a population inversion. Very cool stuff.

  24. In other news by eudas · · Score: 1

    Vault-Tec stock is up!

    --
    Blessed is he who expects the worst, for he shall not be disappointed.
  25. A Waste of Energy will be required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For the silicon lithographic process, the X-rays pulses are not sufficient. This process requires longer exposition of the light (as the visible irradiation, overall ultraviolet irradiation) that is generally continuous, but the X-rays are simply discontinous pulses of excessive waste of energies!.

    Don't think that it's an easy solved solution.

    The laser (e.g. red or green) has a directional canyon of photons as the ruby, and it's optimized. But the X-rays can't, but when they try, almost of the angles are wasted unoptimizely for imitating the laser-like of the X-rays unless that the material engineers discover new materials for X-rays that synchronize the randomity of the irradiations to statistical unidirectional vectors. Generally, these new materials to be discovered in near future should be as crystaline for the frequencies of the light or mainly of X-rays.

    JCPM: don't waste resources, and don't use these experiments for evil purposes.

    1. Re:A Waste of Energy will be required. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the almost ecologic lithographic process, i should recommend Sun's rays, it has a longer exposition of light but limited to 1/3 of day due to the Earth's rotation unless that their processes are on orbiting satelites.

      If the Sun's rays are filtered adequately then their wavelengths could be thinner than deeper UV and much more ecologic than X-rays.

      JCPM: please, saludate me honourly.

  26. Please do not look into the atomic x-ray laser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    WARNING: Do not look into the atomic x-ray laser with remaining head.

  27. My Ray needs are different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm from Arkansas. I was really hoping it could be used to make a Meth-Ray.

  28. xray laser was done before by bwanaaa · · Score: 1

    since E=h*v, the energy output is amazing- a true death ray - you could fry any missile in flight. what's the name of those russian things the iraqis are shooting at israel? Actually, Edward teller conceived an interesting design for an xray laser. A thermonuclear weapon i space encased by a porcupine shell of tungsten rods. The rods are aimed at their targts an when the thermonuclear weapon is detonated, the gamma rays shoot down the tungsten rods and xrays are generated. presto, goldfinger would be jealous. of course there is the little problem of clean up afterwards...

  29. Re:1950s by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hi honey how was your day? OH my god why are you GLOWING in the dark?

  30. European XFEL by hvdh · · Score: 1

    There's a similar project currently being built in Hamburg, Germany, the European XFEL. Compared to the LCLS, it will have 8 times the maximum, 600 times the average brilliance, up to 3 times smaller wavelength, and/or 200 times the flash rate.
    http://www.xfel.eu/overview/in_brief
    http://www.xfel.eu/overview/in_comparison

  31. I have one simple request by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that is to have sharks with frickin' X-Ray laser beams attached to their heads!

  32. X-ray missile by Shad0w99 · · Score: 1

    Now we just need impeller drive, few big spaceships, and David Weber's Honorverse becomes reality.

    1. Re:X-ray missile by DadLeopard · · Score: 1

      I either have to stay up later or get up much earlier! That was the first thought that came into my mind! This would be great for the LACs!

  33. Amazing, Professor! by 91degrees · · Score: 1

    Bolt it onto my rocket ship! We'll show those foul martians you don't mess with earth!

  34. Photolithography by wcoenen · · Score: 1

    Perhaps this has applications for silicon photolithography?

    The semiconductor industry is already using ultraviolet because the minimum feature size created by photolithography is limited by the wavelength of the light. X-rays have a wavelength of about 1 nanometer (< 5 Si atoms). That should be small enough to push silicon semiconductors to their ultimate limit.

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

      That sounds good... I'd hate to think it was all just a huge boondoggle in the middle of a financial crisis.

  35. Quick! Page David Weber! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While probably not the only sci-fi author to abuse the term, he has to get a tingle out of seeing the beginnings of his bomb-pumped x-ray laser head missiles, as abused frequently in his Honor Harrington series.

    Now if we could just get to the superdense magnetic bottles for the fusion reactors and the grav lensing please... oh, and someone figure out how to create impeller bands.

  36. Really? by craigminah · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this be called a "maser" since it's not emitting light? Bet the secret squirrels made this to peer through walls from miles away

  37. Inertial Fusion Application? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if something like this could replace conventional lasers in an inertial fusion application.

  38. turning Japanese, covered in grits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so now we can have holographic xrays of Natalie Portman to masturbate to?

  39. Obligatory by almitchell · · Score: 1

    The most evil Atomic X-ray Laserinator in the Tri-State Area!

    --
    Baseless self confidence kills more people each year than bathtubs.
  40. Sharks with freak'n lazor beam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Crap.... hide all sharks cause if they get their hands on this technology, were fucked.

  41. Gamma Ray Bursts by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1

    Why should black holes have all the fun?

  42. first xray lasers had nuclear bomb sources by peter303 · · Score: 1

    MIT prof Peter Hagelstein made one in the 1980s while working for energy labs. This fell into the class of "3rd generation nuclear weapons" which included very customized radiation outputs. And this excited Teller and Reagan into the "Star Wars" defense shield program. I dont think that program is dead yet, but highly morphed.

  43. How many would be needed by JTsyo · · Score: 1

    To cookoff munitions inside a tank?