‘Molecules’ made of light

[Architect]

I don't go in for FadSci (fad science) much, being in the field I see the gap between the wild hyperbole and what is really going on. But this theoretical research captures my eye

‘Molecules’ made of light may be the basis of future computers

Photons could travel side by side a specific distance from each other — similar to how two hydrogen atoms sit next to each other in a hydrogen molecule — theoretical physicists from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Maryland (with other collaborators) have shown.

“It’s not a molecule per se, but you can imagine it as having a similar kind of structure,” says NIST’s Alexey Gorshkov. “We’re learning how to build complex states of light that, in turn, can be built into more complex objects. This is the first time anyone has shown how to bind two photons a finite distance apart.

Generally I'm a touch skeptical of 'big physical' engineering physics, such as space travel and the like. The problem is that the technologies that piggy back this kind of physics don't scale exponentially, for example the jet engine has remained essentially static for decades and will continue that way into the future. Another example is Fusion power.

But when it comes to pushing atoms and molecules around we're very good, and has led to the computer and now bio revolutions. We've successfully turned those into exponential technologies. So, this research is interesting and has a likelyhood of being developed (not soon). Once you can structure light coherently then you've got a basis for computation which makes it very interesting.

Note we've been ordering light for a long time in the form of the laser, which is photons in phase but randomly spatially scattered. With this research it might be possible to spatially structure them.

 

[Sinny91]

Well according the the Star Trek universe, that is the next logical step.
You now that on their 'Holodecks' they have holograms made of 'solid' light.

Most Star Trek predictions have come to pass.

Also, the jet engine has been made redundant. I'm not sure what news you're reading.

 

[Architect]

This is just structuring photons, it has nothing to do with matter. These are (and will not be) any more 'material' than any other light /fadsci (yeah you're joking here)

 

[Sinny91]

You've confused me.

 

[Architect]

I'm sensing a recursive loop here ...

OK, what are you confused about?

 

[Sinny91]

These are (and will not be) any more 'material' than any other light /fadsci (yeah you're joking here)

What does this mean?

 

[Architect]

At first I thought you were serious, then edited to add that because it you must be joking. So you're serious the jet engine is redundant? OK good luck with that idea.

On the earlier part it is as I stated; this has to do with structured photons, nothing to do with matter.

 

[Sixup]

Light sabers!

 

[Sinny91]

I never even mentioned matter so I am unsure from whence that tangent sprang from.

Anyhoo..

 

[Urakro]

Sinny, I think architect is saying that solid light, or even the notion of a holodeck is currently completely infeasible. Besides, I thought star-trek used the same technology in their force-fields to make the holograms solid. (?)

I couldn't open the link in the OP, but based on the post, it seems like structuring photons is for computational purposes, not holographic. I could be wrong about that though.

I'm also sceptical about the 'big guns' such as the warp drive, artificial gravity, and remote teleportation. Even if we may get a good working theory of it, the machines would probably take up unrealistic amounts of energy or resources.

 

[Architect]

I never even mentioned matter so I am unsure from whence that tangent sprang from.

see below (all of what you said would have to mean that light=matter which is not true, but apparently you didn't understand what you were saying)

Sinny, I think architect is saying that solid light, or even the notion of a holodeck is currently completely infeasible. Besides, I thought star-trek used the same technology in their force-fields to make the holograms solid. (?)

I couldn't open the link in the OP, but based on the post, it seems like structuring photons is for computational purposes, not holographic. I could be wrong about that though.

All correct

I'm also sceptical about the 'big guns' such as the warp drive, artificial gravity, and remote teleportation. Even if we may get a good working theory of it,

Actually, believe it or not all of those are at least partially theoretically possible. A paper was written as recently as a few years ago about a solution to the field equations for a theoretical 'warp drive'. I read the paper and without pushing the tensors around it looks correct.

'Artificial' gravity isn't entirely out of the question.

And there are theoretical wiggles around teleportation too, or at least conjectures

the machines would probably take up unrealistic amounts of energy or resources.

Here's the rub, to do that warp drive you need to warp spacetime in a particular way, which would take enormous energy if even possible.

 

[dark+matters]

Have you guys read "The Physics of Star Trek?" What did you think about it?

Do you think that trying to harness the properties light for the next stage of computing has more promise than trying to harness spooky action? (I really, really appreciate that silly, light-hearted term for it now... I see what Architect means about some physics people being super anal retentive... it's not even productive anal retention! It's social games-style anal retention! Nooo... )

 

[Architect]

The author is a good physicist - Krauss, don't even have to look it up.

 

[Sinny91]

all of what you said would have to mean that light=matter which is not true, but apparently you didn't understand what you were saying .

What I said? I said

Well according the the Star Trek universe, that is the next logical step.*
You now that on their 'Holodecks' they have holograms made of 'solid' light.

Holograms
'solid'
Light

Where does any of that translate into light=matter?
I alluded to the fact that the next logical step in regards to harnessing the properties of light is by manipulating it to mimic matter.

Whether or not light can be transformed into matter remains to be seen. Although I think the potential is there.

Oddly enough I just watched Angels & Demons which touched upon a similar notion.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/may/18/matter-light-photons-electrons-positrons

 

[dark+matters]

Hmmm... I know next to nothing about computers (or light... I'm excited to take a class about light next semester though), but I assume that because computers run on binary, any kind of change (like this or that) can be made into a signal, or information to be interpreted by a computer. It sounds as though electrons are currently supplying the "this or that" information.

We can already sort of measure light (I don't know to what degree... doesn't sound like much), but if we could get enough control over measuring this or that information coming from photons, we might be able transmit information about 99% faster than what we can currently do, according to the article. Yes?

That seems more within reach than turning light into mass, which some say was sorta kinda proven by the atomic bomb (using radioactivity to measure the mass and energy).

 

[Architect]

Holograms
'solid'
Light

Where does any of that translate into light=matter?

Its not obvious? Well let's just leave it there, like roadkill that's been run over too many times.

Hmmm... I know next to nothing about computers (or light... I'm excited to take a class about light next semester though), but I assume that because computers run on binary, any kind of change (like this or that) can be made into a signal, or information to be interpreted by a computer. It sounds as though electrons are currently supplying the "this or that" information.

Computers don't run on binary but rather organized difference. Consider a rock which contains phonon energy (think of it as heat). That's difference, right? All those molecules wiggling around. Well yes, but it's disorganized. Computation (whether in our brains or in a computer) is changing state (two states is minimum) in an organized fashion.

So if you can have two photons in a hydrogen like structure, you could say polarize one and then then other to indicate state, and now you have a digital bit.

We can already sort of measure light (I don't know to what degree... doesn't sound like much)

Our most accurate measurements on this planet are on light (quantum chromodynamics)

, but if we could get enough control over measuring this or that information coming from photons, we might be able transmit information about 99% faster than what we can currently do, according to the article. Yes?

No, we can already transmit information via light (fiber optic cables)

That seems more within reach than turning light into mass, which some say was sorta kinda proven by the atomic bomb (using radioactivity to measure the mass and energy).

E=mc^2 showed the equivalence of mass and energy, not mass and light.

 

[dark+matters]

@Architect

Hmmm! Very, very interesting; thank you for taking the time to explain.

 

[Reluctantly]

Well, although light may not have "mass", it does interact with matter in changing the energy state of particles, as well as a particle's wave motion. Light could then be argued as matter, without mass.

So while it's not mass per-say, it does effect matter. By controlling photons you could then theoretically transmute particles or organize light to behave like particles to the matter around it. Either option could create a Holodeck.

...which if possible, kind of begs the question of how light and matter can be different, if they could be the same thing. I think it might imply everything is made up of photons interacting with each other in a perfectly organized manner, rather than the chaotic and disjointed ideas of modern physics, perhaps. That would be interesting to find.

 

[Pyropyro]

Some serious Green Lantern stuff is going on here

 

[Architect]

Well, although light may not have "mass", it does interact with matter in changing the energy state of particles, as well as a particle's wave motion. Light could then be argued as matter, without mass.

No, light is pure EM radiation, particles are either composed of other things (hadrons) or can compose together to other particles (leptons). That is you can bang particles together and they'll interact with one another, light doesn't do that with light. Shine two flashlights on a spot on the floor, what do you get? A brighter spot. Touch two wires with voltage and what do you get? A spark as the leptons (electrons) interact. They're entirely different phenomenon.

So while it's not mass per-say, it does effect matter. By controlling photons you could then theoretically transmute particles or organize light to behave like particles to the matter around it. Either option could create a Holodeck.

Nope.

Would be interesting to hear what Krause has to say, maybe he has some arm stretching/hand waving idea on how it could be done.

 

[Pizzabeak]

Probably not but I think some confusion comes from semantics over details or the many other available theories, some of which may be outdated or pseudo. For example there is the electroweak force which describes a moment in time wherein electromagnetic radiation and the weak force (the bosons have mass) were the same thing.

A few years ago I remember hearing about this guy and his book:
What matters: No expanding universe, no big bang: J. L Riley: Amazon.com: Books@@AMEPARAM@@http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EbScYDqBL.@@AMEPARAM@@51EbScYDqBL

Don't think it's the same thing but he describes experiments in which he induces light to grow matter and/or causes light to turn into matter.

Regardless, EM radiation definitely affects matter but that's not to say it is matter or has mass per se. Light in and of itself contains energy yet I suppose it is not actually energy itself.


But I guess the main idea here is structuring light, the photons, in the form of objects so as to obtain alternative forms of respective object? I mean, I can only imagine the applications to this...

Additional

 

[Reluctantly]

No, light is pure EM radiation, particles are either composed of other things (hadrons) or can compose together to other particles (leptons). That is you can bang particles together and they'll interact with one another, light doesn't do that with light. Shine two flashlights on a spot on the floor, what do you get? A brighter spot. Touch two wires with voltage and what do you get? A spark as the leptons (electrons) interact. They're entirely different phenomenon.

Untrue. Your position goes against what is known about electromagnetic radiation.

When electrons and positrons collide, it produces EM radiation. Electrons and positrons both have mass. The Haldon collider is currently smashing photons together in order to show that electrons and positrons can be created from light as well and I don't doubt that to be the case.

And again photons can be absorbed and released by matter, depending on the frequency of the photon. Photons are not only made up of matter, but can effect matter.

 

[Architect]

Fair warning, you should know by now you're talking to an ex-Particle physicist (that was what my PhD subfield)

The Haldon collider is currently smashing photons together

No it's colliding Hadrons together which is why its called the large HADRON collider. Back when I worked at Fermilab we were colliding protons/anti-protons, and as an undergraduate I worked at a old-school Cyclotron which accelerated electrons. Nobody collides photons because you can't, as I said.

And again photons can be absorbed and released by matter, depending on the frequency of the photon. Photons are not only made up of matter, but can effect matter.

Yeah, duh! that doesn't mean they are equivalent to matter. The release and absorption is simply the electrons are doing that as they go from higher to lower energy states. So what? Those photons are not 'holodeck matter' any more than your flashlight beam is.

Also your statements on what is produced during collision is mostly wrong* (again remember I built detectors for the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider - which was canceled by Congress and which is why the LHC took over). The main design of a collider is called a calorimiter because it measures the energy of particles thrown off. We put that in a large magnetic field to bend their trajectory, another way to determine their energy, angular momentum etc.

Measuring light is an entirely different experiment, you need a scintillation detector or phototubes, and they need to be in a medium that light can travel in, like cleaning fluid (those are the experiments done deep underground to detect particles that weakly interact with matter). Does this look like a phototube detector?

[BIMG]http://cache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/lhc_08_01/lhc17.jpg[/BIMG]

Jesus fucking christ, how do they bend light to go in a circle without light pipes? Why do they have superconducting magnets in the ring? On and on ... don't get in a technical discussion about physics unless you have an inkling of what you're saying.

* The one thing I'm actually not sure about is whether significant photons are produced during a collision, and whether anybody cares? We were always looking at the particles, I can't recall hearing that there was any provision for measuring light. Regardless I think the detectors couldn't be installed or survive being that close to the collision.