Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Repulsive Force Discovered In Light

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the push-me-pull-you dept.

Science 176

Aurispector writes in with news that the Yale team that recently discovered an attractive force between two light beams in waveguides has now found a corresponding repulsive force. "'This completes the picture,' [team lead Hong] Tang said. 'We've shown that this is indeed a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component.' The attractive and repulsive light forces Tang's team discovered are separate from the force created by light's radiation pressure, which pushes against an object as light shines on it. Instead, they push out or pull in sideways from the direction the light travels. Previously, the engineers used the attractive force they discovered to move components on the silicon chip in one direction, such as pulling on a nanoscale switch to open it, but were unable to push it in the opposite direction. Using both forces means they can now have complete control and can manipulate components in both directions. 'We've demonstrated that these are tunable forces we can engineer,' Tang said."

cancel ×

176 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Repulsiveness in light, you say? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28699863)

I wondered where CowboyNeal was off to since he's not in the polls anymore. He's in your lights!

Is it as repulsive as a hook-nosed kike? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700165)

With Jews you lose so to win you must lose the Jews.

Re:Is it as repulsive as a hook-nosed kike? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700827)

Maybe that's because they're vastly superior to you?

Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28699871)

Sweet! Next up, how lightsabers don't work.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699929)

I always thought lightsabers don't work so much on the notion of light as the convergence of energy and solid matter where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy explaining why lightsabers cast a shadow and why training lightsabers don't cut. (And also why there are light bridges that are mentioned but never seen in star wars.) It just happens that light is given off in this mashup of state changes.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (2, Interesting)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700035)

I always assumed it was a misnomer and they were just very skillfully manipulated plasma devices. We already have the technology to create "plasma windows" that can hold back atmosphere against a vacuum and plasma torches than can cut through cowboynelium. Why not bridges and swords of the highly charged fun-stuff?

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Funny)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700177)

Because you can't "block" other lightsabers based on such technology. I recall seeing one lightsaber video where the humor of the video was based on that notion. They were successful in creating an effective lightsaber in that it had a definite end point and would cut through anything, but when they attempted to cross swords, they just passed through one another... and then one of the people cut through the other one with the lightsaber he had. You can probably find it on youtube or on theforce.net somewhere...

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700555)

but when they attempted to cross swords

I knew I shouldn't have watched Bruno

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

Dracos (107777) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700651)

Only hard core Star Wars nerds would attempt to cross swords.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (3, Funny)

LKM (227954) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700831)

Don't cross the swords! It would lead to all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

BOBSta (1120709) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701085)

Old testament end of the world stuff? Cats and Dogs living together?

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

mattcasters (67972) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701365)

The "Everything slimed by ghosts" kind of end of the world.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Interesting)

nessus42 (230320) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700743)

They were successful in creating an effective lightsaber in that it had a definite end point and would cut through anything, but when they attempted to cross swords, they just passed through one another... and then one of the people cut through the other one with the lightsaber he had. You can probably find it on youtube or on theforce.net somewhere...

Indeed you can find it on YouTube. Here it is:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsZNiCSCLXw [youtube.com]

|>ouglas

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701527)

Yes! That's exactly the one I was talking about!

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700109)

Actually, they cast a shadow because the actors are really holding flash gun handles with white sticks in them, and the blades are rotoscoped on later. Yup, they were just too lazy to get rid of the shadows/film at angles to avoid them.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (2, Funny)

icebike (68054) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701067)

Or perhaps they started to remove than and said, you know what, let's leave them in, and let the slashdot crowd try to explain the technology. Its not their job to fill in every detail of every imaginary technology.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28701169)

You know what they should have done? Color-coded the shadows as well so they could do all that fancy magicks with the computers to remove them.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28701363)

this lightsaber [youtube.com] doesn't leave a shadow.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700175)

I thought they where just really powerful lasers with some kind of a small blackhole at the tip to suck in the beam.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700365)

I thought they were really just a MADE-UP THING which we DON'T KNOW HOW IT COULD WORK!

Ah well, so much for reality vs. fantasy...

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700189)

Never going to get laid... EVER...

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (4, Funny)

Sensible Clod (771142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700359)

Oh, really? I thought lightsabers don't work because of the impossibility of handheld gigawatt nuke reactors to control the several tesla magnetic field to confine the plasma at one meter wirelessly.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

darthdavid (835069) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700617)

Yes but Star Wars tech has technologies with much higher energy densities than nuclear power. Otherwise there's no way the Death Stars could function the way they did and there's no way a single ISD could BDZ a planet...

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (2, Funny)

roger_pasky (1429241) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701255)

Flash gun handles with white sticks in them... Yeah, right... and now you'll tell me tooth fairy does not exist.

Thanks God we can still trust Santa Claus. Maybe next Christmas I'll ask for a real lightsaber with this technology.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700785)

Lightsabers are supposed to be closed circuits of energy that are held in shape by a confinement field (possibly the force imbued within the lightsaber crystals upon construction). Presumably it is the force that gives the blade its solid surface. Because lightsaber blades are closed circuits, they recycle their power and expend almost nothing unless they are in contact with a solid surface or another lightsaber. They do not cast shadows and even if they did, you would not be able to see it because the "blade" is microscopic in width. The fat blade that you see is mostly coronal light bleed, not the blade itself. As far as I know, any visible shadow in the films is an editing slip-up cast by the lightsaber prop. As you can see here [blogspot.com] and here [starwars.com] , there are no shadows cast by the blades in the ideally lit Yoda training scene of episode 2, yet you can see the shadows of the lightsaber hilts. None of the Star Wars games that I know of have lightsaber blades that cast shadows either.

Of course it's all fiction and there is no plausible explanation for how one could possibly work in the real world, so the discussion is pointless beyond a fun factor. This is only they way I've come to understand how they work through the films, books and games based in the Star Wars universe.

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700925)

convergence of energy and solid matter where energy becomes matter and matter becomes energy explaining why lightsabers cast a shadow

I think you'll find they cast a shadow because the actors had to wield a bright blue brush-shaft whilst filming, before the CG was put in ;)

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700337)

Who cares about lightsabers? With repulsors, flying cars will finally become a reality!

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! Jusssst GREAT... (3, Funny)

davidsyes (765062) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700691)

Now, data (or Data) can join the dark side, and display a tension-deficit disorder

Re:Psssssssshhhhhhh!!!!!! (1)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701277)

well as soon as we can escape from this tractor beam i'l explain ya.

This is why (2, Funny)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699873)

Ahhh finally a scientific explanation of why girls are repulsed by me! Its not my lude jokes... its light!

Re:This is why (5, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699961)

Actually, it's your spelling.

Re:This is why (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700277)

Maybe he really did mean lude, as in Quaalude.

Going around assuming lewdness where none exists can get you into big trouble.

Re:This is why (3, Funny)

compro01 (777531) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700353)

Going around assuming lewdness where none exists can get you into big trouble.

In the US, it gets you elected to congress.

Re:This is why (1)

Sehnsucht (17643) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700989)

Like he said.

Re:This is why (1)

Mozk (844858) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701029)

Maybe he speaks Engrish and folgot how to spell "rude" correctry.

Re:This is why (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28699987)

Ahhh finally a scientific explanation of why girls are repulsed by me! Its not my lude jokes... its light!

It's not the light's fault your face looks like the south end of a northbound mule.

Re:This is why (1)

masmullin (1479239) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700197)

science begs to differ my friend.

Re:This is why (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701279)

Actually it's because you're out of phase. With light, opposites repulse, whereas like attracts. So try your luck with boys instead!

Sounds familiar.... (5, Funny)

OakDragon (885217) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699881)

...a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component...

Just like my ex-girlfriend!

Re:Sounds familiar.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700023)

Oh for the love of mod points.

Re:Sounds familiar.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700501)

...a bipolar light force with both an attractive and repulsive component...

Just like my ex-girlfriend!

Yeah mine ex-girlfriend too! Fucked in the head but really hot!

Your girlfriend was a photon? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700587)

Your girlfriend was a photon? Now I know some guys who like skinny girls, but that's ridiculous.

Re:Sounds familiar.... (0, Troll)

clarkkent09 (1104833) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700729)

Just like my ex-girlfriend!

So they make inflatable sheep that light up?

Now all we need (2, Funny)

spacefiddle (620205) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699895)

is for an alcoholic millionaire to cram it into a suit of armor!

Finally... (3, Funny)

mldi (1598123) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699897)

... an explanation as to why so many WoW geeks shriek when they leave their parents'.... errrmmm.... their basements during the day.

Re:Finally... (1)

Mendoksou (1480261) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699963)

It burnss our eyeses preciousss!

Yup. Been there, done that. (5, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699919)

"Repulsive Force Discovered In Light"--well DUH. Anyone who's ever been in a strip club at closing time has witnessed this phenomenon.

Re:Yup. Been there, done that. (1)

CyBlue (701644) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700441)

*Sigh* I scanned quickly to see if anyone else was thinking the same thing before replying higher. It was the first thing I thought about as well :-)

Angular momentum (4, Interesting)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699951)

Huh, I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of phtons of the same "handedness." I wonder if this can be used to explain that.

Re:Angular momentum (5, Interesting)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699999)

Sorry about the double post, but I was reading an old paper on the subject. Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force. I wonder if this is the same thing as what they are seeing in the article.

Re:Angular momentum (1)

ryrw (810868) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700297)

Have you tried logarithms? [xkcd.com]

Signed,
literature grad student

Re:Angular momentum (1)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700355)

I get the joke, but if you read my first post you'll see that I'm asking if anyone thinks this right rather than asserting it to be an expert analysis of the phenomenon. You're right though, my expertise is reactor engineering. I haven't touched optics in years- but after reading the paper I've linked to elsewhere I'm pretty sure I'm right - though I admit it was hastily written and probably hard for a litterature graduate student to follow.

Re:Angular momentum (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701405)

Light has a lower angular momentum inside an dialectric than in air or vaccum. This means that it imparts a force upon entering a dialectric and upon exiting a dialectric. If it is combined out of phase within the dialectic, then destructive interference will mean that the entering and exiting force imparted by the light beams will be out of balance (as the intensity of the exiting beam will be lower without any radiation-pressure type interactions being required) and there will be a net repulsive force.

If the beam is exiting the dialectric with a lower intensity as it normally would, where goes all the energy?

Re:Angular momentum (4, Funny)

Angstroem (692547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701015)

I had always wondered how to resolve conservation of light's angular momentum during destructive interference of collinear laser pulses consisting of ph[o]tons of the same "handedness."

Bingo, Sir.

Deflector and tractor fields? (1, Funny)

KDN (3283) | more than 5 years ago | (#28699955)

Light has an attractive and repulsive component. Sounds like Star Trek deflector and tractor beams to me. Who knows what they will be able to do with this in a hundred years or so.

Re:Deflector and tractor fields? (4, Funny)

Laxori666 (748529) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700087)

Anything, as long as you divert enough power to the deflector dish.

Re:Deflector and tractor fields? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700357)

Maybe hovercraft like the Nebuchadnezzar [starhtml.de] .

Re:Deflector and tractor fields? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700943)

No, no, no. That's only half of the problem. Don't forget the inevitable social side-story, where some kid's pet tribble has gotten into the jeffries tubes, and his mom will be angry if he doesn't get it out and safe the ship in the process.

Maybe with metamaterials. (4, Interesting)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700127)

Possibly, but this looks like the effect of light beams interacting inside of a target dialectric combined with the differences in light's angular momentum at the different speeds of c inside and outside the target. Aside from also cooking whatever you wanted to tractor, you might be able to accomplish this with very powerful laser pulses and "cloaking" metamaterials. Since the metamaterials bend the relevent light frequencey around a target you may be able to exert the force on the material, use a vastly powerful laser pulse, and not cook the target. This could impart enough force to be useful and could be used to maintain a cloud of such objects over vast distances using a web of laser pulses pushing and pulling the disparate objects into a desired position. Kind of a neat idea and a good intuitive leap to suggest tractor beams

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12961080/ [msn.com]

Re:Maybe with metamaterials. (2, Funny)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701415)

Dude... Who are you?

Repulsive force in light (1)

naz404 (1282810) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700099)

Augh! The light! It burns! It burnsssssss!

Re:Repulsive force in light (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700405)

They've booby trapped their sun somehow!!

Nice. But. (4, Interesting)

terbo (307578) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700111)

While discovering new properties of old phenomena is interesting,
does anyone ever question the 'bravado' of the wording of such
discoveries?

Does it inhibit later discoveries, in creating artificial limitations
through language and subsequently expectation?

Re:Nice. But. (1)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700235)

Someone broke your
Carrier Return

Re:Nice. But. (1)

UncleTogie (1004853) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700707)

Someone broke your
Carrier Return

When you find the USS Nimitz, look aboard and check to see if any "carriage return" keys are missing.

Hint: Think OLD typewriters... and get off my lawn!

Re:Nice. But. (2, Funny)

Hadlock (143607) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700727)

Everyone knows carriage returns were supplanted by carrier returns with the advent of aircraft carriers. They're looking at revising the term as Shuttle Return when the Space Shuttle Program is finally Shuttered.

Re:Nice. But. (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701143)

But my military Linux does not use any frikkin' Carrier Returns. It only separates the lines using Maginot Line Feeds.

Re:Nice. But. (1)

tenco (773732) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701463)

It only separates the lines using Maginot Line Feeds.

That's handy. You only need a piece of paper to write a whole book on, this way.

Force source? (2, Insightful)

aeve (741109) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700119)

What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?

Re:Force source? (3, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700133)

What the crap is an article about a newly found force that doesn't explain at least a theory as to the source of the force? Is it magnetic?

      Don't worry. I'm sure some physicist somewhere will soon invent a particle to explain it.

Re:Force source? (5, Informative)

TiberSeptm (889423) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700151)

Here is a very good paper that might give you some insight.

http://www.opticsinfobase.org/DirectPDFAccess/7CB1DC52-BDB9-137E-C347E05AD6F7E2D4_84895.pdf?da=1&id=84895&seq=0&CFID=48237375&CFTOKEN=15548595 [opticsinfobase.org]

"Angular momentum of circularly polarized light in dielectric media"

Thanks for link!! NT (1)

opencity (582224) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700759)

Thanks for link!

Re:Force source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700987)

That might shed some light on the subject?

Re:Force source? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700185)

It's not a particle, it's a wave! Seriously, though, it comes from the wave nature of light - how it can interfere att differing wavelengths (or in this case, speeds) - and how you also have to have conservation of momentum. It's not another force like gravity or electromagnetism, but rather a side effect of the electromagnetic messenger particles, photons. You can think of it as electromagnetism, since a photon's energy is being converted into something else, but it's not a coulomb force. What's clever is that they've figured out how to use it for something.

Re:Force source? (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700639)

Why bother trying to identify the source of a force? It only leads to deeper, more confusing questions.

tags (0)

Odinlake (1057938) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700125)

Post is tagged "disgusting", "repulsorblast" and "midichlorians"... Fascinating, the minds of whoever comes up with such tags all the time.

New lightbulb from GE! (5, Funny)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700129)

Now emits 100% attractive light. That's twice as much as the next leading brand!

and (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700551)

Billions of moths scream out in horror.

Re:and (2, Funny)

slider2800 (1058930) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700679)

*kzzzt* ...and are suddenly silenced.

Re:New lightbulb from GE! (1)

muzicman (1148101) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701009)

Well that explains all the damn Moths!!!

How does this fit into the Standard Model? (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700191)

Can anyone enlighten me? I thought there were only the strong and weak interaction, electromagnetism and gravity.

Is this some effect of electromagnetism? Or of one of the other forces?

Because if it were none of this forces, it would pretty much throw the whole standard model of quantum physics into a blender and force us to put it together again, wouldn't it?

This is really really interesting to me!

How does this fit into the Standard Model? Nicely. (5, Interesting)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701063)

When light shines through a diffraction grating and spreads out into beams going right and left, we don't need to talk about some strange new "force" that pushed the rightward beams to the right and the leftward beams to the left, since it's still a manifestation of electromagnetism. But specifically quantum electrodynamics, not classical electromagnetism which isn't good at handling this stuff.

In this case, the fundamental reality is, of course, that each photon splits up at the grating and its wave function takes all paths- interfering with itself everywhere in space. When the photon is discovered hitting a screen, it will strike in a place that reveals the least amount of information about the path it actually took, and there will be many such places, called "interference maxima". (It probably won't land in a place that makes it obvious how it got there- such places are interference minima.)

The Casimir force [wikipedia.org] is another "force" like this. Underneath it's still quantum electrodynamics.

If you find this stuff interesting you should read Feynman's QED... basically Quantum Electrodynamics For Dummies. What you'll find is interesting:
  • Light can go faster than light or slower than light- but only briefly
  • Light really doesn't care about surfaces between air and water and glass or whatever
  • Light doesn't really go in straight lines, that's just sort of how things turn out

These guys are sending beams of IR photons down a channel that is 220nm x 220nm, smaller than their wavelength. So transverse wave motion isn't a consideration at all... the light can barely fit in there and its wavefunction inside has no longitudinal component. I think it can be totally described with two scalar functions along the waveguide. The photons have apparently been through a beamsplitter or something and are being recombined out of phase. It's too bad the article doesn't provide any further details on how the photons were polarized (circular, linear, what?) or how the quantum interference between the two photon states results in transverse forces on the waveguide.

So Earth Finally Discovers It! (4, Interesting)

TheWanderingHermit (513872) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700217)

So Earth finally discovers the repulsive force from the ninth light ray that they've known about on the dying planet of Barsoom for millennia. Does that mean that soon we can have navies of huge floating ships like the Kingdom of Helium does? Or that soon we'll be able to see the two colors they know about on Barsoom that we've never seen on Earth?

I work IT. (3, Funny)

eosp (885380) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700271)

I already knew that light repelled me.

Cockroaches... (3, Funny)

carpefishus (1515573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700295)

This was previously demonstrated by cockroaches.

Why? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28700351)

Anyone ever noticed that a lot of these discoveries are done by ppl with a Chinese name? And they are mostly in US?

Kabbalah (0, Offtopic)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700505)

Kabbalah refers to these two alternating properties of light as "direct light" and "returning light". Light alternates between these two opposing, yet mutually complementary characteristics as it is either reflected or absorbed by the observer (depending on the current configuration of the observer).

Re:Kabbalah (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700975)

I'm not a student of Kabbalah (mildly interested though), but I'm pretty sure Kabbalah texts do not include the words "current configuration", in any reasonable translation.

I find that most spiritual texts are (very valid) metaphor, and it's usually a big mistake to interpret them as (probably very invalid) physics.

Re:Kabbalah (1)

taucross (1330311) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701147)

In Hebrew the word is 'partzuf' which means face, as in 'countenance'. You will find most reasonable texts (here [google.com.au] is an example) translate this as 'configuration'. You're right though, it would be a big mistake to interpret them as physics. I was merely making an observation :)

Re:Kabbalah (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701195)

I stand corrected :) Very unusual word for a scriptural text; I've never seen it used, outside of technical manuals.

Thanks for the book link, I might take the time to read the whole thing :)

just what we needed for optical computing! (1)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700573)

finally, they've found out what was missing from the promise of a low-energy, low-heat, ultra-fast future in optical computing: Moving parts!

Observation of distant objects.... (3, Interesting)

zekt (252634) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700597)

As I understand it, current thinking is that light bends because of gravity, and this is how distant planets and other distant objects are found.

Could it be that it is, instead, is just light being pulled or pushed against something that is being observed, rather than an observation of the gravity that the body has?
The next effect is the same I guess.

Re:Observation of distant objects.... (1)

BiggerIsBetter (682164) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701331)

Could it be that it is, instead, is just light being pulled or pushed against something that is being observed, rather than an observation of the gravity that the body has?

Or maybe that's all gravity is. If light == energy == matter, then why not? Maybe gravity and this attraction are the same thing. Maybe we're "this" far from figuring out the notion of anti-gravity.

Good Grid! They're right! (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700635)

It IS repulsive!

I discovered the repulsive force of light long tim (0)

melted (227442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700753)

I discovered the repulsive force of light long time ago here on Slashdot. There are even convincing demos to demonstrate the effect: Goatse, Tubgirl, 2 girs 1 cup and Lemon Party.

Re:I discovered the repulsive force of light long (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701297)

There are even convincing demos to demonstrate the effect: Goatse

Yes, if you spread away any obstacles, the sun shines even where it usually doesn't...

Doesn't this stuff excite you? (2, Insightful)

generic.individual (1590219) | more than 5 years ago | (#28700769)

There are a lot of jokes as replies, I assume partially because the summary sets them up so well and partially because it is rather dense subject matter. But doesn't this stuff excite you? Years ago a friend and I used to talk about how there should be a way to make computers out of light and we should just try for that, because, well, there isn't much faster. Articles like this mean its closer to reality. Even if it never happens in my life time it still excites me to know we are headed there.

I am sure some physicist is now going to tell me how it's actually better to use some other quantum something for computing and how I don't understand light and subatomic particles/waves/strings/finnegans. I know I don't. I just like the idea of light computers.

Re:Doesn't this stuff excite you? (1)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | more than 5 years ago | (#28701185)

I believe there is one serious thread all the rest are people demonstrating their lack of a sense of humour :(

Yawn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28701159)

Tesla??? didnt he demonstrate this before? yawn...

www.twilightcampaign.net

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>