If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CF News 13)   Researchers set record for world's shortest laser pulse at a mind-blowing 67 attoseconds, which equals 15 million billion pulses to equal one second   (cfnews13.com) divider line 48
    More: Cool, University of Central Florida, pulses, researchers, Department of Physics, synchrotron, lasers, photonics, quantum mechanics  
•       •       •

1687 clicks; posted to Geek » on 04 Sep 2012 at 4:37 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



48 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-09-04 12:43:36 PM
My girlfriend will happily assure you I got that beat.
 
2012-09-04 12:48:47 PM

Mr. Coffee Nerves: My girlfriend will happily assure you I got that beat.


Glad my brain wasn't the only one to take that route upon reading the headline.
 
2012-09-04 12:59:45 PM
... And drove the world's fastest cat nuts trying to catch it.
 
2012-09-04 01:01:40 PM
i.chzbgr.com
 
2012-09-04 01:18:19 PM
attoboy!
 
2012-09-04 01:31:04 PM
So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?
 
2012-09-04 01:42:44 PM

croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?


The beam of light was approximately 200 hydrogen atoms long.

/You'd have to know how wide the beam was before you could figure total photos.
 
2012-09-04 02:01:57 PM
Awesome!
 
2012-09-04 02:30:53 PM
So this is bad news... for Obama... right?
 
2012-09-04 02:35:35 PM
That's almost as short as my atten...

...I wonder what's for dinne...

/SQUIRREL
 
2012-09-04 02:36:28 PM
A million billion is a lot, right?
 
2012-09-04 04:41:11 PM
Real men of genius.
 
2012-09-04 04:45:07 PM
or twice as fast as the average farker can last during sex
 
2012-09-04 04:45:49 PM
Thought it said UFC at first. Man was I confused.
 
2012-09-04 04:46:31 PM

croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?


In terms of 'length' it has to be at least one photon to be detected, but it could be less than one cycle (wave). They wouldn't get even the pulses this short if they weren't making x-rays with very short wavelengths.
 
2012-09-04 04:50:15 PM
making an arm of swiss cheese?
 
2012-09-04 04:57:43 PM

Gecko Gingrich: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

The beam of light was approximately 200 hydrogen atoms long.

/You'd have to know how wide the beam was before you could figure total photos.


67 attaseconds * speed of light is about 20 nanometers. Average atom is about 0.1 nanometers (unpacked), so about 200 end to end, this pulse of light probably wasn't a single photon wide, so perhaps thousands of photons. Anyone else have better numbers?
 
2012-09-04 04:58:47 PM

Cake Hunter: ... And drove the world's fastest cat nuts trying to catch it.


I wish my cat would chase the laser.

My dog on the other hand. He hears the keys jingle(it's attached to my key chain), and his ears perk, and be begins to look around expectantly.
 
2012-09-04 05:03:50 PM
Wow! I thought when I flick my finger super-fast was pretty fast!
 
2012-09-04 05:05:14 PM
www.deviantart.com

Soon.
 
2012-09-04 05:12:39 PM
So, uhm, how much porn could be transmitted with pulses that rapid?

/please say all of it
 
2012-09-04 05:22:56 PM
Boom goes the dynamite.
 
2012-09-04 06:33:52 PM

croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?


I can't find the actual journal article anywhere at the moment. When it appears, they should mention the pulse energy and wavelength; photon count is pretty trivial to determine from there. Seeing as they're trying to get the shortest pulse possible though, it wouldn't surprise me if they're getting very low numbers; possibly only single photons at a time. In principal, you can mash as many photons on top of each other as you want, but more power usually ends up smearing the pulse.
 
2012-09-04 06:40:00 PM
So what purpose does this serve? DNRTFA. Melting fat cells or something?
 
2012-09-04 07:13:15 PM

jjwars1: So what purpose does this serve? DNRTFA. Melting fat cells or something?


Photo flash for stopping really fast action. Like an electron orbiting a nucleus.
 
2012-09-04 07:31:32 PM

jjwars1: So what purpose does this serve? DNRTFA. Melting fat cells or something?


Nanobots killing cancer. One cell at a time.
Lind of like the war on terror.
 
2012-09-04 07:32:17 PM

Pinner: Wow! I thought when I flick my finger super-fast was pretty fast!


lower...
lower.
 
2012-09-04 07:41:28 PM

thismomentinblackhistory: Mr. Coffee Nerves: My girlfriend will happily assure you I got that beat.

Glad my brain wasn't the only one to take that route upon reading the headline.


I was going to go with something like subby's girlfriend looks on in envy but the moment passed a few attoseconds ago.

/couldn't come up with a "subby's mom" reference that worked
 
2012-09-04 08:02:49 PM
Pff...let me know when we get to 65 attoseconds.

Yawn.
 
2012-09-04 08:11:48 PM

RedPhoenix122: Soon.


Well, if it makes you feel better the closed beta isn't as awesome as it will be when it goes to open...
 
2012-09-04 08:12:58 PM

stratagos: RedPhoenix122: Soon.

Well, if it makes you feel better the closed beta isn't as awesome as it will be when it goes to open...


Oh, and Marik sucks

/I trollin
 
2012-09-04 08:39:17 PM

Gecko Gingrich: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

The beam of light was approximately 200 hydrogen atoms long.

/You'd have to know how wide the beam was before you could figure total photos.


That's a pretty small Twinkie.
 
2012-09-04 08:53:59 PM

ChubbyTiger: Gecko Gingrich: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

The beam of light was approximately 200 hydrogen atoms long.

/You'd have to know how wide the beam was before you could figure total photos.

That's a pretty small Twinkie.


Really isn't it all about the girth not the length?
 
2012-09-04 09:23:28 PM
This is excellent news if used in optical media! Plaid-Ray discs not to far off now!
 
2012-09-04 09:47:57 PM
We don't have any clocks that are that accurate, I don't think so.
 
2012-09-04 10:16:06 PM

Flt209er: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

I can't find the actual journal article anywhere at the moment. When it appears, they should mention the pulse energy and wavelength; photon count is pretty trivial to determine from there. Seeing as they're trying to get the shortest pulse possible though, it wouldn't surprise me if they're getting very low numbers; possibly only single photons at a time. In principal, you can mash as many photons on top of each other as you want, but more power usually ends up smearing the pulse.


The article on Optics InfoBase under the title "Tailoring a 67 attosecond pulse through advantageous phase-mismatch"
 
2012-09-04 10:30:35 PM
Most likely they used it to record something of a known speed and used the resulting data to calculate the period.
 
2012-09-04 11:13:39 PM

Mytch: Most likely they used it to record something of a known speed and used the resulting data to calculate the period.


every 28 days on average i've been told
 
2012-09-05 12:14:42 AM
pew pew pew pew pew pew!!!
 
2012-09-05 01:12:31 AM
And Kent.... Stop playing with yourself.

(it IS jesus!)
 
2012-09-05 01:17:13 AM

croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?


It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, croesius, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as we apply a field, we couple to a state that is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure we can extract at least ten to the twenty-first photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.
 
2012-09-05 01:29:49 AM

Gecko Gingrich: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

The beam of light was approximately 200 hydrogen atoms long.

/You'd have to know how wide the beam was before you could figure total photos.


Actually, the spatial / temporal dimensions aren't what matter, it's the pulse energy, and the pulse energy can't be guessed from the article (it could be hugely variable).

The formula is: (pulse energy) / (energy per photon) or:

(pulse energy * wavelength of light) / (Plank's constant * speed of light)


Other points:

A photon is best thought of as the quantum of energy of an electromagnetic field mode, and there's basically no reason it can't be effectively huge spatially. Just take the pulses coming out from a laser, blow them up real big with a telescope, then put an serious attenuator in there so that there's an average of only about one photon per pulse.

As far as finding light sources that are reliably "single-photon-per-pulse", this is actually an area of active research. People want single-photon-sources for quantum optics experiments.
 
2012-09-05 05:34:02 AM
Suddenly my 100ps/div oscilloscope seems so slow...
 
2012-09-05 07:35:02 AM

RedPhoenix122: [www.deviantart.com image 840x900]

Soon.


I can see my BattleTech jokes are not needed here.

/ Critical Hit, Small Pulse Laser...
// I know, didn't stop me anyway, did it?
 
2012-09-05 08:28:21 AM

croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?


You would need to know the intensity of the beam...
 
2012-09-05 08:44:10 AM

vudukungfu: Nanobots killing cancer. One cell at a time.
Lind of like the war on terror.


So it'll be ineffective, ridiculously expensive, and often devastate the wrong organ in search of hostile tissue?
 
2012-09-05 04:59:55 PM

boozehat: croesius: So how many photons would be sent in a pulse that short?

It's a chemical laser but in solid, not gaseous, form. Put simply, in deference to you, croesius, it's like lasing a stick of dynamite. As soon as we apply a field, we couple to a state that is radiatively coupled to the ground state. I figure we can extract at least ten to the twenty-first photons per cubic centimeter which will give one kilojoule per cubic centimeter at 600 nanometers, or, one megajoule per liter.


Whatever drugs you're taking, stop, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's an ultrafast Ti:sapphire amplifier taking a femtosecond oscillator seed, stretching it, amplifying it, recompressing it, running it through an optical parametric amplifier to generate Terahertz single-cycle carrier-envelope stabilized pulses, which encounter a nucleus, throw the electron up to a near-Rydberg state because of the electric field gradient, smash it back down through energy levels near the ionization threshold on the way back down the gradient, and throw out high harmonics in the x-ray regime. That's what it takes to get attosecond pulses. Number of photons don't matter, unless you've got an intensity that starts bringing about self-phase modulation, which in the attosecond regime, ain't many. But that's when the really cool stuff starts happening.

/Build them, know this, kick, etc.....coworker graduated from this professor's lab.
 
2012-09-05 05:06:01 PM

SumFrequency: Whatever drugs you're taking, stop, because you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's an ultrafast Ti:sapphire amplifier taking a femtosecond oscillator seed, stretching it, amplifying it, recompressing it, running it through an optical parametric amplifier to generate Terahertz single-cycle carrier-envelope stabilized pulses, which encounter a nucleus, throw the electron up to a near-Rydberg state because of the electric field gradient, smash it back down through energy levels near the ionization threshold on the way back down the gradient, and throw out high harmonics in the x-ray regime. That's what it takes to get attosecond pulses. Number of photons don't matter, unless you've got an intensity that starts bringing about self-phase modulation, which in the attosecond regime, ain't many. But that's when the really cool stuff starts happening.

/Build them, know this, kick, etc.....coworker graduated from this professor's lab.




Lighten up , Francis.

/Real Genius, you are. ;)
 
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report