U of MI Produces Strongest Laser Ever 244
eldavojohn writes "Weighing in at a mere 20 billion trillion watts per square centimeter and containing a measly 300 terawatts of power, the University of Michigan has broken a record with a 1.3-micron speck wide laser. It's about two orders of magnitude higher than any other laser in the world and can perform for 30 femtoseconds once every ten seconds — some of the researchers speculate it is the most powerful laser in the universe. 'If you could hold a giant magnifying glass in space and focus all the sunlight shining toward Earth onto one grain of sand, that concentrated ray would approach the intensity of a new laser beam made in a University of Michigan laboratory ... To achieve this beam, the research team added another amplifier to the HERCULES laser system, which previously operated at 50 terawatts. HERCULES is a titanium-sapphire laser that takes up several rooms at U-M's Center for Ultrafast Optical Science. Light fed into it bounces like a pinball off a series of mirrors and other optical elements. It gets stretched, energized, squeezed and focused along the way.'" And ... cue the evil chortling.
Cool (Score:5, Funny)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Not so cool (Score:3, Insightful)
That "300 terawatts" is nothing if you take into account how short the beam lasts.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Not so cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Really what did I expect, 3/4 of the people here weren't even born yet or were still shitting their diapers when Real Genius came out.
I guess I should have wasted "first post" on something obvious like "Sharks with frikin' laser beams attached to their heads"
If you've never seen the movie, your ability to post on /. is hereby suspsended until you do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a physics article. Of course you get a physics debate.
And what's with the name calling and ranting?
Re: (Score:2)
If you've never seen the movie, your ability to post on /. is hereby suspsended until you do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not so cool (Score:5, Funny)
It may not have been a great "teen flick" but it was certainly a good geek movie.
Over 100 movies in a year and you haven't heard enough about this to check it out?
Kid, I've served with geeks: I've known many geeks; geeks are most friends of mine. Kid, you're no geek.
Consider your geek card revoked (if, indeed, you ever had one).
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(Some people take themselves WAY too seriously!)
Ah, a "high cinema" snob. (Score:5, Insightful)
Congratulations. You have now made a fool of yourself in front of a crowd by trying to prove that you're better than them for being ignorant of "low cinema." Few things are more sad than a defense of ignorance. Also, giving your autobiography in response to questions about your taste on the internet just shows your own insecurity. Lurk more.
Re: (Score:2)
Well then you my friend would be missing out. That movie is chock full of inside jokes and funny references. Google a list of things in the movie, get the biggest bowl of pop corn you can find, some beer, put on your favorite bunny slippers, and sit back and see how many of them you can spot.
Re: (Score:2)
116 movies per year. That's just over two a week. Maybe you have more spare time than you thought...
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is a genuinely entertaining movie. Val Kilmer's comedic timing is impeccable. It's a movie that speaks to many geeks because it is *filled* with geeks. I've known more than one geek for whom the characters in this film were their heroes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
With dialogue like this:
How could you not want to see it?
Re: (Score:2)
Rubbish (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.clf.rl.ac.uk/news/CLF_News/vulcanpetawatt.htm [rl.ac.uk]
They even have a plaque from the Guinness book of records.
Depends what you're measuring. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Cool (Score:5, Interesting)
http://media.www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2006/02/20/Science/Sharks.The.Initial.Frontier-1620047.shtml [michigandaily.com]
Re: (Score:2)
One must question if it re
Re: (Score:2)
It's a movie reference genius. Not a budgetary proposal for a new weapons systems.
You Geek status is suspended.
The power to destroy a planet... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The power to destroy a planet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
FP! (Score:2)
Safety first (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Safety first (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.leftmind.net/safety/laser.pdf [leftmind.net]
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Safety first (Score:5, Informative)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes but... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
- John
Re:Yes but... (Score:5, Insightful)
You've obviously done a lot more thinking about the whole Dr-Evil thing than me!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And do I have to hand in my geek card because I don't know it?
Re: (Score:2)
Kegels (Score:5, Funny)
That's nothing! I can perform for 3 seconds once every ten minutes!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but can you hammer a six-inch spike through a board with your penis?
Re: (Score:2)
all these strange figures (Score:5, Informative)
300 terawatt of power = 3x10^14 W
1.3 micron wide = ca. 1.7x10^-12 m^2 (for a square shape)
30 femtosecond = 3x10^-14 s
hope that clarifies things.
... and that amounts to (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:all these strange figures (Score:5, Informative)
30 femtosecond = 3x10^-14 s
The duty cycle is 30 femtoseconds per 10 seconds.
If the '300 terrawatts' of power is consumed for 30 femtoseconds per 10 seconds, the average power consumption over 10 seconds is (3 * ((10^14) W) * 3 * ((10^(-14)) s)) / (10 s) = 0.9 watts
If, on the other hand, the 300 terrawatts is the average power consumption over 10 seconds, the power consumption when the laser is on is (3 * ((10^14) W) * (10 s)) / (3 * (10^(-14)) s) = 1.0 × 10^29 watts = 100,000 yottawatts
Yotta- is the largest SI prefix, and the total energy output of the Sun is 383 YW.
I suspect the former interpretation is more likely. This laser isn't so impressive when you realise it takes less power than my computer monitor... when my computer monitor is turned off.
Re:all these strange figures (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You should use the <quote> tags instead of italics for quoting now.
So what can you do with it? (Score:4, Interesting)
What can you do with this thing? Why does it exist? Just to say it's there, or does it have some function beyond bragging rights?
Re:So what can you do with it? (Score:4, Informative)
PING (Re:So what can you do with it?) (Score:2)
Long distances ? maybe, but not very good for Quake, etc...
C:\>ping home
Pinging home [192.168.1.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
Reply from 192.168.1.1: bytes=32 time=10000ms TTL=63
Ping statistics for 192.168.1.1:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% l
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
James Bond: "Do you expect me to talk?"
Goldfinger: "No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to die!"
Re:So what can you do with it? (Score:4, Informative)
FS-Lasers are cool beasts (Score:5, Informative)
For example there is one effect that seems to "break" quantum phyiscs (or more exactly, the photo-effect): You can excite electrons out of energy levels that are bound stronger than the photon energy. Even if they are bound _a_ lot stronger. The electric fields can be strong enough to strip atoms from everything down to and including the k-shell (I have one seen a presenter show a silde mentioning 37-photon effects...)
This can be used to create hard x-rays, or, of course, as a particle accelerator: You can GeV on ion energyies from them with a relatively simple setup.
This is of course for "normal" FS-Lasers, wich fill not much more than a large optical bank. But something tells me that _this_ one can make even more intersting stuff happen
Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts (Score:5, Interesting)
I found out later that my hunch was correct - it's just unlikely for two photons to hit an atom at exactly the same (to within a plancks time) with a low powered laser.
While I'm on the subject of laser, another cool things about high powered lasers is that the photons can collide. If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter. This has always fascinated me since it shows that the distinction between matter and light is a very fine one indeed.
Another cool thing about this laser is that the pulse is very short. Now because the position is being constrained (since it's a short pulse), it must mean that the momentum is very uncertain. (You cannot know the position and velocity of something at the same time). This in turn means that the laser has a whole range of wavelengths - it does not have a specific wavelength. Which, to me, makes it very un-laser-like. It's not coherent, monochromatic, etc.
Re:FS-Lasers are cool beasts (Score:5, Informative)
A Planck time (10^-43 s)? How do you conclude that number?
If you shine two beams so that they cross paths, some photons will collide with each other and scatter.
The actual mechanism, I believe, is that a photon can momentarily fluctuate into a charged fermion/antifermion pair, and the cross-beam interacts with those particles.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Its a much easier picture if you just think about the particle / wave aspect of photons:
Photoeffect is, basically, strictly particle. But considering the wave nature of photons, you have a wavepacket that has a physical size. This allows for many photons to have a probability of existing in the _same_ spot, at the _same_ time. Now all you need is fermis golden rule, and some matrix eleme
Re: (Score:2)
I got annoyed at the way the photo-electric effect was taught. It had always seemed 'obvious' that if a single photon didn't have enough energy to free an electron, then maybe two photons struck the metal at the same time.
OBVIOUSLY YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND TIME CUBE.
Seriously though, at the same 'time'? What is this 'time' thing of which you speak? Did I miss a memo, did we discover the quantum unit of time? Because if not... well, let me just leave that sentence hanging for you.
A question I would like the answer to is how long does it take for an atom to radiate a photon after being struck with a photon of sufficient energy to cause reradiation? If the period is sufficiently long it seems intuitively clear that multiple ph
Re: (Score:2)
This is determined by the uncertainty principle as well. The uncertainty (and thus average time) is determined by the energy. The larger the energy, the larger the uncertainty in the time, and so longer before the atom decays.
You can have one photon cause an atom to excite, then a second photon to cause the atom to excite further. B
Re: (Score:2)
Now all they have to do.. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Now all they have to do.. (location) (Score:2)
Long -77.02604 Lat 38.89790 [terraserver-usa.com]
Most powerful laser in the universe? (Score:3, Insightful)
LS
Re: (Score:2)
If they said that, someone would come here saying that just because it's not KNOWN to us (or them) it doesn't mean it isn't known by anyone else...surely if there's such a powerful laser in the universe someone (possibly not on Earth) must know about it.
The thing with being a pedantic is that there's always someone who can beat you to it, AND it's
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Caution... (Score:4, Funny)
Large spinning mirror (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What comes next... (Score:5, Funny)
Professor: We shall commence "Phase 2", we shall place the "la-ser" on something called "the moon"
Student: And then we can hold the world ransom for a horrendously large amount of money
Professor: Hell no! We're going to wipe all other universities off the face of the Earth!
In the universe? (Score:2)
Only if there is no other intelligent life in the universe in which case any technology that is the best in some way on earth is also the best in the universe.
Anyway, what can it do? You'd think they would give some examples of burning holes through stuff.
Re:In the universe? (Score:5, Informative)
In contrast the best particle beams on the planet get a few gold atoms to near light speed, while the natural ones can easily get the planet Jupiter moving at that pace.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:In the universe? (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, what can it do?
Discussion so far seems to have missed one little line, where they say it may be powerful enough to boil the vacuum of space, and perhaps bring virtual particles into existence. Think about that for a minute - matter from nothing... kind'a scary, isn't it? Like in those super particle accelerators where they just might end up creating microscopic black holes. So one of these little black holes would start sucking in matter and not stop until the whole world is consumed. Well there we go - this laser could be the antidote for that. We have all these particles popping into existence over there at the that university with the laser, and a little black hole on the other side of the ocean sucking up matter, and an infinite loop between creating and destroying and us all caught in the middle. I think physics is getting into dangerous territory.
Re: (Score:2)
Ohio State... (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I can't do it, captain! I don't have the POWER! (Score:2, Interesting)
I know it's not actually using that full rated 300 terawatts ("300 times the capacity of the entire U.S. electricity grid") in such incredibly short bursts, but nonetheless, it's still got to eat a lot of juice.
Re: (Score:2)
At what do they point it? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Magnifying glasses (Score:3, Funny)
Please, won't someone think of the ants?!
they now have the "ultimate power in the universe" (Score:2)
Muhahaha! (Score:3, Funny)
Watch for the spread offense.
Go Blue!
This just in from Eta Carina... (Score:2)
I'm not sure I believe that Eta Carina is producing natural laser, but if it is, I'll bet it's more powerful than the M-Go Blue Ray. And apparently has a very precise aiming mechanism to hit us so that we can detect it. If not, it's spewing all that radiation in all directions and we got lucky to detect it. That is more than 9 joules.
Re:Sharks? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Commander, this confirms that the inhabitants are hostile. Shall we assume battle stations?"
Commander: "We are Klingons. What other stations do we have?"
Re: (Score:2)