Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power

Posted by Zonk on Wed Sep 19, 2007 04:18 AM
from the i-hope-that-annihilation-ray-laser-is-for-peaceful-purposes dept.
Sci-Fi Science
Laser Lover writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to use the exotic material to create 'an annihilation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times more powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It survives for less than 150 nanoseconds before it is annihilated in a puff of gamma radiation. It was known that two positronium atoms should be able to bind together to form a molecule ... '"
+ -
story

Related Stories

Submission: Antimatter molecule should boost laser power by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Oh dear (Score:4, Funny)

    by jsiren (886858) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:21AM (#20665157) Homepage
    Now I'm afraid to plug in my PS/2 mouse.

  • Could we use it on sharks? (Score:5, Informative)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:22AM (#20665161)
    Because that's what they were saying the first time [slashdot.org] this was posted.
    • I know I tagged this as "dupe" on the Firehose yesterday.
    • Laser Lover didn't writes "Molecules made by combining an electron with their anti-particle positron have not been created by researchers at the University of California Riverside. The team's long term goal is to never use the exotic material to create 'an creation gamma ray laser', potentially one million times less powerful than existing lasers. 'An electron can't hook up with its antiparticle, the positron, to form a hydrogen-like atom called positronium (Ps). It can't possibly survive for less than 150

  • To what end? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Big Nothing (229456) <big.nothing@bigger.com> on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:23AM (#20665169)
    Granted, more powerful lasers would be great for long-distance communications, but what kind of materials could be used in fiber-optic cables to transmit gamma rays? What kind of insulation would the cable have to use?

    • Re:To what end? (Score:5, Funny)

      by cloudwilliam (517411) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @06:38AM (#20665675)
      To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mhall119 (1035984)
        Conventional lasers use electricity or chemical reaction to stimulate radiation emission from some material. I would assume they are going to use the gamma rays to do this, and not lasing the gamma rays themselves.

  • Oh yes... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 (956391) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:25AM (#20665175)
    While being so excited that it's a million times more powerful, we forgot to say it'll be a million times more expensive. You don't find antimatter laying on the ground you know!

    • Re:Oh yes... (Score:5, Informative)

      by lexarius (560925) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @05:57AM (#20665471)
      Positrons aren't actually that hard to find. All you need is (trying to remember Chem 2) an isotope that produces beta+ radiation. Heard of a PET scan? The P is for Positron. They put some radioactive sugar in your brain and map where the annihilations occur to determine brain activity.
      • If positrons are not hard to find, why am I still not seeing any androids with positronic brains walking around all over the place? :P

  • Nature article (Score:5, Informative)

    by teridon (139550) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:25AM (#20665177) Homepage
    Well, part of it, anyway:
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06094.html [nature.com]
  • So would the sharks be a million times more powerful, or could we just use one million *tiny* fricking lasers?

  • super-atom condensate???? (Score:3, Informative)

    by boxxxie (1158849) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:31AM (#20665193)
    they mean a Bose-Einstein condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate/ [wikipedia.org]
  • Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?
    • Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

      Judging by what's on the screen, not soon enough.

  • Old fashioned ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SplatMan_DK (1035528) * on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:33AM (#20665205) Homepage Journal
    Lasers?

    That won't even penetrate our navigational shields!

    Where are your phasers?

  • Something mentioned earlier. (Score:3, Funny)

    by z0M6 (1103593) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @04:37AM (#20665225)
    Next on /.! DIY positronium laser using household items.

  • More info (Score:4, Informative)

    by robably (1044462) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @05:03AM (#20665309) Journal
    There's an interview with David Cassidy about this in the 13th September Nature Podcast [nature.com] (the page also has the podcast as a direct MP3 download and a transcript).

  • Frickin lasers strapped to their rockets (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 19 2007, @05:05AM (#20665315)
    i doubt a mod will even see this with an AC attatched to it, but, meh.
    try relating this idea with this one
    http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/13/2328233 [slashdot.org]
    iirc a few people were curious as to what it may take to get this off the ground (pun so intended) as it were. =P
  • All I have to say is: "Yes, Dr. Scott, a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter."
  • I was somehow led to believe that a molecule was produced by the combination of two atoms -- which each have at least one proton (in the case of Hydrogen). How does combining an electron with a positron (both very very low mass particles; think "mosquitoes" compared to the "elephant" protons and neutrons in the nucleus) equal an atom -- let alone two or more atoms to equal a molecule?

    It may be cool, but perhaps we need a new name for it. Molecule just doesn't fit; sorry.
    • Indeed. I always thought an "atom" was "something with an equal number of protons and electrons". I don't see how an electron/anti-electron pair fits that definition.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Ash Vince (602485)

          I get the idea that the non-scientist who wrote this article has no clue what he's talking about,...

          Sounds like most of slashdot then.

          I would hazard a guess (note - guess as I have not yet purchased yesterdays new scientist and read the full article) that this works as the two particles they are combining actually have opposing charge. This should get around the equal number of protons and electrons rule as the net charge of the atom will still be zero.

          Since neutrons are not a necessary part of an atom this should work. The wikipedia page on hydrogen is fairly detailed so should enable you to see some si

    • But mass is less relevant than you may think. The electron-positron pair is held together by the Coulomb force, which is the same force that binds the proton and the electron. The electron-positron system has a net electric charge of 0, making it electrically neutral.

      As I said in the title, maybe "atom" is a bad word to describe this system. However, the word "atom" comes from a Greek word meaning "indivisible", and since we've since discovered that what we call atoms are divisible after all, the word isn't

  • Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends (Score:5, Informative)

    by viking80 (697716) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @05:55AM (#20665467) Journal
    To conserve momentum (and other) at least two photons are released in opposite direction when the two particles annihilate each other. If this is part of a gamma ray laser, you will have two rays: One aimed at your enemy, one in your face, and a mirror will probably not work at 0.5MeV.
      • Not all lasers have mirrors. Mirrors are a hack to get the gain of the tube > 1. If you're lasing media is long enough to have gain > .5, you only need 1 mirror at the back, but if you have enough lasing media you don't need any mirrors. Natural C02 lasers have been detected in the atmosphere of Mars that are miles long.

        A mirror for gamma rays would be cool, but would probably so far I don't think there are mirrors for even X-Rays. (Although they have made gold Fresnel lens for X-Rays.
  • Forget TFA. All you need to know to write a gut-reaction reply is contained in the wonderful phrase 'annihilation gamma ray laser.' Let's start: Have scientists gone too far? Could this be used as a weapon? Could it fall into the wrong hands? React away. :-)
    • No, but maybe for the upcoming war with the Zorkanoids from the QF-P73 Nebula or somesuch.
      Seriously.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by polar red (215081)
      I don't think that would effect the outcome of such a war ... The Us has 10 times stronger military material in Iraq, and they are not winning ... You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words (can someone SHOUT that to the neocons please?)
      • Force is all-conquering but its victories are short lived.

        Abraham Lincoln

      • Re:iran (Score:5, Insightful)

        by MyLongNickName (822545) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @07:01AM (#20665783) Journal
        You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words

        That is not true. Many civilizations no longer exist because they were destroyed by another. We, as a society, are unwilling to accept the measures needed to really win a military war. For this I am thankful. But saying that military might can't end a war is completely false.

        • Re:iran (Score:5, Insightful)

          by polar red (215081) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @07:08AM (#20665821)
          The only real way to win a war millitarily then, is to totally annihillate the enemy. And that is no longer an option when you can't tell for sure who is your enemy and who isn't. And the fact that you kill a million people creates new enemies.
      • You most certainly CAN end a war with weapons.

        But you can't win a war with one eye on CNN to gage the public response to your use of your weapons. That is why we won't use our weapons to win wars anymore.
        • tell me, which war was won by weapons ?

          • Re:You CAN end a war with weapons (Score:5, Insightful)

            by maillemaker (924053) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @07:47AM (#20666163)
            >Why the US isn't using its weapons is because the US has no right to be where it currently is,

            Whether or not the US has any right to be where it currently is, the reason why it isn't unchaining its military to lay waste to the region, ala Dresden, Nagasaki, etc., is because the aftermath would be on CNN in 15 minutes.

            >You can't blow up an idea, especially if each attempt just makes more followers.

            You can't blow up an idea, but if you blow up enough people you can break the will of people to act on those ideas. It just takes sufficient force. We are unwilling to apply that kind of force in Iraq, and, consequently, we are having no effect on the will of our enemies there. In fact, in all likelyhood we are actually enhancing their will by being there.

        • Re:iran (Score:4, Informative)

          by GundamFan (848341) on Wednesday September 19 2007, @07:06AM (#20665811)
          I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.

          If the US had not sought out or accepted the surrender of Japan the war would have continued in one form or another. Even if what one side is communicating is "give up or we do that again" it is still two sides meeting and making an agreement (the surrender was indeed negotiated, the US did compromise on the removal of the Emperor for instance) that ended the Pacific campaign.
           

          • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Hubbell (850646)
            Correction, it was an unconditional surrender, but MacArthur realized how important the Emperor was and that if he removed or even approached him first (instead of letting the Emperor request his audience) the people would have revolted. They truly would not have given a fuck, you don't fuck with the Emperor cause he was pretty much a god on earth to them.
          • I disagree, while nuclear weapons may have hastened the end of the war, the "end" came in the form of a formal surrender.

            Then you have so diluted the word "win" that it no longer has any meaning. It is like saying fists don't win a fight because my opponent begged for mercy and I stopped beating him. You are arguing that it was his begging that stopped the fight. The fact is that military CAN win a war through force alone, but our society (thankfully) puts a brake on that type of activity.
            • That depends on the objectives of the attacker, if I use your example there are two possible objectives the "puncher" could have. One is to kill the opponent, the other is for the other party to relent (beg for mercy if you will). I would argue in this case the defeated is initiating the end of the conflict by choosing the lesser of the two negative outcomes once it is established that there is no winning.
            • You beat the tar out of him, he's humiliated, and goes away for a few days, then he comes back and shoots you in the back.

              You didn't win a war, there, you won a fight. The two are not the same thing.

              You fight him, make it clear that you're going to win, and then talk with him such that he gets a way out and hostilities turn into a mutually acceptable relationship -- that's winning a war. You need the fists, but you also need some intelligent action.

              This is not to say that there are not occasions where the

            • Here we go again .. i have noticed recently on /. that all these comments soon as you like go so far WAY WAY WAY off topic that they cease to becom relavent to the original article .

              What do you mean off topic? We can't bust heads like we used to, but we have our ways. One trick is to tell 'em stories that don't go anywhere--like the time I caught the ferry over to Shelbyville. I needed a new heel for my shoe, so, I decided to go to Morganville, which is what they called Shelbyville in those days. So I ti

        • It ended with a public radio broadcast of the emperor proclaiming himself to not be a God, and to end the war. If he doesn't do that, the war wouldn't have ended. So basically, what we needed was Saddam to surrender and tell everyone to stop fighting. I guess if Osama said that now, it might work ,but there are so many factions now that it wouldn't immediately end the war.
    • The transistor was supposedly "Invented" in 1947 by Bell Labs shortly after roswell, LOL. Boy what an exciting year.
      In the several years prior, jet engines first became practical, digital computers were first invented, digital computers switched from relays to vacuum tubes (which are frequently derided these days as glass field-effect transistors), some of the first plastics became available, the German Type XXI completely changed how submarines would work going forward, both cruise and ballistic missiles w

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.