Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Medicine Science

'Extremely Brilliant Source' X-Rays Set To Revolutionize Science (gizmodo.com) 77

Rose Pastore reporting via Gizmodo: A new way of producing powerful X-ray beams -- the brightest on Earth -- is now making it possible to create 3D images of matter at astounding resolutions. This "Extremely Brilliant Source" officially opened last month at the European Synchrotron Radiation Facility in France, and scientists are already using it to study the coronavirus behind covid-19. These X-ray beams will image the interiors of fossils, brains, batteries, and countless other interesting items down to the atomic scale, revealing unprecedented information and supercharging scientific research.

A typical medical X-ray, like you would get for a broken bone, can show doctors details about your particular fracture and the tissue around it. X-rays penetrate the body and are absorbed at different rates by different tissue; once they've passed through you, they hit a detector, creating the familiar black-and-white X-ray image. The Extremely Brilliant Source produces X-rays 10 trillion times more powerful than those used in hospitals. With such a beam, scientists could create a 3D image of your broken bone so detailed that they could see the individual atoms in the blood cells surrounding your fracture. Of course, you wouldn't want to be hit with this particular beam -- the dose of radiation would be fatal.

The possibilities that the Extremely Brilliant Source opens up feel endless. One area that particularly excites Francesco Sette, director general of the ESRF, is research into the structure and functioning of brains, which could eventually enable brain-like electronics. "It would be a major revolution, not only for neuroscience, but also for all those applications that are coming up to use possibly the human brain architecture for a new generation of devices," he said.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Extremely Brilliant Source' X-Rays Set To Revolutionize Science

Comments Filter:
  • Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational battle station...
  • by ze_jua ( 910531 ) <jailh AT free DOT fr> on Friday September 25, 2020 @02:38AM (#60542380)

    Lol.

    I shared this story on Slashdot 1 month ago when the installation was opening, and when the information was not everywhere in mainstream media.

    It was tagged as SPAM, and declined. The fact it was not a repost from Gizmodo...

    Slashdot is that now: the place where you can get information 1 month late.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Now? It's always been that way :-)

      The incorrect spam flagging thing is an issue, try using the feedback link at the bottom of the page. They are trying to fix it.

      • by ze_jua ( 910531 )
        No, it was not always that way. In the past you could find, you know : "News for nerds, stuff that matter". And not just links to world news and video games released already aired on CNN 3 weeks ago.
    • Lol.

      I shared this story on Slashdot 1 month ago when the installation was opening, and when the information was not everywhere in mainstream media.

      It was tagged as SPAM, and declined. The fact it was not a repost from Gizmodo...

      Slashdot is that now: the place where you can get information 1 month late.

      You realise Slashdot editors are different people right and without clear standards on to post and what not. Simply sharing a story is not as relevant as it being shared in an interesting way and being seen by an editor that actually takes an interest in it.

      Many people also said Bohemian Rhapsody would never be a hit, much less get played on the radio as a single. If Slashdot had only one editor on staff you may have a point about your Gizmodo conspiracy, but the reality is more likely, one of the editors w

    • I too have had this happen.

    • by unami ( 1042872 )
      But still one week before the mainstream media copy/pastes it.
    • by Falos ( 2905315 )

      tagged as spam

      This is the correct solution to people who want you to look at anything gizmodo&c, someone just got the flowchart backwards.

    • In any case, it might have only been extremely bright, and not brilliant at all.

      I mean, did they even look at it?

    • Really? You didn't know?
      Slashdot has always been at least 2 days behind in news.
      Articles here are usually from already published articles that others have read and brought notice here.
  • by Gravis Zero ( 934156 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @02:57AM (#60542404)

    The Extremely Brilliant Source produces X-rays 10 trillion times more powerful than those used in hospitals. With such a beam, scientists could create a 3D image of your broken bone so detailed that they could see the individual atoms in the blood cells surrounding your fracture.

    If you're lucky, "wow, that's amazing!" would be your final words before you died from the radiation.

    • by h33t l4x0r ( 4107715 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @04:28AM (#60542492)
      "Wow, that's brilliant!" I think you mean. You yankee twats always changing adjectives needlessly.
      • Sorry Ringo, to the winners go the spoils.
        • It's Australian too. My friend managed the synchrotron there for many years until he passed away a couple yars ago. Synchrotrons never really got the glamour and fame that supercolliders got, but they're generally booked full time with experiments. If you don't want to smash 'em to bits then dazzle 'em instead with your brilliance.

      • In a world where everyone is becoming more and more divided, I'm finding shit like you saying "You yankee twats.." to be more and more unacceptable. The U.S. is one of your staunchest allies, Trump not withstanding, so how about you modulate your speech, mmkay? Thanks so much.
    • Yeah, that was also my first thought. You couldn't use this technique on living tissue.
  • by stfvon007 ( 632997 ) <enigmar007.yahoo@com> on Friday September 25, 2020 @03:00AM (#60542406) Journal

    So could this be used to do a complete scan of someones brain at the time of death, then later when computer technology advances enough virtually recreate that consciousness in a virtual world?

    • by Jamu ( 852752 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @03:24AM (#60542438)
      Hard to say until we understand consciousness.
      • And right now, we don't even understand unconsciousness!

        • Temporarily shut down enough subsystems of the brain and you get 'unconsciousness'.
        • by Tablizer ( 95088 )

          If it's the only way to preserve a brain's structure for the time being, that question may have to wait. Collect data now, figure it out later. (Cryogenics is another possible way.)

    • by robi5 ( 1261542 )

      Wouldn't it just destroy sensitive tissue (or I guess anything of biological origin) before it could image it?

    • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

      The mind is the electrical and chemical state of the brain at any given time - the software if you will - its more than just the hardware which is all you can image with an x-ray. In theory you could reproduce a brains hard/wetware exactly already given enough time and manpower just using current systems.

      • The mind is the electrical and chemical state of the brain at any given time - the software if you will - its more than just the hardware which is all you can image with an x-ray. In theory you could reproduce a brains hard/wetware exactly already given enough time and manpower just using current systems.

        Assuming that state isn't constantly changing...
        Or even just decaying after say death.

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          Well it probably is constantly changing , but the hardware isn't, at least not on a daily basis. If the hardware was all there was to it there'd be no such thing as sleep or unconciousness where the hardware hasn't changed but the mind essentially isn't "running" even though the brain is stlll working. I suppose to use another computer analogy the concious mind has been swapped out for another process :)

        • I am not a neuroscientist, but I seem to recall that neurons and such in the brain start decomposing mere minutes after death; a long-dead brain can, I think, only give vague hints as to it's function, and that's what's standing in the way of really understanding it.
      • I'm progressively leaning away from using words like 'software' when it comes to a biological brain. It's not digital, it's massively analog. Just because a comparator [wikipedia.org] can take a set of analog inputs and produce a digital output doesn't necessarily mean the system it's a part of is 'digital'. The human brain might just be essentially one massively complex analog computer. As such attempting to model it in digital hardware might be the wrong approach.
        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          There is also growing indication, that the human brain is actually just part of things. Nobody knows what the rest is, but Neurosciences finds that it gets more mysterious how things work the closer they look. Another is the constant failure of "AI" to produce even a dim glimmer of real general intelligence. There are more.

          Just remember that the idea that the brain produces consciousness and intelligence is pure conjecture. Stating it as a fact is unscientific and in fact on the same level as religion (phys

          • "Just remember that the idea that the brain produces consciousness and intelligence is pure conjecture"

            So people turn to religion, and all of the hate, war, and oppression that comes with it.

            How come people can't deal with the unexplained without creating a death cult?

          • Anything sufficiently complex enough is indistinguishable from magic.

            I'm not even going to consider anything 'mystical' about the human brain, or even considering such a thing as a 'soul'. I'm past all that, long ago.
            The human brain is an incredibly dense, incredibly complex system, and it's had aeons to evolve into what it is today. Thinking that we can unravel all of that in a few decades is not reasonable.
            We don't even have the technology to properly observe a living human brains' functioning, not at
            • by gweihir ( 88907 )

              You pretty much fall for a different from of Mysticism here: One that ascribes powers to complexity it does not have. In Physics, the whole is never more than the sum of its parts.

              The simple fact of the matter is that the current physical standard model does not allow consciousness. Physicists do not see that as a problem, they know it is wrong (no quantum-gravity, i.e. one part of the theory strongly needs something the other part says does not exist...). Whether we will get a extension to the standard mod

              • You seem to be admonishing me or anyone else from 'drawing conclusions' with regard to this subject, and I must assert that I am most certainly not drawing any conclusions with the exception that we don't know everything yet and need to keep working at it.
                I think, therefore I am, regardless of knowing how that even works. You don't need a Masters in Electrical Engineering to turn on a lightswitch, and I don't need a down-to-the-cellular-level understanding of my own meat brain to wake up in the morning, l
                • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                  Eventually we'll understand how our own brains actually work, even if it takes another hundred years or three.

                  Well, physical brain, possibly. Whether that includes consciousness and intelligence remains to be seen. We still have no conclusive evidence that intelligence is even possible with the Physics we know. We do know some limited forms are possible with the Mathematics we know, but these parts only have implementations that are far less powerful than smart human beings because they all scale exceptionally badly and only work for tiny problems. And they are not general intelligence either.

                  In the meantime I really wish all these marketing departments would stop trying to shove this half-assed excuse for 'AI' down everyones' throats. It's annoying and it might become dangerous.

                  I completely agree on

                  • I've got to say it again: just because we don't currently have the physics knowledge or neuroscience knowledge at the moment to define how it is a biological brain produces the phenomena of 'consciousness', 'cognition', 'self-awareness', etc, doesn't mean we won't, and it doesn't mean there's anything inherently 'magical' or 'mysitcal' about it, and furthermore something being 'definable' to the Nth degree doesn't necessarily imply that philosophical concepts like 'free will' doesn't exist or the reciprocal
                    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                      And I will say it again as well: We cannot rule out anything mystic either, no matter how much that may make you uncomfortable. Science requires positive proof. The question is open. And no, that is not me trying to prepare a second step and argue for that mysticism. There is no proof for it either. At the point "the question is open", my argumentation chain is complete. I am well aware that many religious nuts use that two-step process: 1. create a void 2. fill it with their crap.

                      As to your (C)PRNG, mathem

                    • I have no problem with 'uncertainty', 'infinity', the Universe expanding faster than the speed of light, and so on. But I will always be wary of anyone claiming that anything is due to 'magic'. As a species we need to get over thinking that way or it's going to completely wreck us -- assuming the dozen other ways we're wrecking ourselves don't kill us off first.

                      I don't see a point in even discussing this further.
                    • You know what? I've got more to say.

                      There is absolutely no scientific principle that says will will find out everything eventually. I suggest you learn to live with that. I also suggest a little more mental flexibility, as that may allow you to see past your current quasi-religious delusion. Physicalism is just a bizarre form of mysticism. It is a belief. It is not like atheism, which is most decidedly not a religion.

                      I call bullshit on all that. 'Mental flexibility' is not how I'd describe saying "It's magic!" or "It's God's will!". That's a cop-out. That's on the same level as saying "God will protect us from the pandemic because we are Righteous", and believing 'religion' and 'faith' overrule 'science' and 'actual truth'. There's already too much idiocy perpetrated by my fellow humans as-is without this apparent trend towards rejecting a thousand years' worth of intellectual progres

                    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

                      And you continue to not even really read what I wrote. There is nothing, absolutely nothing in Science that rules out "magic". The scientific state-of-the-art is that so far we have not found magic in any reliably provable form. That is not ruling it out. That is not expecting it to exits either. The question is completely open. Somehow that idea does not seem to be compatible with your thought processes. Because you seem to be incapable of even understanding it. Science requires things to provably exist to

                    • Superstition is threatening out civilization because there are too many limited minds out there that are BELIEVING that science is some sort of SCAM. You can call me stupid all you want but it doens't make it true. I HAVE to deny any such thing as 'magic', 'god(s)', 'human soul' exist. There is no other choice. Get off my back.
      • by gweihir ( 88907 )

        The mind is the electrical and chemical state of the brain at any given time

        Nope. That is physicalist drivel (i.e. quasi-religion). The actual scientific state-of-the-art is that nobody knows. In particular, there is no known mechanism for "consciousness" in Physics, i.e. it does not exist in the current standard model. It does not get much more "unknown at this time" than that.

        • Claiming that the mind is anything other than "the electrical and chemical state of the brain" is rejecting the best conclusion that can be reached by available evidence. The only reasonable objection that can be raised is that other parts of the nervous system might also be considered part of the mind.

          Demanding that physics provide a total solution for consciousness now is just silly. We have a fair idea of what's going on in many aspects of consciousness. Progress is achieved by getting more data to fill

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Your stance is religious, not scientific. At this time, there is no scientifically valid basis for any claim as to what consciousness is or is not.

            Not surprising, you use the same manipulation techniques and lies that are sued by religious people. Nor example, I never required a "total solution for consciousness" from Physics. The actual reality is that it has absolutely _nothing_ regarding consciousness. In the current physical standard model, consciousness does not exist. Then you lie some more about what

        • Demanding that physics explain consciousness is like demanding that mathematics explain fish. It's completely wrongheaded. You seem to be demanding that "the current standard model" has to have a particle called "consciousness", which is just silly.

          Consciousness requires something to be conscious of, and some mechanism to respond (internally or externally) to the that something. Touch a baseball and the body's sensory system reacts and sends signals to the brain, which processes those signals in many ways i

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Ah, I see. You do not understand Physics! That explains a lot. For your information: Physics requires some elementary base mechanism for everything that is observable. In Physics, the whole can never be more than the sum of its parts. There is no such base mechanism for consciousness, hence consciousness is outside of the current physical standard model.

        • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

          "That is physicalist drivel (i.e. quasi-religion)."

          Wtf are you talking about? I suggest you close your arse before any more rubbish dribbles out of it.

          If the mind was simply down to the hardware of the brain and nothing more then explain where our concious mind goes when were asleep because the hardware hasn't changed has it!

          " In particular, there is no known mechanism for "consciousness" in Physics, i.e. it does not exist in the current standard mode"

          Sounds like you're the religious one now. Are you going

          • by gweihir ( 88907 )

            Well, the asshole here is definitely you. For example, the standard model completely explains a web-browser in all its behaviors and parts, including ones under hardware errors. Yet there is absolutely nothing in that standard model that could serve as a basis for consciousness.

            And why do you asshole assume I am going for a "god in anything" explanation? That is just your stupidity at work. I am very explicitly going for "the question is open" and "current physics does not explain it" and "we have no clue".

    • by HiThere ( 15173 )

      It's an interesting idea...but my guess is not. Having the entire brain in focus probably isn't possible. But it might be in interesting form of suicide. If I guess correctly 5 seconds after they take the picture your entire brain will be a charred cinder...or at least hotter than boiling lead.

    • *sigh* first we have to understand how a human brain, at the subsystem and overall system level, actually even works. As-is we have no idea how it works, just vague notions of things like 'neurons'. So-called 'machine learning' is throwing things at the wall randomly to see what sticks. To do what you're suggesting we need a non-destructive method of scanning. This ain't it.
    • by gweihir ( 88907 )

      At the stated intensity, it will just fry the brain...

    • So could this be used to do a complete scan of someones brain at the time of death, then later when computer technology advances enough virtually recreate that consciousness in a virtual world?

      We barely have ability to simulate a protein folding. We are no where near simulating a single subcellular structure. What makes you think we can simulate an entire brain?

  • by Camembert ( 2891457 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @03:56AM (#60542462)
    It sees great that it could render a broken bone in stupefying detail as the article implies, but if you die from using it, then that use case won't work.
    • But it can still serve as a cautionary tale. About breaking bones, or getting x-rays, or maybe just trusting new and unproven medical procedures.
  • With a powerful enough xray you could take out troops and shielded electronics at the same time and if it can be done it will be done at some poinyt by some unscrupulous dictatorship.

    • by CaptQuark ( 2706165 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @05:07AM (#60542540)
      Possibly, but not by this setup. The synchrotron used is approximately 270 meters in diameter and needs superconducting magnets to steer the beam. You would need five aircraft carriers sailing side by side to carry something this big, plus all the support equipment for the assembly. And after all that, a single Jetski would probably cause enough of a wake that the beam would be disrupted.

      Not something that you could take into battle at this time. Other high-energy particle weapons exist, but nothing with this much energy (6 GeV).

      ---
      • Well, this is the first model. We can expect the size to come down. May also work as an orbital platform.
        • by HiThere ( 15173 )

          The orbital platform makes more sense, but that platform had better have MASSIVE heat exchangers, or this will be a one shot weapon.

        • by Falos ( 2905315 )

          To a degree, but every Fuckton Of Energy Dumper built tends to require energy sources, and it's hard to get near those orders of magnitude without things that are large, volatile, or both. Dense energy vs "rapid release" is an ongoing problem.

          Like large weight/bearing goals, you can't escape large dimensions very far without entirely new materials/chemistry.

          • That's one of the benefits to being in orbit - abundant solar power. The issue becomes one of recharge time, which is function of the size and efficiency of the solar panels.

            I mean, you're right, it's just that the very, very large and quite volatile power source is kept at a safe distance of 1 AU.

        • Needs a scary name to emphasize how dangerous it could be. Maybe Death something.

        • by carton ( 105671 )

          May also work as an orbital platform.

          Exactly, the extreme size won't be an obstacle once it's in space, and there will be no jetskis to disrupt it. This will eventually allow us to read the enemy's thoughts by imaging his brain at an atomic level from space (unless he's wearing a protective hat).

          • Well, maybe if you can get the enemy to stand on a CCD panel. Probably easier to just cook them.
      • by Viol8 ( 599362 )

        I'm sure someone also pointed out the absurdity of pocket computers back in the 50s as they stood in a warehouse sized room with a mainframe in it.

      • Space Force needs a big-ass X-Ray Laser!
    • by oic0 ( 1864384 )
      Been there, done that. During the 70s and 80s the US developed a powerful X-Ray laser that was powered by a small nuclear explosion.
  • by jfdavis668 ( 1414919 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @06:43AM (#60542668)
    Just what I always wanted to attached to the heads of my sharks!
  • Missing information (Score:4, Interesting)

    by lessSockMorePuppet ( 6778792 ) on Friday September 25, 2020 @08:45AM (#60542894) Homepage

    how the fuck does it work? Cool, it's new and better.

    We're nerds. How does it work?

  • Remember that there was already talk of light that destroys the SarsCov2 virus? So now we know it's this brilliant source that needs to be used (by insertion, killing the virus inside the human body). It's even in the name. Brilliant!
  • you wouldn't want to be hit with this particular beam -- the dose of radiation would be fatal.

    If the radiation is strong enough to kill, it is also strong enough to have unwelcome effects on the nature morte.

    I imagine (yes, pun intended again), this would limit the applications further. The Wuhan-virus mentioned in the write-up, for example — because we don't have COVID-19 mentioned enough these days — will, probably, be subtly damaged within microseconds of the observation. Will such observatio

  • Of course, you wouldn't want to be hit with this particular beam -- the dose of radiation would be fatal.

    ...

    One area that particularly excites Francesco Sette, director general of the ESRF, is research into the structure and functioning of brains ...

    Am I the only one who sees a problem here?

  • " The Extremely Brilliant Source produces X-rays 10 trillion times more powerful than those used in hospitals"

    (talks about imaging brains)

    No thanks. I hope they are talking about cadaver brains

  • produces X-rays 10 trillion times more powerful than those used in hospitals... you wouldn't want to be hit with this particular beam -- the dose of radiation would be fatal...One area that particularly excites...is research into the structure and functioning of brains

    Researcher 1: "Wow, we just watched the precise thought patterns of a mouse!"

    Researcher 2: "Interesting, what were its thoughts?"

    Researcher 1: "The translation is as follows: 'Ooow! It's hot! my head is frying!, I'm...' It ends there."

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Working...