I'm Geeking Out! :w00t:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-57604823-1/science-trumps-the-force-to-create-a-real-life-lightsaber/
QuoteScience trumps the Force to create a real-life lightsaber
Researchers from MIT and Harvard create a new form of matter and teach us all a lesson about the power of quantum friendship.
by Eric Mack
September 26, 2013 1:52 PM PDT
In journalism, there's something called a lede, which is just another word for the main or most important part of your story. Normally you want to lay it out for the reader in the first sentence or two. Obviously, I'm hesitating here.
That's because I can't decide if it's more important that researchers at MIT and Harvard have just managed to create a previously unobserved form of matter by getting photons to bind together into molecules, or the fact that the result is basically a real-life lightsaber -- that could be part of a quantum computer one day.
Actually, I think what this story is really about is...friendship.
See, photons -- which are the elementary particles of light -- tend to be massless and kind of aloof. If you shoot two laser beams at each other, the photons just pass right through each other without so much as a hello or a high five.
But when the researchers fired a few photons into a vacuum chamber with a cloud of extremely cold rubidium atoms to take advantage of an effect called a Rydberg blockade, the photons started hanging out and even left the chamber together as the first "photonic molecule" -- a sort of quantum bromance -- ever observed.
And it's that bond between new particle bros that creates the new form of matter, which bears a resemblance to that most awesome weapon from a galaxy far, far away.
"It's not an in-apt analogy to compare this to lightsabers," said Harvard Professor of Physics Mikhail Lukin in a news release. "When these photons interact with each other, they're pushing against and deflect each other. The physics of what's happening in these molecules is similar to what we see in the movies."
The team made no mention of the potential for weaponizing the new molecules to take on any Sith lords, but I suppose DARPA or any number of Jedi masters who follow Crave could come calling at any moment.
Photonic molecules would be more likely to advance quantum computing, according to Lukin: "Photons remain the best possible means to carry quantum information. The handicap, though, has been that photons don't interact with each other."
Until now. Turns out you just had to get some photons in the same place and introduce them to each other through some totally chill atoms, and they'll actually hit it off.
Lukin says this new bond between photons could also have practical applications for contemporary chipmakers working to convert light into electric signals.
Most mind-blowing of all, he also suggests the breakthrough could one day lead to technologies that allow for the creation of complex 3D structures, like crystals, made out of light.
Dude, these Cambridge smarties didn't just make "Star Wars" real, they've brought "TRON" to life at the same time! All because of the power of friendship ... and science!
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fasset1.cbsistatic.com%2Fcnwk.1d%2Fi%2Ftim2%2F2013%2F09%2F26%2Flasersaber1.jpg&hash=9a335cce92a1b6babb7b8568264573dbb6d2bf01)
Oh no! The younglings!
The less Star Warsy the better I say.
Quote from: The Brain on September 27, 2013, 10:20:57 AM
The less Star Warsy the better I say.
The Force is weak with this one.
So Tim, this will cut your arm off right?
Worst "science" article ever? Possible. I dare anyone to find worse from a mainstream (yeah, I know, cnet, but still) source.
Quote from: grumbler on September 27, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
Worst "science" article ever? Possible. I dare anyone to find worse from a mainstream (yeah, I know, cnet, but still) source.
I read several articles on this and they were all worse than this one.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 27, 2013, 07:51:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 27, 2013, 01:05:48 PM
Worst "science" article ever? Possible. I dare anyone to find worse from a mainstream (yeah, I know, cnet, but still) source.
I read several articles on this and they were all worse than this one.
Well lay them on us!
Quote"It's not an in-apt analogy to compare this to lightsabers," said Harvard Professor of Physics Mikhail Lukin in a news release.
:o
What didn't you like about the article, grumbler?
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2013, 02:57:40 PM
What didn't you like about the article, grumbler?
Other than the way it was misleading, made science look stupid, pretty much missed the point of the experiment, and added in a bunch of irrelevant crap about "light sabers," I thought it was fine.
Every article I saw had light saber in the title.
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkBHHn0LUvCap_M2CDNILOTxs1g3M&q=photons+new+form+of+matter&lr=English&hl=en
I think in part it was a scientific concept that would be hard to portray without relating it to someone most people know, and also in part that "scientists create light saber" is an eye catching headline.
Quote from: Jaron on September 29, 2013, 05:42:09 PM
I think in part it was a scientific concept that would be hard to portray without relating it to someone most people know, and also in part that "scientists create light saber" is an eye catching headline.
Except that it was a scientific concept that had nothing to do with light sabers, some doofus professor's ramblings about "not an in-apt analogy" notwithstanding. Light sabers are a result of special effects, not physics.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2013, 05:02:51 PM
Every article I saw had light saber in the title.
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkBHHn0LUvCap_M2CDNILOTxs1g3M&q=photons+new+form+of+matter&lr=English&hl=en
Here's one that doesn't: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html) "Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter"
You'd think that the labratory creation of a new (and potentially highly useful) form of matter would be exciting enough that even a cnet.com writer would see the significance. But, no. He babbles about bromances between photons and about light sabers, instead.
:rolleyes: My god you are old and boring.
I'd love to have a lightsaber. I could slice my bologna with ease.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 06:22:39 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 29, 2013, 05:02:51 PM
Every article I saw had light saber in the title.
https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkBHHn0LUvCap_M2CDNILOTxs1g3M&q=photons+new+form+of+matter&lr=English&hl=en (https://news.google.com/news?ncl=dkBHHn0LUvCap_M2CDNILOTxs1g3M&q=photons+new+form+of+matter&lr=English&hl=en)
Here's one that doesn't: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html (http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.html) "Scientists create never-before-seen form of matter"
You'd think that the labratory creation of a new (and potentially highly useful) form of matter would be exciting enough that even a cnet.com writer would see the significance. But, no. He babbles about bromances between photons and about light sabers, instead.
It does mention lightsabers.
Grumbler is correct though. It doesn't mention them in the title. It manages to hold off on the Star Wars references until the opening sentence. :lol:
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 06:47:13 PM
:rolleyes: My god you are old and boring.
:rolleyes: My god you are old and boring and dumb.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 29, 2013, 07:35:31 PM
Grumbler is correct though. It doesn't mention them in the title. It manages to hold off on the Star Wars references until the opening sentence. :lol:
Indeed. And the problem isn't mentioning the light sabers
per se (the prof does it, so the writer hardly can avoid it), but the cnet.com article's endless "bro" and "bromance" references and its focus on the light saber and Star Wars shit to the exclusion of the scientific wonders right under the writer's nose.
Good science writing doesn't have to be boring, it just has to avoid being stupid. The cnet.com article fails the test. The phys.org article is well-written, IMO, and if people like PDH can't see the difference... well, that says much more about them than it does the articles.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 07:54:00 PMendless "bro" and "bromance" references
It uses each of those words once
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2013, 07:48:30 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 29, 2013, 06:47:13 PM
:rolleyes: My god you are old and boring.
:rolleyes: My god you are old and boring and dumb.
Hey! I can speak.
Still better article than the bigfoot DNA bullshit.