Slashdot Mirror


Physicists Predict a Way To Squeeze Light From the Vacuum of Empty Space (sciencemag.org)

sciencehabit shares an excerpt from Science Magazine: Talk about getting something for nothing. Physicists predict that just by shooting charged particles through an electromagnetic field, it should be possible to generate light from the empty vacuum. In principle, the effect could provide a new way to test the fundamental theory of electricity and magnetism, known as quantum electrodynamics, the most precise theory in all of science. In practice, spotting the effect would require lasers and particle accelerators far more powerful than any that exist now. Physicists have long known that energetic charged particles can radiate light when they zip through a transparent medium such as water or a gas. In the medium, light travels slower than it does in empty space, allowing a particle such as an electron or proton to potentially fly faster than light. When that happens, the particle generates an electromagnetic shockwave, just as a supersonic jet creates a shockwave in air. But whereas the jet's shockwave creates a sonic boom, the electromagnetic shockwave creates light called Cherenkov radiation. That effect causes the water in the cores of nuclear reactors to glow blue, and it's been used to make particle detectors.

However, it should be possible to ditch the material and produce Cherenkov light straight from the vacuum, predict Dino Jaroszynski, a physicist at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow, U.K., and colleagues. The trick is to shoot the particles through an extremely intense electromagnetic field instead. According to quantum theory, the vacuum roils with particle-antiparticle pairs flitting in and out of existence too quickly to observe directly. The application of a strong electromagnetic field can polarize those pairs, however, pushing positive and negative particles in opposite directions. Passing photons then interact with the not-quite-there pairs so that the polarized vacuum acts a bit like a transparent medium in which light travels slightly slower than in an ordinary vacuum, Jaroszynski and colleagues calculate. Putting two and two together, an energetic charged particle passing through a sufficiently strong electromagnetic field should produce Cherenkov radiation, the team reports in a paper in press at Physical Review Letters. Others had suggested vacuum Cherenkov radiation should exist in certain situations, but the new work takes a more fundamental and all-encompassing approach, says Adam Noble, a physicist at Strathclyde.

82 comments

  1. Light from a vacuum by rossdee · · Score: 4, Funny

    Don't all vacuums have lights these days?

    Except the cordless handhelds of course

    1. Re:Light from a vacuum by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

      My Shop Vac doesn't have a light, but I fear that shooting it through an extremely intense electromagnetic field will void the warranty.

    2. Re:Light from a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My cordless handheld is the only one I've got with a light, clearly the rest of them need updating with whatever the latest firmware is.

    3. Re:Light from a vacuum by mrbester · · Score: 1

      My cordless handheld has a light that comes on when I'm recharging it.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    4. Re:Light from a vacuum by grep+-v+'.*'+* · · Score: 1

      If your Shop Vac is successfully launched thru a rail-gun then it was obviously defective and needed to be thrown away. There should be enough suction from a working device to PREVENT a launch -- otherwise you've been sold a poor imitation. Your Warranty lasts the Entire Lifetime of the Product (or when it fails, whichever comes first.)

      Only Buy Genuine Shop-Vacs(tm) From Approved Retailers!

      --
      If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
    5. Re:Light from a vacuum by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      You seem to be conflating "vacuum" with "vacuum cleaner". I must admit, though, I've never really understood the point of a vacuum cleaner. A vacuum should be clean by definition, there shouldn't be anything left to clean.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    6. Re:Light from a vacuum by tepples · · Score: 1

      A "vacuum cleaner" doesn't clean a vacuum; it cleans other things using a vacuum. it works by creating a partial vacuum that causes the atmosphere to push air across the brush head into the chamber, carrying dirt along with the air.

    7. Re: Light from a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh

    8. Re: Light from a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because Boeing tried to fix their planes is this way, doesn't mean it'll work for everyone.

    9. Re: Light from a vacuum by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      Whoosh

      That's what the vacuum cleaner said.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    10. Re:Light from a vacuum by RespekMyAthorati · · Score: 1

      WOOOOSH!

  2. Too stupid by Papaspud · · Score: 1

    This is beyond my function.

    --
    Everything above is my opinion....YMMV
    1. Re:Too stupid by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Someone invented a really inefficient way to generate light with magnets.

    2. Re:Too stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But when they perfect it, oh! First of coarse it'll be greyscale/black and white. Then HD and mobile. Finally, the 3D viewing and projection of peeking into time will be awesome! Wait, we get that for the money, right?

      captcha = corrects lol

    3. Re: Too stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lasers

  3. "Talk about getting something for nothing"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... translates to "WE NEEDS MOAR FUNDING!!!1!11!"

    Because otherwise they can't test their latest thinks fer reels nao. And nobody ever saw this one coming.

  4. Big magnets around the White House? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe we can squeeze some intelligence into/out of Twitler

    Nah, not possible.

  5. Can't buy it on Amazon yet by DamonHD · · Score: 1

    Counting down to the first post on the lines of " ... blah blah scientists always claim stuff will be ready 'soon'. Wake me up when I can buy it on Amazon at a decent price ... whine grumble it's dark here in the basement ..." B^>

    3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

    Rgds

    Damon

    --
    http://m.earth.org.uk/
  6. Validates Lucas's Sound Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the vacuum of space. THX at 1138 decibels in a vacuum is a thing.

    1. Re:Validates Lucas's Sound Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One can actually see logan run.

  7. the most precise theory in all of science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    quantum electrodynamics, the most precise theory in all of science

    So, what does this mean?

    1. Re:the most precise theory in all of science? by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      It is meaningless but it sounds meaningful and cool.

    2. Re: the most precise theory in all of science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really concise. Q.E.D.

    3. Re: the most precise theory in all of science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It means puncturing space time causing a cosmic rebirth.

      #we're-all-gonna-die

    4. Re:the most precise theory in all of science? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      ... precise theory ...

      Oxymoron much?

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    5. Re:the most precise theory in all of science? by lorinc · · Score: 1
  8. So... Star Wars-type holograms soon, then? by Doghouse13 · · Score: 1

    (Or not. Shame about the energy levels involved, and all that... But then again - that's an engineering problem...)

  9. The photons are not "squeezed from the vacuum" by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    The energy is squeezed from the other, higher energy photons or from the parallel particle beams being set up. There is no "zero point energy" or "vacuum energy" being harvested here. It is the _lack_ of Cerenkov radiation from "particles" like photons that early on led to quantum physics.

  10. accelerating charges radiate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A moving charge in a magnetic field experiences the Lorentz force, accelerates and thus radiates. The magnetic field component of an EM field ought to do just fine. As for radiation-wavelength from the accelerating charge ... that depends on the details. All known for 150 years.

  11. Sounds interesting by Sqreater · · Score: 1

    How many billions are we supposed to spend now on pursuing this essentially worthless piece of knowledge?

    --
    E Proelio Veritas.
    1. Re:Sounds interesting by quanminoan · · Score: 2

      You could probably fund the Future Circular Collider, ITER and its successor, a new ISS, and every proposed physics experiment and mars lander for something like the F35 program. Which do you think is a better investment for society?

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

      Probably the one that keeps foreign invaders off of your shores and prevents them from imposing their will on you.

    3. Re: Sounds interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The F35 although I hope we have already started work on the upgraded version of the F22 because having a true air superiority fighter is critical to keeping the Chinese and Russians in 3rd place. The last thing any sane person wants is losing the planet to Marxist dictators.

      Those others programs you mentioned are cute and mildly interesting but do a LOT less for the average citizen than a weapons program spread across 48 states which produces real engineering, a lot of which eventually enters the commercial market and keeps a lot of people employed.

      None of the programs you mentioned has any actual benefit to the average citizen. Ever. In any measurable way.

      It is cute that as a science nerd you would think so, but it simply is not so.

      Virtue signaling.

    4. Re:Sounds interesting by Sqreater · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Obviously the F35. The rest means nothing if we are subjugated. Security and protection first, busy-tech after.

      --
      E Proelio Veritas.
    5. Re:Sounds interesting by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Thanks for posting something relevant.

      My BIL works for Lockheed-Martin and a couple of years ago while he was working in Israel, he posted to his Facebook, the press release that LM had just shipped the umpty-umpth F35.

      That very afternoon, the F35 was the subject of a scandalous documentary of overspending, defective product, with pilots saying they wouldn't fly it and that, in the years of delay, other countries had implemented newer technology.

      He took the post down immediately.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re: Sounds interesting by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      It's people like you, stuck in the mindset of WWII, who are accepting old solutions to a new weaponscape. For instance, tanks are obso- fucking -lete.

      Fighter jets are great as bombers but who in simple hell is getting into dogfights these days?

      Think of drones, autonomous bombers operated from an office in NYC by a pimple-faced kid hired by contractor Booz Allen Hamilton.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    7. Re: Sounds interesting by jythie · · Score: 1

      Ahm... you do realize dogfights still happen? They are how you stop someone from stopping your bombers and still comes up in current wars. Just not among 'great powers' since we have not been fighting each other. Tanks are also still in heavy use in modern conflicts.

      TBH, it is hard to predict what warfare would be like today between wealthy nations that have attackable logistics. For that matter, drones have not really proven themselves in actual war, only in the 'rich country shooting at poor country that can't afford countermeasures'.

    8. Re:Sounds interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tiger rock, got it.

  12. It's a ZPM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From Star Gate.

  13. Whoop-Tee-Do! News you can use! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where can I get me some of that there vacuum squeezed light?

  14. If they squeeze the light out of the vacuum ... by Laxator2 · · Score: 2

    ... won't it be the case that the vacuum will be even darker than before ?
    But then, they will make it even harder to detect dark matter against this very dark vacuous background of space.

    1. Re:If they squeeze the light out of the vacuum ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not really what's meant here, I suspect it has gone through several rounds of journalist. They aren't extracting photons from a bath of photons, like water from a well.

  15. Nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  16. I know what will happen... by LordHighExecutioner · · Score: 1

    ...somebody will put a tax on the light coming from vacuum.

  17. Millennials... by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    ..continue to learn things and think they discovered them. This is called an "undulator" and it's a key component in free electron LASERs. It works, it's not something for nothing.

  18. So... by rnturn · · Score: 1

    Let there be light!?

    We should be careful playing around with this should it become more than a mere prediction.

    --
    CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
  19. "most precise theory" by Cyryathorn · · Score: 2

    I wonder how they measure the precise-ness of a theory? What's the second-most precise theory in science? What's the least precise?

    1. Re:"most precise theory" by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      The calculate the results of an interaction, and then they measure it. So far, we've got a ton of these prediction/experiment couples accurate to better than one part in a billion, and at least one that is better than one part in a trillion.

      Feynman once said that it was like measuring the distance between New York and Los Angeles accurately to within the width of a human hair.

      General relativity, for comparison, is accurate to about one part in 500 (orbit of Mercury), or one part in 5000 (Cassini). GR is much harder to test, of course, since we can't put the Sun and Mercury in a lab and isolate just the one interaction that we want to measure.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    2. Re:"most precise theory" by Cyryathorn · · Score: 2

      Er well, yeah, but that's the precise-ness of our ability to measure, not the precise-ness of the theory itself. If we were able to measure GR effects to 1 part in a quadrillion, nothing about the theory itself would have changed -- only our ability to measure things. Eh, it don't matter. It just struck me as an odd way to refer to a characteristic of a theory.

    3. Re:"most precise theory" by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Mod this up.

      I posted essentially the same. "Laws," of physics have a preciseness that we're continually fine-tuning.

      Theories are scientific wild-ass guesses.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    4. Re:"most precise theory" by Cyryathorn · · Score: 1

      Eeek that's not what I meant. Mostly I was saying that when we say "E equals MC squared", it's a strict mathematical equivalence, and it has no need for a measure of precise-ness. But from now on, I'm going to say "E equals MC squared, give or take" just for funsies.

    5. Re:"most precise theory" by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      That's not entirely true. There's error in our measurement, yes, but there's also error in the theoretical prediction.

      Most modern theories require some approximation. QED, for example, posits that any particle interaction will be affected by an essentially infinite sum of contributions. Since these contributions become smaller and smaller, you can add up the first few and get a pretty good prediction... but not perfect.

      Still, instead of "most precise theory" a better description might be "most precisely validated theory."

      Precision is important because higher energy phenomena can manifest as small anomalies in lower energy interactions. For example, an alternative to building a bigger collider, able to directly generate high energy conditions, is to build specialty colliders and detectors that can more precisely measure lower-energy interactions. This is what the g2 experiment at Fermilab is doing: precision measurements of the magnetic moment of the muon disagree with theoretical predictions, possibly indicating some higher-energy new physics.

  20. A Mechanism for Hawking & Unruh Radiation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I wonder, if Hawking & Unruh Radiation are generated from quantum vacuum, using similar mechanism(s)?

  21. No you are not too stupid this is nonsense by goombah99 · · Score: 1, Troll

    ahhhhgg my pet peeve is when physicists confuse physics and math. This is a great example of this. They see something unexpected in a simple approximation of the math, and think wow that's magic!

    Here's the general pattern of stupidity. First they create a mathematical model of an isolated system. Say atomic orbitals on an atom. They do this for a second atom. Noting in this representation says they atoms should "stick together". But surprise, they do and form a "covalent" or "ionic" bond.

    Next what they do is they keep the original representation of orbitals -- cause that's math they can solve. And they perturb it a bit with a coupling term. Now they get some new energy levels which explain the bonding attraction.

    Where they get confused is they keep descibing the system in the old orbitals but then talk about the new physics using the old terms.

    In realitiy if you move beyond the perturbative treatment -- the one the maths can be solved for-- and move to just the full eigen states of the joined system you would not see any surprises at all. It's only a surprise when you don't do this.

    Now there's absolutely nothing wrong with using perturbations on solvable systems rather than trying to do things exactly but on impractically harge to solve systems. Even better the perturbations give us some intuition about how the transiation from uncoupled to fully coupled happens. So I'm not knocking that.

    I'm knocking the magical mysticism that comes from not realizing what the right math was and the right eigen states were.

    In this case the if you overdrive space, then the eigne states of space are not the same as the ones they are descibing. they are emitting light because their over driving of the space creates a photonic state coupled to the matter states. they are literally making the photon not squeezing it out of the vaccum. those vacuum states don't even exist at all anymore in the he highly perturbed environment.

    Here's a super tangible analogy. try balancing a broom stick upside down in the palm of your hand. it falls over because that's not an eigen state. Now move your hand rapidly in a circle. wow magically the the broom stays up. But what happened in math ville is not magic. the inverted state is an eigen state of this system.

    Now this relates to this case as follows. Imagine instead of a broom we has electrons orbiting an atom. If we excite this with the right size photon the electron goes up an orbital then emits a different (or the same) photon when it relaxes back to a new unoccupied orbital. But suppose we hit this with a photon whose energy is above the ionization threshold. the electron gets blasted off. this is our broom falling over. Then we go into the lab and we try this and we find that strangely, the electron doesn't get blasted off. the photon is absorbed by the atom just like there was a resonant state there. But we know from the orbital model that isn't true. so it's magic! How did it happen. Well, if the electric field of the photon is large enough. and largre enough means it's on the same strength as the electric field between the electron and th enucleous then the photon's electic field is not a perturbation on the orbit causing electic field.

    The mystical physcist descibes this as saying the photon figuratively creates it's own orbital on demand then occupies it. The mathematical phyicist says there is no atom and photon. there's an electromagnetic field. and this is an eigen state of that were the electron has some new wild orbital. It's exactly the same as the upside down broom. The rotation of your palm is the field of that photon perturbing the gravitaitonal field that makes the broom fall. And thus creates a new non-falling broom state.

    there is no vaccum field in this perturbed system. It's just you exciting mater to make photons.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re: No you are not too stupid this is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you had read the article instead of tooting your horn you would realize they control for that.

    2. Re: No you are not too stupid this is nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to know a lot about this. Can you explain what they mean by this little gem: "light travels slower than it does in empty space, allowing a particle such as an electron or proton to potentially fly faster than light"

      Because it sounds like bullshit to me, but I'm no physicist.

    3. Re: No you are not too stupid this is nonsense by goombah99 · · Score: 1

      They are describing a real effect first noticed for what is called cherenkov radiation (google that term to learn the details). What it means is that in an optically dense media or equivalently any slow waveguide, light travels slower than c, the speed in free space. In such a medium, you can shoot a particle like an electron faster than the slowed down light. This results in weird radiation effects. It's not too hard to make the light slow. it's basically c/index-of-refraction. so for example glass has n=1.5, where as electrons in a wire can go 0.9c (or faster). So this is not hard to do.

      --
      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
  22. Wandering stars, in blackest darkness forever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.

    Mystery Red of the Great American Eclipse
    It has blood on it!
    ABCNews: Eclipse makes pendulum wander
    Losing my religion
    Sun researchers find strange eclipse reading

  23. Cherenkow radiation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First the Russians give us that orange lying fuck and now we'll light our homes with Russian lights. tsts.

  24. It would be a great way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to build a propellantless space drive. If you have a mirror on one side and nothing on the other you could accelerate a space ship using this method.

  25. Pedantic annoying comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Light does *not* "move slower in the medium". Photons always travel at c, but they bounce off stuff, so it takes longer to meander through.

    1. Re: Pedantic annoying comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People have been beating you up a lot, haven't they?

  26. This is progress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You have a dipole oscillating in a resonance slot...cancelling it out. You add an oscillating component in the direction of travel and bingo.... photon. You only put in energy so you think photons are only energy...even the oscillation.

    Here they're describing the same effect wrapped in some Scrodinger twaddle... but its really a step in the right direction IMHO.

  27. Vacuum isn't NOTHING by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The vacuum of space isn't NOTHING. On quantum level it's actually quite busy. In other news, Earth is not flat.

  28. Hollywood was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Hollywood was right, weapon laser beams ARE visible in vacuum!

  29. Something for nothing ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    From TFS:

    Talk about getting something for nothing . Physicists predict that just by shooting charged particles through ...

    "Shooting," and, "charged," suggests expenditures of energy.

    That's not "nothing."

    Thank you, thermodynamics.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    1. Re:Something for nothing ... by meglon · · Score: 1

      Well, it also says it's going through a vaccum (where the "nothing" comes from) but then states that the vacuum is filled with virtual pairs/particles (which is most definitely something). Seems they're changing the meaning of ideas on the fly to make a bad statement work.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  30. Empty vacuum? by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 1

    Isn't a vacuum, by definition, void of all matter and at zero pressure? Or do a large majority of scientests beleave otherwise?

    --
    I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    1. Re:Empty vacuum? by meglon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but there is no perfect vacuum that we know of, even without getting into the quantum stuff.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    2. Re:Empty vacuum? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      In quantum mechanics a vacuum is defined as the lowest possible energy state. The uncertainty principle prohibits zero energy states, so a vacuum always has some base energy, which can be thought of as a sea of virtual particles popping into and out of existence.

      Space that includes a strong magnetic field and particles zipping through it isn't really a vacuum, but I think the point of the calculation is that the virtual particles in an actual vacuum can be polarized a little bit by a strong magnetic field and will thus act as a medium with some small but non-unity index of refraction. That will slightly lower the speed of light, causing very high energy charged particles to emit Cherenkov radiation.

    3. Re:Empty vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The theory is that in 'empty space' will spontaneously create virtual particle / anti particle pairs that almost instantly alienate themselves.
      Applying a strong electromagnetic field will cause the virtual particle / anti particle to sometime split. ??? The split causes the particles to move faster than light (different feynman diagram state?) causing Cherenkov radiation ???

      check out 'The Nature of Nothing | PBS Space Time' for a better explanation.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5rAGfjPSWE

    4. Re:Empty vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pairs that almost instantly alienate themselves

      Is it because of something they say?

    5. Re:Empty vacuum? by Opyros · · Score: 1

      So the ancients weren't quite wrong to say that "Nature abhors a vacuum"?

    6. Re:Empty vacuum? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes. In ways they couldn't imagine.

      Also, the much maligned aether, a substance that permeates all of space and (a bit later, the medium through which light propagates), is basically how you'd describe quantum fields (from the standard model) and space-time (from relativity).

    7. Re:Empty vacuum? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Space that includes a strong magnetic field and particles zipping through it isn't really a vacuum, but I think the point of the calculation is that the virtual particles in an actual vacuum can be polarized a little bit by a strong magnetic field and will thus act as a medium with some small but non-unity index of refraction. That will slightly lower the speed of light, causing very high energy charged particles to emit Cherenkov radiation.

      Strong electromagnetic field. It is already know that a charge particle in a strong magnetic field will generate protons in a vacuum.

  31. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    Squeezing energy out of null-space-- isn't that a ZPM?

  32. Light Speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In the medium, light travels slower than it does in empty space, allowing a particle such as an electron or proton to potentially fly faster than light." Light always 'travels' at the same speed. When light passes through a medium, like water, it is absorbed, re-emitted , absorbed re-emitted and so on, so the energy is not always light as it travels through the medium. Particles can never be observed to be moving at or faster than the speed of light.

  33. What!?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn it! I just finished changing out all my compact flourescents, and now somebody invents Cherenkov vacuum bulbs. Hopefully They'll come to market before the LED EOL.

  34. So this going to lead to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... new lamps ?

    Seems interesting :)

  35. Well Sure, But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can they squeeze the last of the toothpaste from the tube?

    I mean, we have to deal with the big questions here!

  36. #MeToo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Physicists didn't have permission to squeeze my vacuum.

    #metoo