Slashdot Mirror


Femto Fairy Lights - Touchable Holograms (i-programmer.info)

mikejuk writes with this story about a Japanese team working on creating touchable holograms. I Programmer reports: "One method of creating a volumetric, i.e. true 3D, display, is to use a high power laser and focus it on a small spot in space. The air in that spot will be heated to the point where it ionizes and glows with a bright blue light. Scan the laser really fast and you can make a full 3D arrangement of glowing points of light — not exactly a hologram but as good as. Of course, the big problem is that you have a lot of energy being focused on small areas and human interaction could be a problem. You might well get burned by the laser if you attempted to touch or interact with the display. The solution is to use a really fast laser, a femtosecond laser, that heats a small spot to a high temperature but only for a very short time. This is much safer because the total energy involved is smaller. This is the reason you can touch sparks without getting burned."

57 comments

  1. Light sabre! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not yet practical, but maybe this is the technology that one day will give us real working light sabres.
    Why project boring fairies, when you can configure it in a straight line and use it for cutting.... butter? Small amounts of butter.

    1. Re:Light sabre! by iMadeGhostzilla · · Score: 1

      No military would make a light saber -- and you'd need military grade technology for it -- since as a weapon a light saber is quite ineffective, a guy with a 19th century handgun is more dangerous than a guy with a light saber. You'd rather put the huge energy needed for it into action at a distance. Psychologically, The appeal of lightsaber is purely archetypal, it being a sword.

      That said, maybe a tech like this could lead to retractable light blade that looks and glows like a light saber, without any cutting or melting power or solidity behind it. That would actually be even better since anyone could have it.

    2. Re: Light sabre! by tylersoze · · Score: 1

      The only reason a light saber is useful in the Star Wars universe is that you can block blaster fire with it but presumably only force users have the reflexes and senses to do that.

    3. Re: Light sabre! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you have to admit, it's not as clumsy or random as a blaster...

    4. Re:Light sabre! by lucien86 · · Score: 1

      Now if you had a real light sabre - that would be the most useful thing in the world. Take it apart, reverse engineer the force field technology, and in a few years you'll be building Star Wars machines.. Someone has to think of these things. : )

      --
      Below the speed of light Special Relativity is one of the most accurate theories in physics - above the speed of light..
    5. Re:Light sabre! by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      Besides, you still couldn't block one blade with another. And it wouldn't ZWOOM, ZWOOM, ZWOOM right.

    6. Re: Light sabre! by kmoser · · Score: 1

      The only reason a light saber is useful in the Star Wars universe is that you can block blaster fire with it but presumably only force users have the reflexes and senses to do that.

      And only when they are being shot at by one person at a time, from one direction, with a low-power hand-held blaster. Change any of those variables and suddenly a light saber is useless.

  2. The smell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I love waking up to the smell of ozone. I'm sure others share my sentiments.

    I saw tech like this ionizing the atmosphere to create holograms years ago. Have they improved on it? Sure, but I can't see it being anything but a diversion from looking for a better path. Even those pools of liquid that use wave forms to create shapes would be better than this. The only thing I can see a use for this tech, of rapid tracking lasers that ionize things, would be in things like a laser defense system, and it could lower the energy cost for such a thing.

    1. Re:The smell. by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, see, that's exactly what I want. A small (patio-scale) laser defense system, to protect my family from disease-bearing mosquitoes and aggressive stinging insects. If you've got the tech to track targets at that scale of size and velocity, distinguishing desirable from undesirable insects is probably not too tough. I've already seen some demos.

      Would I spend a million bucks on such a system? Of course not. A thousand? I wouldn't, but many would. A hundred? Sure. Come on, exponential advancement!

    2. Re:The smell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, so glad to have your undoubtedly fully informed opinion. Since some random AC, who I'm certain took the time to read the article and the academic paper to which it refers, doesn't see any use for "this tech", I think we should all summarily dismiss it.

    3. Re:The smell. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... disease-bearing mosquitoes ...

      Wasn't there an article a few months ago about mosquitoes avoiding bright infra-red light? I would assume it depends on how hungry she is.

  3. Griffith? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Uhh, you wanna be careful about calling Femto a fairy. He kicked Guts's ass using only his mind. And you're no Guts.

  4. Re:Why would people want to touch holograms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch the video in the article and you'll get it!

  5. Would interference work? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2
    When sound waves of nearly equal frequencies interfere we hear a beat frequency which is the difference between the two frequencies. We could create two sound waves in beyond audible range but produce beat frequencies in audible range. We could send these two sound beams and people on their individual paths would not hear anything. But where these two beams intersect, the beat frequency sound would be heard by those in that area.

    Can we think of doing something in light waves, two lasers in beyond visible range, but they interfere with beat frequency in visible range. So the intersection point would have a visible spot. We would only see it if there is dust or something that would scatter the visible light produced there due to interference. And if it is possible to move the interference location by scanning we might be able to project a visible 3D image.

    I obviously don't have either the math, or the physics or the electronic skills to do it. In fact I am not even sure it is a viable idea. Wondering if people have tried to use interference between sound waves for such interesting applications?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Would interference work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You speak of a nonlinear effect. The required energy density to do something like that with light in air would be extremely dangerous to the eyes.

    2. Re:Would interference work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      lasers in beyond visible range, but they interfere with beat frequency in visible range

      They don't. Photons just pass through each other without any kind of interference, unlike sound waves in air, where the medium does actually vibrate at the beat frequency.

      If light interacted like that, you'd probably not be able to see very far, and there would be "funny" effects when additional light sources are turned on.

    3. Re:Would interference work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As per other anons, not with light, but this idea is indeed being used to great effect with sound waves: http://www.holosonics.com/products.html

    4. Re:Would interference work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Talk of photons is a distraction to this discussion, we are considering here the wave-like nature of light:

      In your thought experiment the light is travelling as an electromagnetic wave and two coherent beams will most definitely interfere with each other in the way you imagine.

      However, they create a real image at the point of their interference, so to observe them you must place an eyeball, camera, screen, or simple piece of paper at that actual point so you can see the incident interference patterns. In other words, the light must scatter from something: we know that atmospheric gasses are too transparent to do this, and if you introduce dust or smoke then you don't gain any advantages to the approach.

      This is how a simple Michelson interferometer works.

    5. Re:Would interference work? by hankwang · · Score: 1

      "When sound waves of nearly equal frequencies interfere we hear a beat frequency which is the difference between the two frequencies."

      Unfortunately, that only works if the sound waves by themselves are audible. It won't convert supersonic sound to audible sound, unless the original amplitude is so large that you get significant nonlinear effects (that's essentially how a radio receiver works).

  6. Indeed by rmdingler · · Score: 2
    Let's agree that the acceptable level of burnt humans is zero,

    since the technology is likely to be initially exploited for gamers and pron users.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

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

      I can't see a use for holograms with gaming, at least something that isn't a fad or a holodeck. The best use I could see would be medical imaging or an engineer that gets to have all the toys he wants.

    2. Re:Indeed by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      > Let's agree that the acceptable level of burnt humans is zero,

      Eh, the level of injury we are willing to tolerate from something is roughly in proportion to how cool it is. Cars? Super cool. Guns? Pretty goddamned cool. Mating with a laser mote? TOTALLY AWESOME!

    3. Re: Indeed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No imaginatoon, eh?

      Wolfenstein 3D... in 3D!!!

  7. One question by DarkOx · · Score: 3, Funny

    Will it be possible to mount these things on a shark?

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re: One question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No only Trex

  8. Burnt or blinded? by burtosis · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not easy to burn humans, skin is usually covered by a film of moisture and skin is composed of mainly water which has a high specific heat.
    Eyes on the other hand are easily blinded by lasers orders of magnitude less energetic that those causing burns. Even reflections from objects can cause temporary or permenant blindness. A technology for hologram displays that blinds it's users is of limited value.

    1. Re:Burnt or blinded? by Jamlad · · Score: 1

      You know what else pulsed lasers are great for? Ablation. The vaporization of matter. We're not talking of "burning" away material here. We're bypassing the relatively inefficient method of thermal excitation of molecules (vibration) and going directly to the ejection of matter through excitation into a charged particle plasma flume. The real danger here is that with the pico-/femto-second lasers it becomes athermal, and at low intensities it can be a gradual process. I don't go around leaving my skin exposed to scattered ultrafast laser light, but I can imagine I might end up wondering how I got sunburnt indoors.

    2. Re:Burnt or blinded? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      I ran into this problem while trying to build a laser lawnmower. You have to boil the water out of the grass before the laser will cut it, so the lawnmower needs to move at a very slow speed to cut effectively.

    3. Re:Burnt or blinded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just didn't use a big enough laser.

    4. Re:Burnt or blinded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Assuming you could create femtosecond pulses with them, you could use "eyesafe" IR. That is to say IR which is in the middle of the wavelengths which dump all their energy on the retina and on the cornea.

      If you position your eyes just right it can still damage on/near your cornea, but the odds are minimized and your retina is safe.

    5. Re:Burnt or blinded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, grass boils YOU!!!!

    6. Re:Burnt or blinded? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I saw this displayed at the Emerging Technology exhibit at the Siggraph conference this year.
      While it's true that there is no obvious burn marks, it still can hurt, and your finger feels dried up for some time afterwards if you touch it.
      The technology is undoubtedly cool, but, in my mind, it's far from safe just yet. It will be some time before we get our holodecks.

    7. Re:Burnt or blinded? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Yep. Our laser was only 3W, and that was quite enough of a hazard to our retinas.

  9. "not exactly a hologram" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank you.

  10. Does anyone know the power consumption for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The amount of energy required to burn human things rather big I suppose, so the first idea would probably heat a whole room?. How exactly is the second one? Tens of watts? Hundreds? Thousands? I know the COP21 is not binding anyway, but still...

  11. Re: Why would people want to touch holograms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because then Rimmer's dream will be realized.

  12. Cancer may start with a single cell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might not feel burned, but individual cells may be altered.
    No, thanks.

  13. The number one pricess in the world. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Japanese team working on creating touchable holograms

    No, they are not working on creating touchable hologramS. Those japanese are working on creating a particular touchable hologram. Her name is Hatsune Miku. But if you try to touch her, she will hit you over the head with her leek! Those trying to steal her pantsu should expect being curb-stomped.

  14. This news is over four years old. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And was featured on Slashdot something like two years ago.

    And fucking Soylent sucks just as much (They have a story about Cox's fine - at 17 million when the actual fine is 25 million.)

    It looks like all slashdot-like sites are just going fucking stupid. Pipedot seems to be the only one that actually focuses on real news for nerds. Soylent and Slashdot are just regurgitating the current flavor of the week garbage.

  15. For porn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like all other things made in Japan, this will eventually be used in porn in some way.

    Just as porn drove the broadband Internet, it will drive tech such as this.

  16. air vs liquid/skin by Claus-DieterOhl · · Score: 1

    Once the intensity is sufficiently high to ionize air it can easily ionize a denser medium such as water or the skin. Superficially, yet with every sensatory experience one will loose some piece of skin. Femtosecond lasers are used for Lasic at intensties below the ionization threshold of air, still they ablate cornea. Maybe not child safe...

  17. Laser beam carries on by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Not yet practical, but maybe this is the technology that one day will give us real working light sabres.

    Unlikely. The problem with using lasers for this is that they focus the beam to get the intensity needed to ionize the air and so much of the beam will carry on only slightly attenuated by the plasma. Assuming you had the power requirements to run this intensity continuously (or at least at a far higher repetition rate than todays femto-second lasers) then you could certainly imagine using this to create a tube of plasma like a light sabre but in reality what you have created is a massively powerful laser beam which you have focussed to ionize the nearby air.

    This would undoubtedly cut through things but the cutting power would not be limited to the length of the blade and, if you did not bother to focus it, it would extend a great deal further and be harder to detect...but at the cost of looking nowhere near as cool. However I expect that, unlike Hollywood, when it comes to real world weapons effectiveness will outrank the "looking cool" factor by quite a lot. If you really want a lightsabre I think it is far more likely to come from other ways of generating and containing plasma (such as this) rather than using laser-created plasma because in the latter case you might as well just use the laser beam without the plasma.

    1. Re:Laser beam carries on by artfulshrapnel · · Score: 2

      Doesn't seem too crazy that it would be used for novelty purposes a couple dozen years from now though. You could project rings of glowing dots up a space about 3 feet from the hilt, creating a cylinder of glowing light in the air very similar to the appearance of a lightsaber, but harmless. A great toy for rich adults.

      If you did want to use the lasers as a cutting tool (hooked up to a power source) it could actually be a pretty nifty UI. Project a line of dots through the air to show where the "blade" is, and whenever they detect contact as shown in the tech demo focus an intense laser pulse onto that point to cut through whatever is there. No need to inefficiently blast lasers everywhere when you can detect the precise point where the "beam" is disrupted. Since it's using optics technology you could probably set it not to cut things like flesh and cloth while you're at it.

    2. Re:Laser beam carries on by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      You could project rings of glowing dots up a space about 3 feet from the hilt, creating a cylinder of glowing light in the air very similar to the appearance of a lightsaber, but harmless.

      I would not describe the power of laser required to do this as "harmless".

  18. Beats = amplitude modulation by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    Can we think of doing something in light waves, two lasers in beyond visible range, but they interfere with beat frequency in visible range.

    No. First the beat frequency is the frequency at which the amplitude of the wave oscillates. The frequency of the wave itself is the average of the two waves which make it up. So actually what you would want is one higher frequency and one lower frequency beam of waves so say IR and UV at which point the beat frequency will be too high to see.

    The next problem you face is that beats only occur at the precise point where the beams interfere and they are not created and then emitted from that point as a new wave. With sound the ear hears the beats created at the point where the ear is. This would also be the case for light so to create an image you would have to arrange the beams such they interfered on each, individual retina of the people who will see the image with each retina getting a different image to create the 3D effect.

    Lastly there are few issues with this in that focussing IR and UV beams onto someone's retina is probably not a good idea from a medical point of view. In addition the frequency would have to be controlled incredibly well controlled to generate the colours and the system would have to track the location of everyone's retina. Lastly, if you overcame all these hurdles, the result would probably be extremely disconcerting because you would possibly be able to see the image whether or not your eyes were open depending on the penetrative power of the radiation used e.g. microwave and X-ray will penetrate the eyelid but again focussing microwaves and X-rays on your eyeball is probably a really bad idea.

  19. There are worse problems... by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    I ran into this problem while trying to build a laser lawnmower. You have to boil the water out of the grass before the laser will cut it...

    That's actually not the worse problem with a laser lawnmower. If you had tested it on a lawn with a lot of dry grass the resulting grass fire would probably have meant that you would not be here telling us about how it did not work. Still, if you and your house did survive the experience at least you would not need to cut the grass for a while.

  20. Re:Why would people want to touch holograms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch the video in the article and you'll get it!

    Ok, you tricked me into RTFA.

  21. When can I order... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    So when can I order a light sabre with a beam shaped like Princess Leia?

  22. New sign needed! by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    After the ubiquitous laser warning sign we also need a sign like "do not touch the hologram with the remaining arm" !

  23. Played with Sparklers, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This is the reason you can touch sparks without getting burned."".

    It's nice that your life is so safe that the only sparks you've been around are basically child sparklers, but you wouldn't have said that if you'd ever been around a welding shop, they wear big thick aprons for good reason, the sparks.

  24. Ah, here we go... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

    Laser Bug Zapper Inches to Market -- the video is from 2010. Didn't realize it had been kicking around that long.

  25. That "display" will produce ozone in high levels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think that is just some buzz for nothing.