Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Scientists Propose Collider That Could Turn Light Into Matter

Posted by samzenpus on from the give-me-my-holodeck dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Imperial College London physicists have discovered how to create matter from light — a feat thought impossible when the idea was first theorized 80 years ago. From the article: 'A pair of researchers predicted a method for turning light into matter 80 years ago, and now a new team of scientists are proposing a technique that could make that method happen in the purest way yet. The proposed method involves colliding two photons — the massless particles of light — that have extremely high energies to transform them into two particles with mass, and researchers in the past have been able to prove that it works. But in replicating that old method, known as Breit–Wheeler pair production, they had to introduce particles that did have mass into the process. Imperial College London researchers, however, say that it's now possible to create a collider that only includes photons.'"

223 comments

  1. how soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    we have an army of bald guys scrubbing plasma conduits on waste transfer barges?

    1. Re:how soon before by davester666 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I believe the summary is confusing concepts. A 'proposal' for how to do something, but not actually having implemented the proposal to see if it actually works IS NOT the same as 'discovering how to do something'.

      There is a huge, fundamental gap between

      I suggest we try doing X to accomplish Y
      and
      I did X and accomplished Y

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    2. Re:how soon before by Redmancometh · · Score: 0

      This is simply the first step, and this is such a big deal that I'd like to remain hopeful.

    3. Re:how soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge, fundamental gap between

      I suggest we try doing X to accomplish Y
      and
      I did X and accomplished Y

      Is it?
      Do you think they can present any other data than "When we did X, Y was accomplished."
      If the investment to do the experiment is done they pretty much have to skew the data to show that the experiment was successful.
      Anything else sounds like a career-ender.

    4. Re:how soon before by Barsteward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      thats not farting, thats shitting

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:how soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You aren't management material.

    6. Re:how soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're basically saying that math doesn't work. How eminently stupid of you.

    7. Re:how soon before by fiziko · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not at all. In science, there is just as much validity to "we did X but didn't get Y" as there is to "when we did X, Y was accomplished." In fact, Michelson and Morley are a prime example of "we did X but didn't get Y" in 1887, and they won the Nobel prize for it in 1907.

      --
      - W. Blaine Dowler
      http://www.bureau42.com
    8. Re:how soon before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      That is how it is supposed to work. That was also more than a century ago.

      Science these days is not free from politics.

    9. Re:how soon before by fiziko · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not entirely devoid, no, but in my experience (as a former researcher; still have the CERN employee ID card) there is still some that is free of politics. The fact that results need to be reproducible to be accepted helps. The main concern is funding. As long as you can confidently tell your backers that there is money to be made either way, or find different backers with vested interests in different results, there is no pressure to fudge results. In fact, the project I worked on (ATLAS) had no outside input asking for bias in results that I could see in any way, shape or form. Of course, if that was the case universally nobody would question vaccines, but it still happens often, especially in fields like particle physics (which this article is talking about) in which application is so far down the road that most financial backers really are looking for the spinoff technology it takes to produce the result moreso than the result itself.

      --
      - W. Blaine Dowler
      http://www.bureau42.com
    10. Re:how soon before by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Well, either the math or the science. And if we were 100% sure the science would work there'd be no point in doing the experiment.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  2. You're doin' it wrong by Tablizer · · Score: 4, Funny

    Dudes, you are solving the problem, in reverse: we want instant energy from dirt.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:You're doin' it wrong by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      ...soylent electrons??

    2. Re:You're doin' it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no. He said dirt. Everyone knows soylent is made of PEOPLE.

    3. Re:You're doin' it wrong by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't mind shining some light on a plate and having a steak appear:)

    4. Re:You're doin' it wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Matter Cloning! >8-D3

  3. Do it, then report it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't it be better to actually perform the experiment first? Theories are dime a dozen. I have thought about this myself many times but I wouldn't go straight to a publication and publish my conjecture as though it is some sort of fait accomplis. Sounds more like a funding-raising exercise than serious science.

    1. Re:Do it, then report it. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      "ok guys all we need is funding for this slab of gold!"

      seriously.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Do it, then report it. by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 5, Informative

      Saying that they're publishing in an attempt to secure funding is the least insightful comment you could possibly make, because that’s precisely how expensive “serious science” gets done: you put your theory up for peer review in a publication like Nature Photonics, and if it’s sound then you go into the contest for funding an experiment. Using your logic we should’ve built the Large Hadron Collider before the theoretical merit in building it was confirmed; if you can’t see why that's a phenomenally stupid way to allocate finite resources then sorry, but I have to doubt you're clever enough to prove a conjecture theoretically, let alone practically.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Do it, then report it. by Bengie · · Score: 1

      Which experiment? I only see one experiment listed and " researchers in the past have been able to prove that it works". I thought it was common knowledge that we an already turn light into matter. It's a common issue with high power lasers for fusion research. Nothing worse than you laser output going down as you add more energy because you increase the chance of your photons turning into matter.

    4. Re:Do it, then report it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Imperial College we are talking about. Are you really trying to suggest they are blagging?

    5. Re:Do it, then report it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a common issue with high power lasers for fusion research. Nothing worse than you laser output going down as you add more energy because you increase the chance of your photons turning into matter.

      Not sure how this is a "common problem" for inertial confinement fusion considering it only happens on a large scale within specially designed targets in experiments purposely trying to for positron production. These have been proposed on NIF, but so far have only been done on predecessors to NIF like Omega, and require a different target and timing profile compared to what is used in fusion research (the former needs as much light in as short of time as possible, latter needs it spread out in a certain way over a certain timescale). Either way, it is not an issue in the lasers themselves if that is what you are trying to suggest, as the light intensity within the laser is many orders of magnitude below what it is when focused on a target.

    6. Re:Do it, then report it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ain't it a bitch when you forget to check the AC button?

    7. Re:Do it, then report it. by Jmc23 · · Score: 1
      I'm not a coward. Besides, it was just a lame joke.

      Funny thing is, you can still tell the chicken shits who do that by their writing style.

      --
      Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
  4. Energy-matter synthesis by Khyber · · Score: 0

    Here we come Star Trek!

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Recruit the porn stars now to record material for the holosuites!

    2. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Bobakitoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My first thought was 3d printer. Imagine deposing one atom tick layers of any element in any shape. eg; The Star Trek synthesiser.

      But that wont happen because they'll ban the thing over irrational fear before the technology reach the point it can print a cup of earl grey.

    3. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But that wont happen because they'll ban the thing over irrational fear before the technology reach the point it can print a cup of earl grey.

      Okay, let's say you want to make a cup of earl grey tea from energy alone. For simplicity's sake, let's pretend you are providing the cup and the only thing you need to create is 250 mL (~8 fl oz for those of us in the benighted US) of pure water at 100 C. I chose 0.95835 g/cm3 as the density of H2O @ 100 C.

      Synthesizing that water from pure energy in a 100% efficient process that magically created only the appropriate molecules would require approximately 6,000 gigawatt-hours of energy, aka 2.15E16 J (hooray for e=m*c^2 being on-topic for once in forever). FWIW, the absolute minimum amount of energy required is equivalent to over 5 megatons of TNT .

      For reference, the generating capacity of the entire United States is approximately 1,000 gigawatts . So, uh, in some mythical 100% efficient conversion of electricity to matter it would require the entire generating capacity of the United States for over 6 hours (line losses, oh my!) to produce the water for one cup of earl grey. If you want to stay true to concept, let's say your tea needs to be ready in 5 seconds. Okay, that represents 4.3 petawatts .

      So, no, I doubt a ban will be what stands in the way of you getting your replicated earl grey.

      Besides, anything that created that much power would be instantly weaponized.

    4. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by WhiteZook · · Score: 2

      If you assume we have a way to convert energy into matter with 100% efficiency, then it's not far fetched to assume we'd also have a way to convert matter into energy. So, you can save yourself all the calculations, and just grab 250 grams of waste products from the ship's waste disposal system, and turn them into a cup of Earl Grey tea.

    5. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you assume we have a way to convert energy into matter with 100% efficiency, then it's not far fetched to assume we'd also have a way to convert matter into energy. So, you can save yourself all the calculations, and just grab 250 grams of waste products from the ship's waste disposal system, and turn them into a cup of Earl Grey tea.

      So, uh, at that point why are you even bothering with a matter/energy conversion? Just use the cleaned, recycled water directly. I already have a machine that can "3D print" a cup of 95 C water, and all it requires is a water reservoir and a 1300 W heating element. I have to bring my own cup, but that was already stipulated.

    6. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I don't need a computer. Can can just use this vial or ink, this feather and this roll of papyrus to write message and do calculation.

      Converting waste matter into energy and then into usable matter is very convenient. You literally can convert shit into food without any risk of bacterial contamination. It also eliminate all waste. No food will ever go spoil. The right amount is made when needed.

      You clearly lack perspective for not seeing this.

    7. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by DavidSanftenberg · · Score: 2

      I don't think human civilization would survive for long in a universe where a monkey could trigger instant mass energy conversion. I'm hopeful that whatever progenitor race created our universe would have had a little foresight in that regard.

    8. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You have forgotten that no process will be perfectly efficient unless someone invents some new thermodynamics. You are talking about "waste" of a few hundred grams of easily-recycled organic matter (or water) by channeling megatons worth of energy. What's a few percent of waste heat generated on a process that is pumping quadrillions of joules around? Entropy always gets its pound of flesh.

      But hey! We *saved* some water we could have, you know, could have distilled into purity using today's technology by using an infinitesimal amount of that waste heat that would be inescapably generated by pumping around those megatons of energy for pointless matter/energy conversions!

      ...and I'm supposedly the one who lacks perspective. Priceless.

    9. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Besides, anything that created that much power would be instantly weaponized.

      Exactly, that is the good thing.
      It will become weaponized the instant they realize how glorious a weapon it is.
      Oh, hey, those bad dudes are attacking us, lets just generate a fusion bomb on their tanks, that will teach them not to mess with us.

      Then once humanity has wiped 1/3 of itself out after playing games, it will trickle down to Earth Defense.
      Oh, hey, another asteroid, lame, blow it up. Kay, done.

      But still, this sort of stuff will require stupidly efficient fusion reactors.
      Or matterantimatter reactors, and I think we have generated ohhh several thousand atoms of antihydrogen. Yep.
      Luckily we will be long gone before they play juggling matches with fusion bomb replicators.

    10. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. If we ever get to the point of being able to efficiently convert matter into energy with negligible loses, then science fiction becomes far more believable. The "scarcity" of resources equation hard wired into our biology would be irrelevant. The physics is simple, but the engineering is a real bugger.

    11. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We are doomed. Dooooooomed.

    12. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have forgotten that no process will be perfectly efficient unless someone invents some new thermodynamics.

      Current thermodynamics works fine enough for what is suggested. Thermodynamics allows for next to ideal conversion.

    13. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by peragrin · · Score: 1

      true but that same progenitor might also bind those same monkey on one planet so that they don't threaten every other planet with their ways.

      Do you want to go to the stars? Or do you want to be stuck on earth were 50% of the population are morons?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    14. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or do you want to be stuck on earth where 50% of the population are morons?

      Fixed that for you.

      Regards,
      The other 50%

    15. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by StripedCow · · Score: 4, Informative

      Total energy output of the sun per second: 3.8×10^26 J (source: wikipedia)
      This amounts to 4.22×10^9 grams per second,
      or about 18 million cups of tea per second.

      --
      If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
    16. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Or do you want to be stuck on earth were 50% of the population are morons?

      Just curious - do you think that the 50% who are morons includes those who can't spell "where"?

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    17. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 2

      If you compare the energy output of a single power station today to the energy output of all the camp fires in one night of prehistoric human history, it probably seems like a massive difference.

      We know that future technology will be orders of magnitude bigger / more powerful than current technology.

      And it's cool to think that, maybe, when you have a warp core that powers a space ship going FTL with many millions of petawatts of energy, some star trek technology like replicators might come true :)

    18. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Current thermodynamics works fine enough for what is suggested. Thermodynamics allows for next to ideal conversion.

      Gotcha. So, in order to avoid boiling some water to distill it to purity, you're going to be doing a matter/energy/matter conversion. In order to come out ahead of using a simple boiler, your ~9 petawatt (two conversions in the requisite time doubles the power) process is going to need to be 99.99999999% efficient or so.

      Even a 99% efficient process would dump 90 terawatts of waste heat. The waste heat of your process would represent approximately 1/10 of the power of an average hurricane. Remember, you're claiming we would do this in order to "save energy" by not distilling a quarter liter of wastewater.

      In summary: just because science develops a method that allows something to be done does not imply it will ever be the favored technology. We developed the means to create gold via atomic bombardment a long time ago, and that process will never supplant gold mining.

    19. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm already ahead of you all. I just gave permission to dump any dense waste on my backyard. Mass will be in high demand once this becomes reality! If anyone has heavyweight bridges to sell I',m interested.

    20. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 3, Informative

      And it's cool to think that, maybe, when you have a warp core that powers a space ship going FTL with many millions of petawatts of energy, some star trek technology like replicators might come true :)

      True, but somehow I doubt that anyone will ever be glib while wielding the power of the entire generating output of the Sun, for example (call that 100 billion petawatts). The power at that scale could destroy entire solar systems if a mishap or violent use were to occur.

      If you weren't aware of the Kardishev scale, you might find it intriguing to consider the implications of a Type II civilization wielding the power of the entire Sun or to think about what a Type III civilization could accomplish.

    21. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by pablo_max · · Score: 1

      I would think that atomic level manipulation of base materials would be far more efficient than simply trying to convert energy into the desired state of matter.

    22. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm afraid that we've already got everything we need to make a much more comfortable society even with "just" the technology and resources we have now. That fact that we don't shows that something else is hard-wired into our biology: how to be complete and utter assholes.

      I suspect even with completely free everything we'll still find ways to have taxes and rich and poor people.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    23. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      Tea, Earl Gray, Hot

    24. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      But you couldn't be bothered to capitalize Earth ...

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    25. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we have different ideas of "convenient" considering a garden is essentially a very efficient, automated factored for turning waste into organic compounds and things like food that never spoil. It is easy enough to project technology development and see a computer/robot managed garden using genetically engineered plants to produce a wide variety of results in potentially less than idea conditions, and yet still fit into a space much smaller than a heat sink that could dissipate a 1% inefficiency in the desired process, let alone a power plant to produce the power in the first place.

      Not to mention there are some inherent inefficiencies in all known fundamental processes for turning light into matter or producing antimatter to do the opposite effect. So shooting for 99% efficiency can't be called impossible in any strict sense, because we may discover completely new things never expected. But betting on such things is about a step short of saying we'll just accomplish what we want in the future using unicorns.

    26. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Consider this: If the power usage/content of our technology truly scales in the futre as it did from the past to the present then in the future a malfunction in the equivalent of somebody's cellphone today would have the energy to explode like a nuclear weapon. Perhaps there is a flaw in your logic somewhere?

      If mankind or it's decendants ever have access to power like this it isn't going to be in the hands of individuals. It will be in the form of massive projects conducted in space far from any lifebearing planet. Even if we had the ability to give everyone a matter replicator we wouldn't because the potential for tragedy when working with that kind of energy is far too high.

    27. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAL, but taking a deposition from material from ticks probably isn't going to get you anything. Mislabeling the Star Trek Replicator as The Star Trek synthesiser will get you nothing but disdain here.

    28. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na, all you have to do is slow down the speed of light 100,000 times and you can produce that cup of tea with only 600 watts.

    29. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be silly! We're floating on a sea of zero-point energy! A bit of resonance to raise it above the ground state, et voila!, Tea! Earl Grey! Hot!

    30. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by MrLizard · · Score: 2

      Ah, but it can it also create the necessary flavoring to create something which tastes almost, but not entirely, unlike tea?

    31. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The limit isn't so much thermodynamics but that the cross-sections of interactions for the particle processes used to convert light into matter is kind of damning if one is going for energy efficiency. A photon with just enough energy to pair produce will not have a high chance of pair producing, you need a photon with more that energy before it has a really significant production chance (sometimes double the energy, depending on the target). Below this, and most of your photons will get absorbed or pass through and be wasted, and at the more productive energies the resulting matter will have excess kinetic energy that has to be removed.

      Considering we can easily create a plasma today that is hot enough to destroy any chemical bonds in a material, breaking it down into constituent elements, and then separate those elements as needed, leaving you a bin full of each element, what do you get from the much less efficient process of converting it into energy and then back into fundamental particles (that would still have to be assembled into something more than just electrons and protons)? The hard part is still assembling the individual atoms into whatever complex item you need, but getting a pile of atoms from junk source material is rather easily even today comparatively.

    32. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by shaitand · · Score: 2

      Because your way you have to start with water and end with water. If converting the matter to energy and then from energy to matter you could hypothetically start with say, trash in a landfill or silica sand or water and print your cup of earl grey or a kobe steak.

    33. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by mark-t · · Score: 1

      That won't happen because depositing a layer one atom thick, unless it is depositing at least on the order of tens of thousands of layers every single second, you would be waiting days or even months for an object to finish being manufactured that is only a few centimeters high.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    34. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by shaitand · · Score: 1

      You are working from the assumption that you have some water in the first place. But what about the tea? What about the cup? What if it were a steak or some fuel?

      Dudes 3D printer is essentially the star trek replicator. If you can't see how a replicator is useful you are a hopeless cause. Also, there is nothing to say the waste from inefficiency in the process has to be heat.

      In an imaginary world where we can replicate anything by converting energy into matter an atom at a time we can convert matter into energy an atom at a time. It stops being scandalous to be wasteful of energy at that point. It's no longer a rare commodity.

      Know what else you could do with it? Extremely high velocity space propulsion.

    35. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In an imaginary world where we can replicate anything by converting energy into matter an atom at a time we can convert matter into energy an atom at a time. It stops being scandalous to be wasteful of energy at that point. It's no longer a rare commodity.

      How does that follow at all? You still have to get the energy from somewhere, you can't just print batteries that are used to power the battery printing machine. The process for converting matter into energy involves either the same principles we use today (e.g. the mass deficit in fission and fusion reactions) or a source of antimatter. And even with an infinite source of energy given an imaginary world... you still have to deal with dissipating waste energy. If it turns out something needs gigawatts of power in a cubic centimeter and it is only 99.9% efficient, you're going to run into some problems.

    36. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      The way I see it, it's like putting in energy to convert water to steam, pump the steam to the dispenser and then extract the energy again to condense it to water. If that energy is just stored somewhere, and used to heat the next batch of water (assuming 0 loss which goes against entropy) you only need the energy to pump the steam about.

      If you have solid matter in one form, and know a process similar to boiling that converts it to energy, then pump it as 'light' to the dispenser, you then can reverse the process and end up back where you started.

      The question is, how do you keep a reservoir of energy, similar to that used to turn water to steam, available to keep the matter/energy/matter conversion working.

      When you consider distillation, in super slow motion, what you are doing is providing enough energy to allow one molecule of water to break surface tension, escape the van der Waals bonding and move to a condenser, where you sap the energy away leaving it to forma a liquid again.

      One assumes that the future tech process will do something similar, it will atom by atom convert one material to energy, and recombine it as another material elsewhere. Then, similar to how it takes the application of energy over time to boil up a whole kettle of water, you have a steady process for doing it with matter conversion.

      It's still totally sci-fi, and ludicrous, but then so to is propelling a space ship at speeds approaching c.

    37. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by MightyYar · · Score: 2

      That's a really awesome analysis... but I'm an engineer. Any "replicator" that I designed would probably have a water tank, since most food is mostly water. I'd probably have other hoppers full of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. The stuff you need to materialize out of light would be a small fraction of the total food: trace elements, vitamins, minerals, etc.

      Now if you want it to work with other things besides biomass, well...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    38. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In TOS they didn't had replicators, just synthesizers.

    39. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Since we are speaking of mythological devices here, the franchise which contains this mythical replicator has proclaimed that the ship that powers the replicators can regenerate up to 4,770,000 TeraWatts.

      Go here to get your SiFi Geek On

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    40. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

      Makes you wonder, do we need these complete and utter assholes? They say that a statistically significant number of CEO's would pass, or fail, (depending on your POV) a standard test for psychopathy.

      Was the chieftain of the old wattle and daub hut village a psychopath? Was he out for his own interests and needed to use all those around him to get it? Was his goal to provide himself with a nice big hut to live in, but in order for that to happen he needed to be charismatic and persuasive, and ultimately all the people who helped him ended up with huts (albeit smaller) to live in too.

      He was an entrepreneur! He was also probably bigger and much more prone to cracking your skull if you didn't do as he asked. Better still, he probably had people on his side to do that for him.

      If someone was sick, or unwilling to go along with the plans to better the society as a whole, who was responsible for lacking empathy and kill/drive these people out of the unit? It's quite possible that a certain % of the human population is, by 'design' (note, I don't mean intelligent design, just evolutionary design) supposed to be psychopathic, to be someone who, by thinking only about themselves, accidentally improve the lot of the community as a whole.

      Perhaps, when we as a race have nothing more to improve upon, we can do away with this %. What worries me though, is that, because of how society is changing, many of these psychopaths are no longer working as intended, and are now working for themselves at the detriment of society as a whole. Take the MPAA as an example, they are working for themselves, and potentially improving the lot of a choice few people (their perceived tribe) but since the world is no longer made up solely of tribes, and is a complexly interlinked society, the elevation of their tribe is actually an exercise in simply trying to drive everyone else down.

      Just a thought...

    41. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 2

      I'm an engineer as well. The "fabricator" approach you describe is much more tenable than an energy-based replicator.

      Practically speaking, what would need to be synthesized from energy? Not vitamins (those are organic compounds and you already listed the C, H, and O hoppers, to which I will add N). Technically, you don't even need an H2O tank because you have H and O hoppers. The trace stuff for biomatter is, well, trace. Easy enough to keep those elements around in hoppers as well (I can see the design review now: "Shall we use a few trace element hoppers or shall we channel a few exajoules for shits, giggles, matter synthesis, and catastrophic failure modes?")

      Of course, all of this stuff is highly abundant on Earth, so I was envisioning applicability in a starship in interstellar space where there is a dearth of ambient matter. Even then, I would anticipate such a technologically advanced machine would have equally technologically advanced recycling capabilities and an appropriate loadout before departure.

      Honestly, given humanity's history of running into practical efficiency limits that are far below the thermodynamic theoretical bounds, about the only thing I can think of where this technology would be useful would be for a long-haul interstellar starship that paused close to stars and converted the abundant stellar energy into potential energy via creating matter/antimatter to keep in fuel tanks for later use.

    42. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

      That's barely enough to satisfy British demand, let alone that of the civilized world. And we haven't even figured in energy needs for beer production, yet.

      --
      That is all.
    43. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh ... so this is how the Nutrimatics Drink Dispenser works. Add another 17 megatons to the mix and you can have a rather nice towel to go along with your cup of almost, but not quite, entirely unlike grey earl tea.

    44. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Processes like this produce particles like electrons, and with quite a bit more effort, protons. Producing whole atoms would be a lot more complex directly, with huge inefficiencies from the other atoms and wasted energy you get dumping all that power into photons that have only a very small chance of producing a large atom as compared to simpler particles (I haven't checked the numbers, but it is possible all of the energy in the observable universe might not be enough to have a reasonable chance of producing very heavy atoms directly). This means you are going to have to create heavier atoms from lighter ones, and if you have a water tank with plenty of hydrogen in it, then you don't need the photon->matter conversion process at all. You would be spending your energy fusing lighter atoms into the trace ones you need (which still converts energy to mass, but only a small portion of the final mass), which would still be a process unimaginable currently at any practical efficiency.

    45. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Besides, anything that created that much power would be instantly weaponized.

      Yes, just what we need. A weapon 1000 times more powerful than the nuclear-powered shit we don't even dare use today...and to think, it would only cost taxpayers another trillion or seven to build.

    46. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, on ST:Voyager they hinted at 'recycling' replicated materials (for the energy), and I wondered, why don't they just find a planet (dead hunk of rock no one is using) and 'recycle' a few metric tons of rock.

    47. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      Na, all you have to do is slow down the speed of light 100,000 times and you can produce that cup of tea with only 600 watts.

      Yes lets just change a fundamental constant of the universal. Where did I leave that Higgs field manipulator...

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    48. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      If mankind or it's decendants ever have access to power like this it isn't going to be in the hands of individuals.

      I hope you're right. Individuals can't even learn to use apostrophes or spell correctly, let alone manage upcoming energy/mass-conversion-capable smart phones.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    49. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Look, I prefer milk and a spot of sugar with my tea can you please whip those up for me too. There's a good chap.

      PS you forgot to include the tea in your calculations.

    50. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      250 mL (~8 fl oz for those of us in the benighted US) of pure water at 100 C.

      Have we learned nothing from the hot coffee incident?

    51. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

      My first thought was 3d printer. Imagine deposing one atom tick layers of any element in any shape. eg; The Star Trek synthesiser.

      But that wont happen because they'll ban the thing over irrational fear before the technology reach the point it can print a cup of earl grey.

      This technology is self banning thanks to E=MC^2. How many cups of earl grey do you think you can pour out of a single warp core?

    52. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Zephyn · · Score: 2

      Ah, but it can it also create the necessary flavoring to create something which tastes almost, but not entirely, unlike tea?

      Yes, but they're trying to refine the process such that it doesn't also create a sperm whale and pot of petunias as a byproduct.

    53. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But could I use this technology to create my very own Shakey's Pizza?

    54. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by geekoid · · Score: 1

      By definition, 50% of the population are not morons.
      It's like saying 50% of the population are geniuses.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    55. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is 4x10^9 kg/s, not g/s. Also, you wouldn't get 18 billion cups of tea second, but 9 billion cups of and 9 billion cups of antimatter tea that has to be dealt with (just sell it as high strength coffee...).

    56. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Kevin+Fishburne · · Score: 1

      Well fuck it, just build an inverted spherical solar panel around the sun, crank out some Earl Grey, and blast the fucking thing near the speed of light to whatever starship ordered it. Problem solved.

      --
      Buy your next Linux PC at eightvirtues.com
    57. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, how surprising. Your "the assholes" translates to "someone else". Here's a hint: you're the problem. And me. And *everyone* around us. The problem is 7.2 billion people and still no one understanding the exponential function. Humanity is unable to comprehend and tame its urges to procreate. *That* is the failure. And if we cannot control something as basic as our numbers we have no hope of controlling any other problem of civilization (which are exacerbated by population numbers anyway). We are hardwired as animals, bacteria, viruses, and our bourgeoning intelligence is not developing fast enough to prevent the damage done by our essence as beasts.

      So do not point your finger at anyone or anything but a mirror. Remember, in a free society *you* are da man.

    58. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it would be much easier to take solid blocks of elements, turn it into nanoscale materials, and use nanos to assemble the individual elements. No need to go straight from energy.

      leave this tech for synthesizing antimatter.

    59. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you assume we have a way to convert energy into matter with 100% efficiency, it's not far fetched to assume we'd also have a way to convert matter into energy.

      YES IT IS.

      I feel like I just wandered into the Monty Python logician sketch!

    60. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by surd1618 · · Score: 1

      I don't think we ought to capitalize its human name. If arctic terns or geese have a name for this planet, that'd be good.

    61. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no. Not again.

    62. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Capitalizing earth is actually the problem. Go free market!

    63. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't have to, smartass. We've had slow light for quite awhile now. My link even says we've slowed it down to about 1mph.

    64. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that was one of the dumbest things about Stargate Universe. Just one more reason to celebrate its cancellation!

    65. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is 7.2 billion people and still no one understanding the exponential function.

      And even fewer understand the logistic function.

    66. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link. I think the ST guys let their imaginations get the better of them. That is an order of magnitude more power than the sun's radiated power hitting the earth.

      In a universe like this, one would expect planetary annihilation to be commonplace rather than, say, the infantry combat seen in DS9.

    67. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that is relevant how? The only relevant constant is c, which is the speed of light in a vacuum, not whatever other medium you happen to come up with.

    68. Re: Energy-matter synthesis by RandomFactor · · Score: 1

      Ours might not survive it...but a new one might come in with a 'bang' ...until the next evolution of monkeys figures out how to do the same thing...

      --
      --- Mercutio was right.
    69. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by KingOfBLASH · · Score: 1

      You do realize your cellphone ALREADY has a powerful explosive in the back of it? It's called Lithium (it's the component in lithium ion batteries), and it REALLY does not like water. All you need to create an explosion is a multi tool, and some water.

      Yet, how often have you heard about people blowing up their cell phones?

      Since the industrial times, a lot of innovations have given individuals the ability to do a lot of damage if they use their tools incorrectly. Someone with a car who wants to go on a killing spree can be quite effective. Yet, mostly people don't. Because actually people are not interested in killing other people.

    70. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by stoploss · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but what about the converse? You point out how people don't make lithium molotovs from their cellphones, but how often do we read about lithium batteries in phones, laptops, iPods, etc inadvertently catching fire? Relatively frequently, right?

      Now replace that with a device that can channel megatons worth of energy.

      A poorly maintained vehicle might crash and kill, say, 1 to 20 people. A poorly maintained replicator might lose containment and annihilate everyone within many square km (i.e. nuclear bomb type devastation). If that were in an urban area, the death toll could be in the millions.

    71. Re:Energy-matter synthesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a big difference between exploding and catching on fire. The latter isn't going to kill someone unless it falls into other fuel sources or is strapped to them. Plus, the energy density of lithium as far as burning is on the order of 20 MJ/kg, so a 100 g cellphone battery that was 100% lithium would be only 2 MJ. This might seem a lot compared to say TNT which is around 4 MJ/kg, but that doesn't need an oxidizer and is actually a high explosive. For comparison, wood also has an energy density of about 20 MJ/kg, and food has energy density of around 20-40 MJ/kg. So in a sense, cellphones haven't given people any more handheld energy than cavemen had carrying around burning wood, although it does allow for a higher power density but not anywhere near as high as actual explosives.

  5. Backwards? by meerling · · Score: 5, Funny

    Aren't you supposed to "make light of the matter", and not the other way around?

    1. Re:Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You and your shining ideas...

    2. Re: Backwards? by Teranolist · · Score: 1

      Did you finally answer yourself so u can stop this retarded joke?

    3. Re: Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HELP! This man is suffering from a very low sense of humour! He needs treatment RIGHT NOW, or else he'll remain a sourpuss for the rest of his life, causing misery to those around him!

    4. Re: Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a dark sentiment. What's the matter?

    5. Re:Backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just wanna know what kind of annoying asshole are you that has been watching Purify's posting history just waiting for the day when you can post the exact same boilerplate troll message. He hasn't posted logged in since 2007! Holy shit man. Have you really been camping his account that long? Why do you have no life?

  6. What am I missing here? by bscott · · Score: 4, Informative

    I preface this with an admission that my serious physics studies were like 25 years ago now, but - photons are bosons, how can they "collide"?

    --
    Perfectly Normal Industries
    1. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Being bosons just means you can pack multiple quanta into the same state.

      All particles interact (otherwise, how would we even know they "exist"?), and photons interact electromagnetically. That means that they can induce the vacuum to produce pairs of electrically charged particles: say, an electron and a positron. Usually, those particles are just quantum fluctuations or "virtual particles", living for a tiny fraction of a second due to Heisenberg uncertainty. However, if two photons have enough energy between them (at least equal to the mass-energy of the pair), they can give their energy to the electron and positron and turn them into real particles. That's what they want to do here: get two photons to give their energy to a virtual particle pair, making it real.

    2. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are bosons, but that doesn't mean they can't interact.
      The reason they don't seem to interact is because they don't have an electric (or other) charge.
      So to first approximation (Maxwell's equations) photons indeed pass through each other without interaction, but when you take into account quantum electrodynamics you get photon-photon interactions at higher orders, much weaker than electron-electron interaction.

    3. Re:What am I missing here? by bscott · · Score: 3, Informative

      Thanks for that, I knew they interact but I didn't think they could "collide" per se, and from your explanation maybe "collide" is just the wrong word to be using?

      --
      Perfectly Normal Industries
    4. Re:What am I missing here? by bscott · · Score: 1

      That also helps, thanks.

      --
      Perfectly Normal Industries
    5. Re:What am I missing here? by WhiteZook · · Score: 4, Informative

      Collide is indeed a wrong word. Particle is a wrong word too. The problem is that there's no easy and correct way to explain what really happens.

    6. Re:What am I missing here? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Apologies, I'm not a physicist but ... if you create electron and positron, wouldn't they annihilate each other immediately again? Or do you somehow find a way to separate them?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:What am I missing here? by ssam · · Score: 1

      photons can scatter from each other (its just that the cross sections are low)
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    8. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      For some background: Matter creation, Two-photon physics

    9. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Depends. At minimal energy, they will have little kinetic energy, and annihilate immediately.
      Using more energetic photons may allow them to form positronium (still annihilates extremely fast), or separate completely.
      In the latter case you can then use a strong electric field to separate the particles (until they hit the wall of the container and annihilate).

    10. Re:What am I missing here? by Richard+Kirk · · Score: 2

      Empty space isn't that empty. You can get virtual pairs of electrons and positrons appearing and disappearing. They pop into existence because they can, even in empty space, but the have negative energy and a virtual wavelength, so they are almost bound to re-coalesce, and the energy of their recombination will exactly equal the energy of their creation, so they pay back all the energy they 'borrowed' and disappear without trace. However, if a photon turns up at this critical moment and pumps in the energy, then they can get permanently separated. Needless to say, this is pretty rare for single photons or we would not be able to see distant galaxies. We need monster photon energy densities, hence the hohlraum (I used to work on these ages ago).

      You can also measure a tiny force between two plates in a vacuum due to these virtual particles. This is called the Casmir effect or the Casmir-Polder force. See... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... for example. So they are real. Well, real-ish.

      This is not the same as Compton scattering. That also makes electron-positron pairs from photons but it also requires some mass to be around. This is the dominant absorbtion mode above about 1.5 MeV. So, I can see how they might get a tiny bit of straight pair production in their hohlraum, but they will also have some high-Z gold plasma giving you lots of conventional Compton scattering, which will look pretty similar. I guess they have a plan for that.

      Here's a fun site... http://profmattstrassler.com/a...

    11. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It still is a collision as much as an interaction between electrons, and still behaving as much as particle as electrons. The only difference is the interaction involves a loop in the Feynman diagram, but otherwise is just a low cross-section (chance) collision.

    12. Re:What am I missing here? by MatthiasF · · Score: 1

      They are colliding, even photons can have density events like matter.

      It's all about the speed at which the waveforms can react to the difference imposed on them. At lower energies, the photon waveform can react faster than the energy in the interaction (not a collision). But once you go beyond a certain point, the particle's waveform cannot react fast enough to the interaction and they two collide to cause differences in each particle.

    13. Re:What am I missing here? by DrLudicrous · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Think of photons as the central point from which oscillating magnetic and electric fields originate. And that this point moves through space at ~3x10^8 m/s. It is kind of like throwing two stones into water and watching the resulting interference patterns, excepts that the centers of those patterns are moving instead of stationary. Hence, collision isn't really an apt description.

    14. Re:What am I missing here? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Collide is the correct word for this. When two pool balls are colliding, what prevent them to penetrate each other is the electromagnetic force which maintain the integrity of each ball and they interact by this mean. A collision is an interaction when two things are close enough from each other.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    15. Re:What am I missing here? by AchilleTalon · · Score: 1

      By the conservation of the momentum, the two created particles will separate each other by going away from each other so the total momentum is still zero.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    16. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But in the same sense, electrons moving around are just interference patterns of their wavefunctions, and they never touch other electrons directly, instead exchanging photons to interact. If you want to say "collision" is not apt for a situation like that with photons exchanging a intermediary particle, then you might as well say collision is not apt for any situation that involves electromagnetic interaction (i.e. essentially everything called a collision in day-to-day life).

    17. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Collide is being used in a technical sense here to denote the transfer of energy and momentum between sets of particles. Energy and momentum move from the photons to the electron-positron pair. However, in this case, the photons probably also cease to exist, so you might call this process an annihilation... except that we usually talk about the reverse process of electron-positron becoming photons as being an annihilation, so that would make this an "exnihilation" or something. It makes it sound more exciting than it is, since time-reversal symmetry guarantees that annihilation and its reverse are basically the same physics.

    18. Re:What am I missing here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have a Republican-level of science knowledge. In other words, none at all.

      When two objects try to occupy the same space, they collide. It's simple second grade logic that you people aren't educated enough to understand.

  7. Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These scientist haven't discovered how to create matter from light. That's already standard theory. What they have done is devised a clever experiment to test this.

    1. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Racemaniac · · Score: 1

      I don't know, if they're the first to devise a working setup to achieve that, haven't they discovered how to do it?
      It was already discovered that it should be possible, but they might be the first to actually describe a possible apparatus to do so, so i guess it's fair to say that they discovered how to do it?

    2. Re:Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      The point is that you want the text to convey a meaning with the least amount of confusion and ambiguity. In this case 'discovered how to create matter from light' can be confusing, as it suggest that this theory is new. It also suggests the experiment has already been done.

    3. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Informative

      I don't know, if they're the first to devise a working setup to achieve that, haven't they discovered how to do it?

      According to http://www.gizmag.com/experime... the Breit-Wheeler theory hasn't actually been proven yet and remains a theory. The scientists in question believe they have found a way of proving the theory and doing it in a manner that requires only a fraction of the amount of energy than believed previously. Ie. they've set out to doing two things: proving a theory or disproving it, and trying out a new, more energy-efficient method of creating these Breit-Wheeler particles. I suggest just reading the article on Gizmag, it's short and kept easy-to-read.

    4. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Barsteward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Not a theory yet, still a hypothesis

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re:Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 4, Informative

      It is part of the theory of quantum electro dynamics, and even if it has been demonstrated in this form, the virtual possibility must already be accounted for in other quantum calculations that have been verified in experiments. Also, the reverse effects have been demonstrated before, and according to theory these effects are fully reversible. It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results.

    6. Re:Discover is the wrong word by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      Well, to be honest, they've asked for funding to do the obvious experiment to test it. It's not particularly clever, only expensive. And, as has been pointed out repeatedly above, they haven't "discovered" this, it is part of the standard lexicon of QED and has been for maybe 60-70 years.

      A clever way of testing it would be to use e.g. a free electron laser like the one we already have at Duke and shoot the laser beam into a "wiggler" -- a region of alternating crossed fields -- well downstream of the circulating ring. No need for two lasers, no need for massive new expense. In the frame of the photons, the region of alternating crossed EM fields looks like a photon heading the other way. You can make the wiggler field strength quite large and put a bending magnet just past it with detectors and look for positron-electron coincidences. This would actually have lots of advantages. Cheap. It uses existing hardware instead of building (much) new stuff. The pairs produced would not be in the rest frame of the lab (but in the "virtual" rest frame of the collision) and would only have to travel a short distance before encountering a field that could separate them before they annihilate. And when one was done, one could take the whole thing apart and go back to using the FEL for its many other purposes and say: Gee, guess quantum theory works after all and go about one's business. Unless of course, there are surprises, which seems to be to be class A unlikely but which is barely, barely possible and hence worth perhaps a MODEST expense to verify it.

      rgb

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    7. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't it incorrectly called theory if this prediction has not yet been tested? That would be a very old and widely accepted hypothesis.

    8. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "theory hasn't actually been proven yet and remains a theory"

      You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

      Something that is probably true but remains unproven is a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is proven.

      The way the public uses the term is not the same as the way science uses it. The public uses theory to refer to speculation. That would be hypothesis at best. All the predictions that can be derived from your "guess" have to be tested, and then those tests successfully replicated by a third party. THEN your guess becomes a theory. The narrative of a theory may or may not be correct but the mathematical model that narrative creates is fact and can be used to predict the behavior of reality.

    9. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      If it is a prediction of quantum electro dynamics and has not yet been tested and that test replicated you are incorrectly labeling quantum electro dynamics as a theory.

      "It would be a huge shock if a properly conducted experiment would fail to produce the expected results."

      Right. Whereas if it were a theory it would be impossible.

    10. Re:Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      A hypothesis is an explanation for observation that has not been tested thoroughly. This fails the definition on two accounts: there has not been an observation yet (it's just a proposal for an experiment), and the theory behind it (QED) has been tested thoroughly. So, it's a prediction of an already well-tested theory. And because QED involves integrating over all possible events, it's hard to imagine how QED could be shown to confirm so well with experimental results, if it didn't also correctly represent this type of energy -> matter conversion.

    11. Re:Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      I don't think you have the same definition of theory. Here's the one I use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    12. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No theory in science has had every possible permutation and possible prediction tested. That is the whole point of science, dealing with inductive logic where you can't test every possible instance of something in the history of the universe and over every value in the continuum of possible parameters. If you want something where you can check it works for every possible combination, you want a theorem from math, not science. And even in simple situations where you can enumerate a finite number of basic combinations, you can build up more complex things by adding more and more parts.

      Quantum electrodynamics has made a huge number of predictions, including some that have been tested quantitatively to more significant figures than any other theory in science. The reaction being considered as part of the collider here is closely related to several other reactions that are heavily tested, to the point you see simple tests of such things show up in undergraduate physics lab courses.

      In this sense, QED is probably one of the strongest examples in science of what a theory is, a predictive model extensively tested and confirmed across a broad variety of predictions. That doesn't guarantee that it is correct, and that predictions will always work, especially in complex situations. Even if the theory is correct, it is specific to electromagnetic interactions, and it could turn out there is an effect from QCD or from new physics that show up in more complicated setups. Or it could turn out to be incorrect in some subtle way we have not noticed, and that any theory that supersedes it would still have to make all the same predictions for what we've tested.

      Right. Whereas if it were a theory it would be impossible.

      If you try to define theory like that, then there are no theories in all of science, because none of them are guaranteed to be impossible to be wrong.

    13. Re:Discover is the wrong word by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      You're incorrectly defining theory to mean "truth" or some weaselly variation of that.

      A theory is a descriptive framework, today usually mathematical. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based on a theory. The theory of QED describes how photons can create matter particles under certain circumstances. An experiment can be designed using that theory, with the hypothesis that if you shoot high energy photons into a chamber prepared in such and such a way, electrons and positrons will come out.

    14. Re:Discover is the wrong word by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Something that is probably true but remains unproven is a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is proven."

      You're using the term incorrectly. The way the "public" uses it is closer to the scientific definition.

    15. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Gaygirlie · · Score: 1

      Something that is probably true but remains unproven is a hypothesis. It doesn't become a theory until it is proven.

      Well, I apologize for misusing the term, then, and will try to remember the distinction in the future.

    16. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      A theory is a hypothesis whose predictions have been confirmed. So it certainly can't be a theory without first being a hypothesis.

      This experiment is testing a prediction of a hypothesis. The hypothesis is based on observation, predictions are based on the hypothesis. QED is being tested here. There being a testable and untested prediction that must be true to confirm QED technically makes it a hypothesis. This prediction was previously thought untestable therefore it was called a theory. All the other testable predictions already having been confirmed just makes it highly unlikely this one won't be as well. But QED failing to predict this would shake things up quite a bit as I understand it.

    17. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "A theory is a descriptive framework, today usually mathematical. A hypothesis is a specific prediction based on a theory."

      A hypothesis is an educated guess to explain an observation of reality. A hypothesis is not a prediction of anything. Predictions are made to test a hypothesis. A hypothesis that is thoroughly tested is called a theory, especially one which encapsulates many tested hypothesis (again, with it's own confirmed predictions).

      You've got your order of operations wrong. The first step in the scientific method is not the theory, the first step is observation, followed by hypothesis, followed by prediction, followed by experiments to test prediction, revision if they don't, and in general practice peer review and replication throughout.

      QED is a hypothesis whose major predictions were all tested or believed not to be feasible to test. Now it has been found that this major prediction of QED is testable. If QED were being proposed today we wouldn't be calling it a theory without performing this experiment successfully and the results being replicated. That doesn't mean we should stop calling it a theory but a failure in this experiment would definitely put a hole in QED as it sits today.

    18. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      This is a major prediction of QED. Something can be considered a theory without every major prediction being confirmed but generally only when it is infeasible to test the prediction. Such is the case with QED which is otherwise widely tested and the prediction being tested in the proposed experiment was PREVIOUSLY thought infeasible to test.

      But if QED were being considered as a theory today, it would not generally get that distinction with an easily testable major prediction outstanding like this one.

    19. Re:Discover is the wrong word by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      Where do you get that this prediction is easily testable ? Have you read the article ?

    20. Re:Discover is the wrong word by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "Where do you get that this prediction is easily testable ? Have you read the article ?"

      Yes. Yes I have.

      FTFA, "In just one day over several cups of coffee in a tiny office in Imperial's Blackett Physics Laboratory, three physicists worked out a relatively simple way to physically prove a theory first devised by scientists Breit and Wheeler in 1934."

      "Lead researcher Oliver Pike, "... We were able to develop the idea for the collider very quickly, but the experimental design we propose can be carried out with relative ease and with existing technology. Within a few hours of looking for applications of hohlraums outside their traditional role in fusion energy research, we were astonished to find they provided the perfect conditions for creating a photon collider.""

      If it can worked out by a PhD candidate on a napkin in a day. I'm calling it easily testable. Not in the sense that it won't be a major accomplishment or in a way that is dismissive of those who actually do it of course. Just versus being physically possible and within reasonable bounds of worth funding.

    21. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      QED is a hypothesis whose major predictions were all tested or believed not to be feasible to test. Now it has been found that this major prediction of QED is testable. If QED were being proposed today we wouldn't be calling it a theory without performing this experiment successfully and the results being replicated.

      Except for this being one prediction out of hundreds of similar significance predictions that were already tested, including a wide variety related to the creation of matter via photon interaction. Armies of physics grad students come up with new potential tests for established theories quite regular, many of which are "feasible" but there is not enough resources in the world to test all of them. You seem to act like the test being proposed here is some sort of a keystone in an arch, when it more like a brick a rather large wall of many other bricks. And your qualification/definition of theory is disjoint from common science use, where even if there are upcoming or on going tests, the term gets used after some confirmation, not because every feasible test has been completed.

    22. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There being a testable and untested prediction that must be true to confirm QED technically makes it a hypothesis.

      There is no "technically a hypothesis", as there is no need to pigeonhole things into the oversimplified scientific method as introduced in grade school textbooks. The real world is not that clean, you don't have "confirmed theory" vs. "untested hypothesis", you get theories of varying confidence. The status doesn't jump around as new possible experiments pop up, it changes based on the results of experiments, and even then it is not clear cut. Various uncertainties can lead to a theory's prediction failing, but still not being a show stopper for the theory. When getting into more detailed, subtle effects, you can gain or lose confidence in a theory not finding it "confirmed" or "unconfirmed."

    23. Re:Discover is the wrong word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a huge difference between a grad student being able to work out a test, and being able to actually implement that test. The test is within reach of current work, but it is requires a decent amount of a setup on top of a rather large experiment, which is not cheap in terms of money or manpower.

  8. Photoproduction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This is a process that is already being studied. It's usually called "photon fusion" or "photoproduction". Using a laser as a source of photons instead of the usual bremsstrahlung + Coulomb field doesn't change any of the physics.

  9. This was already done back in 2001 by drkim · · Score: 2, Informative

    Light was already turned into matter back in 2001 by Lene Hau at Harvard.
    When the light pulse disappeared, the mass of the sodium increased.

    http://www.seas.harvard.edu/ha...

    1. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      But that was not a Breit–Wheeler pair production.

    2. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by Splab · · Score: 1

      You know how we know that you didn't even bother to read the excerpt?

    3. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by Karma+Bandit · · Score: 5, Informative

      What? How can you link a paper like that and completely not understand its contents? No, they did not create matter out of light. The important thing from that paper is that the light was frozen in place while it was traveling through the material. It's a nice experiment, but has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with photon-photon interactions and creating of particle-antiparticle pairs. The word "mass" doesn't even appear in the paper, for example. The photon energies are eV level in that paper, and photon-photon interactions require billions times more. Like, gamma rays, not visible light.

      You might argue, pedantically, that while the light was trapped in the sodium in that paper, the kinetic energy of the sodium atoms increased. And due to relativity, increase the kinetic energy of something also increases its mass. Well, you would be right, and that happens every time the sun shines on something and warms it up. But when you talk about creating matter from photons, they mean making brand new particles-- that is, making even the *rest mass* portion of their energy out of the photons-- not just speeding up existing particles. And that just cannot be done with light near the visible spectrum.

    4. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by drkim · · Score: 1

      What? How can you link a paper like that and completely not understand its contents?...

      I was in communication wi. Dr. Hau in 2007, and she indicated that the sodium mass had indeed increased when the probe pulse was stopped.

    5. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be an amazing measurement considering the mass of the sodium is on the order of 100 million amu, while the energy of the probe pulse has a mass equivalence on the order several tens of millionths of an amu (not even accounting for the portion lost to stimulated emission as mentioned in the paper). You could transfer enough energy to it to bring all of the sodium atoms to the verge of ionization, and still have only 0.05 amu change of mass. As important and interesting the results of the paper are, the ability to monitor the mass of the cloud of to over a dozen significant figures would be of a lot larger practical impact...

    6. Re:This was already done back in 2001 by drkim · · Score: 1

      I'm afraid I do not know how she determined the sodium mass increase in the BEC, and I was not in her lab at that time.
      She mentioned the mass increase in correspondence.
      I just found it interesting because of E=mc^2 implications.

      I am aware that, in the case of this article, the stated goal was to create matter; whereas at her lab, it was more of a byproduct.

  10. What is the matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these references to "matter", but what matter have scientists actually created from energy? An element? Which one?

  11. The next question is... by Z00L00K · · Score: 2

    How often do this happen in the "real life" universe?

    What is the threshold for creating matter from light? Can there be some factor not yet discovered where some matter is re-created from light in the universe today?

    --
    If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    1. Re:The next question is... by WhiteZook · · Score: 2

      The threshold is energy. You need very energetic photons to create something like an electron/positron pair. Using E = mc^2 you can calculate exactly how much. That kind of energy is not very common around here, but in places where such high energy photons are created, matter is also formed.

    2. Re:The next question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A high energy photon, or a high energy target, which is not so applicable in a lab setting usually but relevant in astrophysics. High energy cosmic rays will see the very low energy CMB photons so blue shifted they can interact to pair-produce, although this is not as relevant as a higher energy interaction producing pions resulting in the GZK limit for cosmic rays.

    3. Re:The next question is... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I experience this on a daily basis. I meet people who appear bright, but soon after turn out to be very dense. I can only guess there is a light to matter conversion there.

    4. Re:The next question is... by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      But how much energy is required - and which particles don't we know about yet that can lead to a transformation and aggregation into new matter?

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:The next question is... by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      For new matter that interacts with common matter, it would require more energy than current particle accelerators can produce, otherwise we would have already found it.

    6. Re:The next question is... by Dastardly · · Score: 1

      Very large stars create matter from light in their core. Although, in order to conserve momentum, it happens most commonly near a nucleus with a single photon. The photon converts to a positoron and electron and the nucleus recoils a bit conserving momentum. I expect that in the giant randomness of a stellar core gamma rays occasionally collide head on thus allowing momentum to be conserved that way, but I expect it is much rarer than the other mechanism, since at those densities a gamma ray probably encounters s nucleus before it can collide with another gamma ray head on.

      If the pair production reaches a certain threshold it actually causes the pressure in the core to drop resulting in collapse. This increases the temperature and pair production reducing the pressure further and accelerating the collapse. Since this happens in a non-iron core, run away fusion ensues disrupting the entire star as a pair production supernova. There are only a few candidates observed to date, and not close enough for a very high level of confidence that they really were pair production supernova.

    7. Re:The next question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From TFA: "This experiment would recreate a process that was important in the first 100 seconds of the universe and that is also seen in gamma ray bursts, which are the biggest explosions in the universe and one of physics' greatest unsolved mysteries."

    8. Re:The next question is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm plants convert sunlight into matter. I guess that is too unusual for them to study.

    9. Re:The next question is... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      E = MC2

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:The next question is... by geekoid · · Score: 1

      dammit. MC squared, duh,

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  12. Done in the late 90's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Collaborators demonstrated gamma-gamma pair production at SLAC in the late 90s.

    http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/proceeding/aipcp/10.1063/1.52962

  13. What element would it be? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    So what kind of matter would be produced? Some element we are already familiar with, or something entirely new?

    1. Re:What element would it be? by oneandoneis2 · · Score: 1

      RTFA - you wouldn't get any element.

      --
      So.. it has come to this
    2. Re:What element would it be? by WhiteZook · · Score: 2

      They are planning to create an electron/positron pair. Also, it is extremely unlikely you could create anything entirely new with currently available energy levels.

    3. Re:What element would it be? by WhiteZook · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The goal is to verify our understanding of quantum physics, not to create matter.

    4. Re:What element would it be? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... essentially an oscilloscope is a very expensive desk lamp, costing lots of money to create light that is easily abundant from $1 light bulbs?

    5. Re:What element would it be? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      positronium is not an abundant element

    6. Re:What element would it be? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      So what kind of matter would be produced? Some element we are already familiar with, or something entirely new?

      Lightanium, of course.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  14. One thing is certain by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

    No matter the result, they'll surely be able to make grant money go poof at the speed of light.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:One thing is certain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean this money?

      (philip.paradis posting as AC from this computer)

    2. Re:One thing is certain by geekoid · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. That money gets spend and circulates. It doesn't go 'poof'.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:One thing is certain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's smash some windows or dig some holes.

    4. Re:One thing is certain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's no longer grant money, but converted to a lesser form of money.

  15. Use for space propulsion? by sturle · · Score: 1

    A possible use for this is propulsion in space with no fuel. Even ion thrusters need fuel, and eventually run out of Xenon gas. If you can create matter in this way, it would, at least in theory, be bossible to make an engine which use only electricity from solar panels to make electron/positron pairs, and acellerate those in the opposite direction of where you want to go. Enabling satellites to stay in low earth orbit forever, and geostationary satellites to stay in position until it is time to de-orbit. And it would actually be economically feasible to de-orbit them, it will just take a very long time.

    1. Re:Use for space propulsion? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering this conserves energy and momentum, and most of the light involved won't interact, I don't think it would be far more efficient to just fire a laser out of the spacecraft using light pressure directly instead of trying to convert a fraction of the light into mass carrying a fraction of the momentum the light had already.

    2. Re:Use for space propulsion? by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      No, the matter-from-photon process has very, very low yield.

  16. some physicists work on real physics. by NemoinSpace · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good to see. The analogy to theoretical physics I use is, it's the difference between Imagining you are getting laid to getting laid.
    I don't really use that analogy, it just occured to me and now i am sad.

  17. e=mc^2 by MildlyTangy · · Score: 1

    My guess: Matter and energy are much of the same thing, E=mc^2 shows this. You put enough energy in a small enough space, its pretty likely that matter and antimatter condenses out of the energy.

    Put two high energy photons in a small enough place....

  18. Mod up! by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 1

    Please mod this up and GP down. +5 Ignorant.

  19. This was also done back in 1997. by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Informative

    Back in 1997 at Stanford green laser light was smashed into gamma rays to produce matter.

    Scientists Use Light to Create Particles

    Photons of light from the green laser were allowed to collide almost head-on with 47-billion-electronvolt electrons shot from the Stanford particle accelerator. These collisions transferred some of the electrons' energy to the photons they hit, boosting the photons from green visible light to gamma-ray photons, and forcing the freshly spawned gamma photons to recoil into the oncoming laser beam. The violent collisions that ensued between the gamma photons and the green laser photons created an enormous electromagnetic field.

    This field, Melissinos said, "was so high that the vacuum within the experiment spontaneously broke down, creating real particles of matter and antimatter."

    This breakdown of the vacuum by an ultrastrong electromagnetic field was hypothesized in 1950 by Dr. Julian S. Schwinger, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in physics in 1965.

    Emphasis mine.

    Thus, we do know that we can create matter by colliding photons already. The new experiment proposed could be useful because it does not require the electron-photon collision near the detector in order to produce the gamma photons and subsequent light on light reaction. They'll be firing gamma rays through a cylinder full of black body radiation. A gamma-gamma collision would be more interesting, IMO. The new gamma or black-body radiation collision experiment should be of even lower energy than the gamma and green laser collisions which produced matter in 1997.

    Why even go for a lower energy apparatus than what has been demonstrated at all? Simple: To verify the minimal energy level required to make the vacuum puke.

    1. Re:This was also done back in 1997. by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Also see
      http://www.slac.stanford.edu/e...

      It was actually done much earlier but generating matter by scattering off of virtual photons. The SLAC experiment was actually looking for (and found) nonlinear interactions in photon / photon collisions. (as were predicted by QED).

  20. actually "mass" is found twice in the paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The word "mass" doesn't even appear in the paper,
    Actually it does, but it is a rather odd type of mass..."Cambridge, Mass"

  21. its called coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > we want instant energy from dirt.
    dirt or rocks that burn are commonly referred to as "coal"

    1. Re:its called coal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough about your xmas

  22. Conservation of Charge cannot be violated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So these blokes create one electron and one positron. The electron is creation of matter. The positron is creation of antimatter.
    What do you think will happen when that positron bumps into an innocent bistanding electron? Mutual annihilation. And poof,
    you're back down to a zero net gain. There's no free lunch folks.

    1. Re:Conservation of Charge cannot be violated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless that positron collides with a neutron and it undergoes an inverse positive beta decay to produce a proton. This is very unlikely, but it is not like the point of this experiment is to produce a cheap source of matter...

  23. Not good. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Soon we'll have Solaranium-based weapons technology, capable of exploding star-emitted photons.

  24. Shema Yisrael! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Aims to turn light into matter

    I think those boffins are enroaching on a territory not meant for mortal humans!

    Genesis 1 - The Beginning

    "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness." (New International Version)

  25. Bada bing, bada bang! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bang particles with mass together, get light; bang particles of light together, get mass. Easy peasy!

  26. very old news anyway by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Pair production from gamma rays has been observed in bubble chambers for decades. Just the reverse reaction of positron-electron annihilation.

    1. Re:very old news anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be thinking of Bethe-Heitler from photon-nucleus pair production. The article is about Breit–Wheeler photon-photon pair production in a vacuum.

  27. Um, Praxis by mrflash818 · · Score: 1

    Um, Praxis

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

    --
    Uh, Linux geek since 1999.
  28. So just shine two flashlights at each other... by frank_adrian314159 · · Score: 2

    Sometime in the next few hours, quantum mechanics would predict a particle or two being emitted.

    Oh, you want to measure that against background noise? I guess you'll need a bigger flashlight. Maybe try the big six-cell ones.

    --
    That is all.
    1. Re:So just shine two flashlights at each other... by WhiteZook · · Score: 1

      With typical flashlight wavelengths, there's not enough energy to create particles. Waiting a few hours isn't going to help.

    2. Re:So just shine two flashlights at each other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering the photons in the visible spectrum are about 5-6 orders of magnitude short in energy needed for pair production, and that the chances of an interaction scales horribly downward with the number of photons needed, you could probably run those flashlights for the age of the universe and not get a single pair production from the light hitting each other.

    3. Re:So just shine two flashlights at each other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you're saying there's a chance?

    4. Re:So just shine two flashlights at each other... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is always a chance, just sometimes holding your breath would require lung capacity larger than the observable universe.

  29. Four words by mcnster · · Score: 1

    Tea. Earl Grey. Hot.

  30. Nice by vanzilar8378 · · Score: 1

    Nice!

  31. Earth shattering Ka-Boom! by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    So long as the dirt is Uranium, then I think we have already done that. Along with a few other elements. As it turns out, it can be rather dangerous, and its largest problem is public opinion.

    Before you start saying "but regular dirt", we are also talking about building a collider, which costs many many billions of dollars to look at he possibility to do these sorts of things on a level barely perceptible to human detection at all... so none of that!

  32. Holodeck? by aethelrick · · Score: 1

    So when do we get the Holodeck?

  33. Holodeck! by doccus · · Score: 1

    If this thing works I will absolutely eat my (holographic) hat!

  34. Matter Cloning! 8-D3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They got this one mine also! How Exciting... are they getting a good budget for it? Or they will just start building it...?

    1. Re:Matter Cloning! 8-D3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANd in a few days you started getting everything NYC with excrement in it, and has not stopped since... HOW wonderful!