Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power

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 ... '"

Oh dear

[jsiren]

Now I'm afraid to plug in my PS/2 mouse.

Re:

[multipartmixed]

Don't worry.

They are now making a new style of mouse, which should be much safer. I think it's made from an alloy of Uranium, Sulphur, and Boron.

Could we use it on sharks?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Because that's what they were saying the first time [slashdot.org] this was posted.

Re:

[HTH NE1]

I know I tagged this as "dupe" on the Firehose yesterday.

Re:

[bigdavesmith]

You can't blame people for being excited about new ways to kill each other.

I have a solution! We need an anti-dupe!

[tgd]

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

Re:

[bar-agent]

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...

It's Bizarro-Slashdot!

• Last post
  
• In Korea, only young people are robots
  
• Imagine a single one of these
  
• Ugh, Natalie Portman eating hot grits
  
• -5 Insightful
  

To what end?

[Big Nothing]

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?

[cloudwilliam]

To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Re:

[ultranova]

To crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and hear the lamentations of their women.

Actually, this sound more like it will vaporize our enemies on the spot. Because this laser... goes to eleven! Spartaaa!!!

Re:

[splutty]

These types of lasers aren't exactly useful for communication in any way shape or form. This due to the fact the last doesn't actually survive the process. After this thing fires, you'll have one beam of laser heading off in whatever direction you pointed it, and one rapidly expanding cloud of ex-lasergenerator.

So no, not very useful in a practical sense at all, although it might solve a lot of war related issues if this were to be made into a handheld weapon ;)

Re:

[mhall119]

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.

Re:

[eh2o]

Actually they *are* attempting to make a gamma ray laser. Its a new area of physics research called "quantum nucleonics".

Re:

[ArcherB]

insulation? lots of mass with high atomic number and high density. lots. this laser will be useful only for killing.

I see this laser as an extremely effective way of shooting down incoming missiles. I do NOT see this as being portable enough to transport around on the battlefield. I only see this being fielded at fixed installations, which are really only good as a defensive weapon.

Why do you think lasers are only good useful only for killing?

Oh yes...

[suv4x4]

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...

[lexarius]

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.

Re:

[StarfishOne]

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

Re:

[Pollardito]

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

you could use the same "why don't i see them everywhere" logic to deny the existence of ninjas, but i wouldn't recommend it

Re:

[Grishnakh]

Maybe they could just make his whole brain out of antimatter...

Re:

[Grishnakh]

Yeah, but wouldn't the resultant energy release be enormous, causing far more damage than simply losing the small amount of mass in an android's brain?

But even so, it's still worth the risk to have an android brain made of antimatter.

Nature article

[teridon]

Well, part of it, anyway:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06094.html [nature.com]

Re:

[teridon]

Damn.. forgot to mention: The current Nature podcast has an interview with David Cassidy:
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html [nature.com]

Obligitory

[SPY_jmr1]

So would the sharks be a million times more powerful, or could we just use one million *tiny* fricking lasers?

super-atom condensate????

[boxxxie]

they mean a Bose-Einstein condensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose%E2%80%93Einstein_condensate/ [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[SplatMan_DK]

[fakequote]
they mean a Bozo-Einstein compensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo%E2%80%93Einstein_compensate/ [wikipedia.org]
[/fakequote]

I totally object to your post!

Einstein was certainly not a Bozo, and nobody should be compensated for saying that!

Annoying

[dintech]

Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

Re:

[Farmer Tim]

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.

Darwinism

[zCyl]

Damn it, how long will it be before the teenagers at my local cinema have one of these?

I don't know, but it'll be really funny when all the positrons leak out into their pocket.

Old fashioned ...

[SplatMan_DK]

Lasers?

That won't even penetrate our navigational shields!

Where are your phasers?

Something mentioned earlier.

[z0M6]

Next on /.! DIY positronium laser using household items.

More info

[robably]

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).

Re:

[robably]

Not THE David Cassidy?

The guy in TFA. I know I know, nobody reads the article.

Re:

[nacturation]

Not THE David Cassidy?

The guy in TFA. I know I know, nobody reads the article.

Get off my lawn! [wikipedia.org] Kids these days!
 

Frickin lasers strapped to their rockets

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Rocky Horror

[Kenshin]

All I have to say is: "Yes, Dr. Scott, a laser capable of emitting a beam of pure anti-matter."

Molecules...?

[FlyByPC]

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.

Re:

[$RANDOMLUSER]

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:

[Ash Vince]

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

Atom is a bad word for it

[el_munkie]

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

Re:

[Gabrill]

I'm sure you can find innumerable instances of words that we've discovered don't actually describe what they refer to. Get over it, and stop making my poor school system buy new science books because we've decided to rename everything we know of to ever more confusing and hard to remember (much less pronounce) names.

BTW I supported Xena/Gabrielle as a planet system, because it is no more different from Earth than Jupiter is.

Re:

[Ash Vince]

Basically, you first transform into the center of mass system and then solve the schrödinger-equation for the electron with a so called reduced mass to get its wavefunction.

Which is not so easy if the centre of mass is the halfway point between the two constituents.

Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends

[viking80]

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.

Re:

[gardyloo]

If it's truly a part of a laser, they'll have "mirrors" (of one sort or another) to ensure phase coherence anyway.

Re:

[Catbeller]

If they can rig a "mirror", you get a photon drive for spacecraft. Hell, for starships. I'd like to see that mirror. I've no doubt some clever wanker can exploit physics to do it, and I await his/her paper.

Re:

[Maximum Prophet]

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.

So this had better be shoulder fired...

[shis-ka-bob]

like a bazooka. The blow back would prevent this from being shoulder fired. Still, this would be a cool support weapon to back up your Gauss rifle shock troops.

Re: Darth Maul

[neurocutie]

No problem having two ends of destructive power... just ask Darth Maul...

It just means that the US can hit China and Russia at the same time, or US bases in Iraq can hit Syria and Iran at the same time... sounds groovy...

Forget TFA

[Random BedHead Ed]

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. :-)

Three PS molecule laser

[Alzheimers]

if they have a Ps2 molecule laser, and add one more Ps, I wonder if that would that make the ray blue...

There's a joke in here somewhere...

[JoeD]

...about a new GR-DVD format, but I'm too lazy to flesh it out. Go ahead and pretend that I did, and mod this up.

Woohaaaaa

[BlueParrot]

Damn, jokes about sharks aside, the scientific and technical implications of a gamma laser will be immense. Nuclear physicists will love to have one of these to probe nuclei with as an example ( so far you need a massive particle accelerator to do it ). Heck, if you reached sufficiently high energies you could even use it to fission the actinides in nuclear waste without the need to rely on particle accelerators or critical reactors. Positron-electron annihilation probably won't get you high enough energies

Re:

[tibike77]

No, but maybe for the upcoming war with the Zorkanoids from the QF-P73 Nebula or somesuch.
Seriously.

Re:

[polar red]

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?)

Re:

[Xiaran]

Force is all-conquering but its victories are short lived.

Abraham Lincoln

Re:iran

[MyLongNickName]

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

[polar red]

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.

Re:

[somersault]

Besides, who would package up the oil to send over?

Re:

[bar-agent]

The only real way to win a war militarily then, is to totally annihilate the enemy.

Either that, or to add their biological and technological distinctiveness to your own, and adapt their culture to service yours.

That's how China "won" against its various invaders. It just assimilated them. That's also what Rome did to its defeated enemies.

Though, perhaps that's not a "military" victory.

Re:

[rahvin112]

Isn't this where the comment "Kill them all and let God sort them out" come in?

Isn't it conceivable today that with the technology civilization now has that an attempt at genocide similar to that perpetuated by Hitler could be much much more successful? Even if a few get away, if you empty an entire area of people, nature and time will take care of the few survivors. Not being able to tell who the enemy is, doesn't really matter under those circumstances so it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that it would b

Re:

[burndive]

One could also argue that the "optimal" application of military prowess causes all of your genetic competitors to die and results in your reproductive success. Hence, spare the women, and enslave the children.

Re:

[couchslug]

"You Can't END a war with weapons, only with words"

The Red Army didn't talk it's way into Berlin in 1945. :)

You CAN end a war with weapons

[maillemaker]

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.

Re:

[polar red]

tell me, which war was won by weapons ?

Re:

[maillemaker]

You can't think of any?

Re:

[Nefarious Wheel]

tell me, which war was won by weapons ?

Carthagio delenda est.

Re:

[Nefarious Wheel]

I'm still able and willing to think about things truly abhorrent and unacceptable, because these things still exist even when I hold the pillow really tight over my head. How else to avoid them? Genocide exists, even today. I hate it. The first wrong step is treating people as things, or as the "(ethnic class) Problem". From there it's Welcome to Nightmare City.

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

The Pacific side of WW2 was won because Japan was devistated enough to surrender after having 2 Nuclear Weapons dropped on it.
The European side of WW2 was won because the Allied side had more weapons and soldiers then the Axis side and was able to fully occupy their territory.

I could cite other examples but I have to go soon. Here's a simple fact though, 90% of wars are won as a direct result of weapons and the willingness to use them. Rarely do they end with weapons, more often they end with diplomacy, but

Re:

[polar red]

and indeed: weaponry *NEVER* ends it, it's always the diplomacy afterwards that ends the war. (translation of this diplomacy: the side that has lost the most of their lower-class people has to give more money/lands/resources to the other side's upper class--> see my sig)

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

What ends the war is irrelevant when talking about what wins the war. The original comment was that weapons don't win wars, they do. Weapons do not end (civilized) wars (unless you're willing to completely wipe out your enemies barbarian style, then the weapons alone can end the wars). Whether or not they end them, however, they are a direct cause of winning. This can be shown simply, imagine a hypothetical war (I like to use one like WW2 but it's up to you). Imagine that one side wants to win the war witho

Re:

[polar red]

That kind of war doesn't exist anymore. Let's take a modern war: Israel vs. Palestine. Israel has WMD's and tanks. Palestine has AK47's and rocks. No-one is winning, EVERYBODY is losing. The ONLY way to end it : talking where both sides have to give something up.

Re:You CAN end a war with weapons

[maillemaker]

>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:

[Ihlosi]

You Can't END a war with weapons,

Only if you care about public opinion. If you don't, just turn the war zone into radioactive slag.

Re:

[notasheep]

I would state this differently: You can't win the peace with weapons.

The USSR took over many countries with the use of weapons, then went bankrupt with the burden of the cost of maintaining their victories with the use of weapons. (So did the Roman Empire.) It's a lesson with lots of examples throughout history.

Re:

[polar red]

i agree, it's peace you wanna win, not war.

Re:

[GodfatherofSoul]

Yes, and those words are "I surrender."

Re:

[ArcherB]

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?)

Words are worthless when the other side refuses to listen. Granted, there is no such thing as a purely military victory unless you kill all of the enemy. What is needed is a mix. You use the military to force the other side to the negotiating table so you can work

Re:

[polar red]

there can be no victory without the military.

The best way to win a war is not to fight it.

Re:

[ArcherB]

The best way to win a war is not to fight it.

Tell that to the millions of Jews who lived in Germany, Poland and France around 1938. They were unable to fight a war themselves and I would hardly say that they won the war.

Re:

[Shotgun]

And when you get done shouting that to the neocons, would you send an email to the dems explaining that there's no point in talking when nobody is listening?

We Americans have no business being in Iraq, other than to prevent our economy from coming to a crashing end, but to claim that the military is not a useful tool in international diplomacy is insanely simple-minded. You are correct. The war doesn't end with weapons. It ends with a surrender or a negotiated peace. But why the hell would a superior en

Re:

[polar red]

international diplomacy

what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.

Re:

[Shotgun]

what are these wars about? Money?resources?a border dispute?religion? Money from the upper class/resources from the upper class/borders are invented by the upper class/religion also. just to be able to send the masses into death.

Oh, grow up for chrissakes.

What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA?
Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects?
You need to pull you head out of your ass and realize that the w

Re:

[polar red]

What are the Bloods and Crypts fighting over in bombed out LA?

because their leaders want to get prestige, and chicks?(=resources!) These leaders are their respective upper class.

Why are indigenous peoples all over the world fighting waging war on one another, from ten member tribes to whole religious sects?

see above.
See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees ... we're not more civilized than that.

the man is keeping me down" mentality is an invention of lazy bottom feeders

I think it's more an invention of realistic(cynic?) people.
And I'm just pointing out here that war doesn't solve a dispute.
and did you notice there is fighting here, with words? This is because people still can get it in their minds that they can sometimes be wrong - and that's got

don't fall for their trap

[OrangeTide]

only with words? Yea they have to be the right words, and there has to be a consensus among the leaders. Right now we have Republicans screaming one thing, and Democrats screaming another. And nobody is getting shit done. I blame the neocons AND the political "liberals" for leaving the moderates majority holding the bag. And I say "liberals" in quotes because they aren't real liberals, they sing the liberal tune but are totally empty of any progressive ideals.

Almost all the kids being sent to war are modera

Re:

[LWATCDR]

I would say that you are believing way too much propaganda.
Iraq isn't winning the war the US did win that war. Right now Irag is loosing the peace. The number of Iraqi civilian deaths is high thanks to the actions of Iraqi militants and others.
What you say I am afraid is nothing but a nice dream. World War II in Europe sure was ended with weapons and not words. World War II in Japan was ended with weapons and not words. Unless you are going to say "I surrender" counts.
Here is the sad truth. The only way to

Re:iran

[GundamFan]

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:

[Hubbell]

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.

Re:

[GundamFan]

So the surrender was agreed to because MacArthur did his research and presented terms that would be acceptable?

I will agree that there is a subtle difference but the outcome is the same.

Re:

[tgrigsby]

The surrender was agreed to either way. MacArthur decided on how he would act once he got there and understood fully the reverance the japanese had for the Emperor.

You're making his case for him. He's arguing brains over brawn. You're arguing that brawn created an opportunity for brains to be used. But in the end, the war was finalized successfully and with minimal rancor using intelligent diplomacy, something the current administration has absolutely no experience with or apparent motivation to try (to

Re:

[MyLongNickName]

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.

Re:

[GundamFan]

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.

Missing the point

[wonkavader]

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

Re:

[pnewhook]

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

No.

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

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.

re: Japan

[drwho]

There's information that Japan had tried to surrender before the US dropped the bombs on them, but this surrender was considered inconvenient so it was ignored. You want my sources? BAH! This is Slashdot! We don't need no steenkin sources!

Re:

[OrangeTide]

Indeed surrender was offered twice before (iirc), but turned down because it was conditional. The nukes were not the most devastating attacks on Japan, they were just the most devastating single events. The carpet bombing of Japanese cities for many months did far more damage. The purpose of dropping the bomb was to show Japan and Russia the resolve and capability of the US military to basically bomb targets indefinitely. I mention Russia because even though there was some cooperation between the Soviets a

Re:

[vtcodger]

***We've already won any war in Iraq. We should not have overstayed our welcome, however.***

Actually, I'm damned if I can figure out if we won militarily or not. One of the books on the war -- Ricks-"Fiasco" of Hersch "Chain of Command", claims that on the eve of the assault on Baghdad, Saddam Hussein decided not to conduct a scorched earth battle for the city. Instead, he sent the troops home with instructions to conduct a guerilla war. I have no idea if that is true, but whether it is or not, the res

Re:

[vtcodger]

***would it be ready in time for the upcoming war with iran?***

Naw, I don't think the Iranians can pull together an anti-matter based laser weapon all that quickly, no matter what the Bush administration claims about the threat the Iranians represent.

Re:

[HappyHead]

Well, aside from applications in "defense", the most likely application of this technology would be "offense". Being able to poke holes in pretty much _anything_ from a long distance away is a pretty good way of attacking someone. A few of these in a network of orbiting "communications satellites" would make a very effective means of reducing enemy locations to rubble - just target key installations such as fuel refineries and ammunitions storage, and the secondary explosions would take care of the rest.

O

Re:

[TriggerFin]

Will we be developing Evangelions to fire these?

The US is already full of evangelicals. Do you really think they haven't been training for the past decade?

Re:

[Doctor Faustus]

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