Antimatter Molecule Should Boost Laser Power 211
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 (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have a solution! We need an anti-dupe! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's Bizarro-Slashdot!
To what end? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:To what end? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, this sound more like it will vaporize our enemies on the spot. Because this laser... goes to eleven! Spartaaa!!!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh yes... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But even so, it's still worth the risk to have an android brain made of antimatter.
Nature article (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7159/abs/nature06094.html [nature.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/index.html [nature.com]
Obligitory (Score:2, Funny)
super-atom condensate???? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
they mean a Bozo-Einstein compensate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bozo%E2%80%93Einstein_compensate/ [wikipedia.org]
[/fakequote]
Einstein was certainly not a Bozo, and nobody should be compensated for saying that!
Annoying (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Judging by what's on the screen, not soon enough.
Darwinism (Score:2)
I don't know, but it'll be really funny when all the positrons leak out into their pocket.
Old fashioned ... (Score:5, Funny)
That won't even penetrate our navigational shields!
Where are your phasers?
Something mentioned earlier. (Score:3, Funny)
More info (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Frickin lasers strapped to their rockets (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
Molecules...? (Score:2, Interesting)
It may be cool, but perhaps we need a new name for it. Molecule just doesn't fit; sorry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
BTW I supported Xena/Gabrielle as a planet system, because it is no more different from Earth than Jupiter is.
Re: (Score:2)
Burning your gamma ray candle in both ends (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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... (Score:2)
Re: Darth Maul (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
Three PS molecule laser (Score:2)
There's a joke in here somewhere... (Score:2)
Woohaaaaa (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Abraham Lincoln
Re:iran (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Red Army didn't talk it's way into Berlin in 1945.
You CAN end a war with weapons (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Carthagio delenda est.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You CAN end a war with weapons (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Only if you care about public opinion. If you don't, just turn the war zone into radioactive slag.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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. ... we're not more civilized than that.
See, We could easily get back in caves or climb back up trees
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 (Score:2)
Almost all the kids being sent to war are modera
Re: (Score:2)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
I will agree that there is a subtle difference but the outcome is the same.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Funny)
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. (Score:3, Insightful)
re: Japan (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
O
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The US is already full of evangelicals. Do you really think they haven't been training for the past decade?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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