Laser Light Re-creates 'Black Holes' in the Lab

yodasz writes "The New Scientist reports that a team of researchers from the UK were able to recreate a black hole's event horizon in the lab by firing a laser pulse down an optical fibre. The team's observations confirm predictions made by cosmologists and now they are trying to prove Hawking's hypothesis of escaping particles, dubbed Hawking radiation. 'The first pulse distorts the optical properties of the fibre simply by traveling through it. This distortion forces the speedy probe wave to slow down dramatically when it catches up with the slower pulse and tries to move through it. In fact, the probe wave becomes trapped and can never overtake the pulse's leading edge, which effectively becomes a black hole event horizon, beyond which light cannot escape.'"

Black Hole

[gammygator (820041)]

As long as they didn't create a real black hole.

That would suck.

Re:Black Hole

[CSMatt (1175471)]

Well it certainly wouldn't blow.

It would blow

[by Anonymous Coward]

It would blow Hawking Radiation

Re:Test Methodology

[spitefulcrow (713858)]

Warning: do not look into laser with remaining good eye.

Re:Black Hole

[spidercoz (947220)]

ugh, dude, did you RTFA? this experiment had nothing to do with black holes, singularities, Hawking radiation, or any kind of mass. It was a trick of optics to produce an ANALOGUE of an event horizon

it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to produce any kind of singularity. The LHC has a chance, infinitesimal, to do so, but that's still quite a ways off.

Re:Black Hole

[utnapistim (931738)]

it is currently IMPOSSIBLE to produce any kind of singularity.

Ok wise guy, then explain Chuck Norris!

Re:

[B3ryllium (571199)]

There was never a big bang - Chuck Norris simply stubbed his toe.

This event has never been repeated.

Re:

[tm2b (42473)]

Nothing has really changed from the days of Copernicus and Kepler. They were persecuted and ridiculed for their then radical ideas, based on real observations, not fanciful math. Today, scientists who promulgate foundation rocking new concepts and promising new avenues of real research, are denied, by the scientific establishment, publication and funding. Science today is less and less interested in discovering truth, because there is always the danger that such truth will demolish cherished dogma.

"They l

Re:

[arminw (717974)]

... Or do you think that they must be being suppressed by someone.....

Sort of, similar to the way the scientific establishment has suppressed radical ideas until the later, sometimes much later became mainstream.

Scientists are human and as such often do care for dogma more than data. This always been and will always be.

Presently, mainstream cosmological theories largely ignore the electric force as a major, often dominant factor in the operation of the large scale universe. There are two forces at work in t

Am I slow?

[TheGreatHegemon (956058)]

I'm not a physicist by any means, but I thought Hawking radiation had something to do with the force of gravity at the event horizon. This seems to me is just a bending of light.

Re:

[KublaiKhan (522918)]

As far as I can tell, they're using this technique to develop a technique to measure hawking radiation--which, you're correct, involves gravitational forces et al.

However, up until now, we had no real way to measure it unless we happened to see a small black hole blow up, something that we haven't figured out how to find.

Re:Am I slow?

[xanthines-R-yummy (635710)]

I was under the impression it was due to quantum particle pairs forming spontaneously. Under "normal" conditions we don't see these things because the pairs collide and sort of evaporate back to wherever the hell those things come from. However, in a black hole one of the particles escapes leaving the energy balance, well, in balance. The only reason that radiation escapes is that its partner went into the black hole absorbing some of its energy. Apparently, this phenomenon will cause all black holes to shrink to nothing over a long enough period of time.

I read about it in "The Physics of Star Trek", but Wikipedia has something on it too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation [wikipedia.org]

Re:Am I slow?

[sm62704 (957197)]

Wikipedia? What? You know that's not a reliable source of information. So I looked it up in the uncyclopedia [uncyclopedia.org]:

A Black hole is an impossible object which makes the Universe work. It has the useful property of being "undetectable". It's like when your spouse comes home with a dent in the car, and blames it on an invisible black mass; the dent is proof of the black mass, but you can't, and never will be able to see it with CCTV cameras, but you know it's there. "Dark matter" is an equally undetectable force that causes cars to defy gravity, and hit invisible black holes. Astronomers will tell you that lots of them have spouses with dents in their cars, and can explain this is very technical terms, so you won't be able to understand why it's not possible.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

you sir, are correct. well done. refreshing to see someone who pays attention and (holy shit!) looks up the occasional factoid

Looking up the occasional factoid? Hah, we don't need to do that, that's why we have the inter... uh... nevermind.

Re:Am I slow?

[Ryvar (122400)]

IANAP, but as I understand it, Hawking radiation is caused by virtual particles pairs being created such that rather than annihilating each other and returning local space to a base 'zero' state, one of the pair escapes the singularity's gravity and the other does not.

One fortunate consequence of this is that smaller black holes 'evaporate' more quickly, and the microscopic black holes we'll likely be generating at the Large Hadron Collider will cease to exist before they've even had sufficient time to absorb a neutrino.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

Yeah, I'm no physicist either, but I don't quite follow this. They haven't simulated a black hole at all, just the optics of its event horizon.

Artificial event horizon != Artificial black hole.

Somehow I highly doubt that even if they can get the fiberoptics to 1000 degrees centigrade and perform this experiment that they'll get any hawking radiation out of it.

Re:Am I slow?

[Jerf (17166)]

The bit that's missing from this article, and that completes the explanation of why this is interesting, is the question of information.

One of the open questions facing physics is whether the event horizon of a black hole destroys information. It's not just the event horizon itself that is interesting, the destruction of information is by itself a legitimately interesting question by itself.

If we can create an optical event horizon that also seems to destroy information, this may allow us to witness how the Universe responds to such information destruction. This is radically easier than creating a large enough black hole to observe these effects. Black hole horizons are interesting in many ways; this may allow us to extract and experiment on one aspect of them.

I've seen a few proposals for the creation of an optical black hole, this is the first claim I've seen that someone may have actually created one.

Re:

[click2005 (921437)]

Hawking radiation is to do with Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and the creation of virtual particles (pairs like Quarks/Antiquarks, Electrons/Positrons, Neutrino/Antineutrino, Proton/Antiproton etc) that only exist for a negligible amount of time and they're impossible to detect directly. Usually they annihilate each other but if a pair is created near the event horizon, its possible that one part of the pair gets swallowed by the black hole and the other escapes. As multiple particles do this, they i

Sounds safe

[192939495969798999 (58312)]

That sounds safe, to reproduce the effects of the point at which all matter collapses into a virtual singularity. Where were they testing this again? Somewhere on Earth? Alrighty then... Taxi!

Re:Sounds safe

[orclevegam (940336)]

That sounds safe, to reproduce the effects of the point at which all matter collapses into a virtual singularity. Where were they testing this again? Somewhere on Earth? Alrighty then... Taxi!

They aren't simulating a black hole, the title is misleading. They're simulating the optical properties of a black holes event horizon. Subtle but very important difference.

Re:Sounds safe

[chill (34294)]

They aren't simulating a black hole, the title is misleading. They're simulating the optical properties of a black holes event horizon. Subtle but very important difference.

Yeah, your way of describing it doesn't generate NEAR as many hits on the ads...um, article.

Re:

[Jugalator (259273)]

I agree, it's like comparing an actual stretching of a gaping asshole compared to only simulating the properties of the skin as it stretches.

Or something. Damn, I've been scarred by goatse for life. :-(

Re:

[BlueParrot (965239)]

The thing people don't realize with particle physics is that we are constantly bombarded by VASTLY higher energy particles than any of our accelerators can ever manage to produce. If there was even a minor possibility that particle collisions ( and yes, that includes bosons ) could destroy the planet then we would already be doomed from the vast quantity of cosmic rays that are hitting the earth's surface all the time. Basically whenever you hear about scientists trying to do some high energy particle physi

A black hole event horizon?

[SecurityGuy (217807)]

Not to be picky, but you do know there's a little bit more to the event horizon of a black hole than the fact that light can't get out of it? Let's not confuse interesting optical effects with singularities. They are...different.

Re:

[spidercoz (947220)]

I've heard it explained as a cosmological censor to block out the horrible violations of natural law that occur inside from the rest of the universe, always amused me

Re:

[SQLGuru (980662)]

So, the "edge" of the universe is an event horizon and the "edge" of a black hole is an event horizon, therefore it isn't turtles all the way down, it's universes all the way down.....like matrioshka dolls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matryoshka_doll [wikipedia.org])

Layne

oblig futurama quote

[pak9rabid (1011935)]

Bret: Pretty scrawny black hole. It must be hungry.
Cubert: Duh! Black holes don't need food.
Bret: Neither do nerds!

oblig

[ArieKremen (733795)]

Move on, nothing to be seen here ...

Background info needed..

[lawaetf1 (613291)]

could someone give me a little prep on this article.. A paragraph or two on how the universe works would be good. cheers. /obligatory

How the universe works

[spun (1352)]

God made the universe 6,000 years ago. If you do not worship him and subjugate yourself to his will, he will torture you forever. He just put in things like dinosaur bones and black holes to mess with your head, to get you to disbelieve in him, so that he can torture you forever without feeling guilty about it.

He's kinda messed up because he was alone for like, eternity, until he made up some friends in his head, but he's incapable of imagining anything that is actually his peer, so he secretly hates us all for not providing the companionship he needs. That is how the universe works.

Re:

[deblau (68023)]

A cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master. He will do it by removing an evil force from your soul that is there because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

That's how the universe works.

Old SF

[OpenSourced (323149)]

Does anybody remembers an old SF story in which a black hole is created and contained, and then somehow it _falls_ and start eating the Earth away? Cannot remember name or a author, but it gave me the creeps back then :o)

Re:

[jbeaupre (752124)]

Earth http://www.amazon.com/Earth-David-Brin/dp/055329024X [amazon.com]

Re:

[RetiredMidn (441788)]

Does anybody remembers an old SF story in which a black hole is created and contained, and then somehow it _falls_ and start eating the Earth away? Cannot remember name or a author, but it gave me the creeps back then :o)

I remember reading a short story, probably in the 60's, with a plot like this. The story starts with investigators trying to understand a rash of mysterious structural failures around the world, and tracing them to tiny vertical holes drilled through whatever failed; including building

black hole analogy is a stretch

[xPsi (851544)]

The experiment is cool, but as far as I can tell, this is nothing like a black hole in the cosmological sense. Simply reproducing one superficial property of black hole ("light cannot escape") does not make it a gravitational singularity with an event horizon and its associated properties. For example, I seriously doubt electron-positron conversions in their light cavity would behave at all like said conversions at a real event horizon since the charged particles would be subject to very different kinds of forces from those near a real black hole. Also, Hawking radiation is related to black hole evaporation. This would not occur with the lasers in an analogous way because the mechanics of this light bubble "evaporation" is totally different. It sounds to me like a case of one subfield (photonics) sexing up their lingo by adopting the lingo of another subfield (general relativity) to get press. IAAP, but not a cosmologists/GR expert, so I'm willing to stand corrected.

Re:black hole analogy is a stretch

[Biff Stu (654099)]

I am also perplexed. I to am not an expert on relativity & cosmology, but I know a thing or two about nonlinear optics. An intense light field can modify the index of refraction of the medium through which it's propagating. This is known as the AC or optical Kerr effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerr_effect/ [wikipedia.org] The second light pulse will gradually encounter a higher index as it approaches the first pulse and therefore slow down. While I know nothing about Hawking radiation, it seems like gravity must be somehow involved, and this experiment is all about electromagnetic forces.

Re:

[mattxb (1153409)]

As a follow up to my own comment, arXiv has what looks like the (a?) preprint for this current optical-fibre work arXiv:0711.4796v2 [gr-qc] [arxiv.org]?

Oblig...

[Cervantes (612861)]

"I call it a Hawking Hole".

hmmmm

[Colin Smith (2679)]

Isn't this simply a case of someone not understanding the real meaning of the words "is kind of like"?

 

rindler horizon

[Fëanáro (130986)]

This reminds me of a rindler horizon [netspace.net.au]

A phenomen that has some similarities with a black hole, but without gravitational effects involved.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

This reminds me of a rindler horizon [netspace.net.au]

A phenomen that has some similarities with a black hole, but without gravitational effects involved.

Now THAT is some useful information. Should change the title of this article to 'Laser Light Re-Creates "Rindler Horizon" in the Lab'.

whatcouldpossiblygowrong

[khallow (566160)]

To answer this, let us keep in mind what's going on. Some guy is sending laser pulses down a fiber optic cable. One possible outcome is the end of all life and existence as we know it. Or we could develope a photonic form of life that enslaves us all. Light pulses in a piece of glass could be inherently potentially crazily dangerous and it's good that some slashbot is minding the store and protecting us from maybe the end of everything. One might be insane to let anyone do such a thing, at least without con

Please enough already...

[mahlerfan999 (1077021)]

Please, New Scientist is not a credible source for news on physical science. I wish people would stop posting New Scientist articles. If you want to find out what's hot in physics the Physical Review Focus is a great accessible source of real science stories that are important, and unlike the PRL they are free to read. http://focus.aps.org/ [aps.org]

Re:Please enough already...

[severoon (536737)]

After a cursory glance thru TFA, it sounds like light waves are just interfering in a way that prevents the lagging, faster wave from propagating past the slower, leading wave. Can any physics people out there explain how this could possibly be interpreted as "we created a black hole in a lab environment"?

Re:I don't get sending a "slow" and then "fast" wa

[spidercoz (947220)]

Properties of the medium. C is only in a vacuum, light has variable speeds all the way down to stop depending on what it's traveling through.

Re:

[cromar (1103585)]

c (~3×10^8 m/s) is the maximum speed of light in a vacuum. See the wiki article [wikipedia.org] for good references about slowing light. And of course there's also relativity to consider, but that doesn't really have anything to do with this experiment (same frame of reference for observed and observer).

Re:I don't get sending a "slow" and then "fast" wa

[PieSquared (867490)]

It travels at "c" in a vacuum. Through various materials it travels slower. That's why lenses work - light travels slower in glass then in air. There are several ways to slow light down, but no way to speed it up to above "c."

Re:I don't get sending a "slow" and then "fast" wa

[Gat0r30y (957941)]

Many optical fibers such as the one they are using have nonlinearities. Light of one frequency does not travel at the same speed as light of another frequency. They are exploiting this nonlinearity.

Re:

[orclevegam (940336)]

Someone may have already asked this, but what about the heat generated as the wave approaches C?

These waves wouldn't approach C. C is the speed of light in a vacuum, not in a fiber optic cable. In fact this experiment wouldn't work in a vacuum because it relies on the second wave traveling faster than the first wave.

Calcium carbonate crystals

[Kupfernigk (1190345)]

You can do something like this without a laser using calcium carbonate (calcite) crystals. In these, the speed of light varies according to the angle of polarisation (I kid you not) so that when you look through the crystal you see things double (the refractive index, of course, depends on the speed of light in the medium versus that in air. The different speed rays are called the ordinary and the extraordinary ray.)

It was learning about this at Cambridge that made me decide that crystallographers had to be