Princeton University creates solid/crystallized light in experiement

a reply to: UberL33t

which is now proven too be achievable,,now create a mechanical, force, too contain those photons , in a dense field, within spec.,

with an ON OFF Button,,,,dont forget the button.

a reply to: Yeahkeepwatchingme

When electricity was discovered it was considered nothing more than a quaint curiosity.

originally posted by: JustMike
On the topic...

Uses for liquid light or solid light?

Well, I recall a science fiction story I read a few decades ago that was called "A Can of Paint". Explorers on another world found some weird things. One was this can of paint, and one of its ingredients was "liquid light".

And I kind of like that idea. Being able to add light to paint could be very useful.

You mean phosphorescent paint?
www.uvpaint.co.uk...

Those whiter-than-white washing powders contain something similar that absorbs UV light and emits regular light. One hotel I stayed in had black lights on the bar/restaurant next to the entrance. My clothes would glow like a lava lamp as I walked past

Couldn't one ride on a solid beam of light?

Interesting.
Kind of surprised that they would talk about this publicly.

The article's description of it as creating "solid light" or "liquid light" aren't meant to be taken QUITE so literally. It's not a magic box that creates a bucket of light. The original article is way out on the bleeding edges of this sort of research, and it's not very accessible to the lay reader. Heck, it's not that accessible to ME, and it sort of relates to things I find interesting or related loosely to projects I've worked on. This is a branch of physics that's brand new.

So popularizers try to relate it to things you might know, and a lot of accuracy is lost. At least the article writer TRIED to be as correct as he could, even if it sort of missed the point. The problem is that the point is really obtuse. I suspect mbkennel would really lap it up. "Ha! Jaynes-Cummings dimer Hamiltonians! Child's play!" It is very esoteric, though.

originally posted by: Yeahkeepwatchingme
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

They won't be used to address any problems. They'll be put to evil uses. If any solutions to "worldly problems" are introduced, they're more control disguised as blessings. Computers have united us, the free exchange of ideas, information. They changed the world, but the little people are easier to control. More entertainment, more control, more influence. Computers were the gamechanger, the invention that united us in oppression.

It's said that the prime minister of England, when confronted with a demonstration of Faraday's discovery of induction asked "Of what use is it?", to which Faraday replied "Of what use is a new-born baby?"

Computers are the culmination of an innumerable number of hunches and experiments.

And along the way, that development passed through any number of military hands. Semiconductors and integrated circuitry are two of those. And of course Turing and von Neumann invented the beginnings of the modern computer for crypto and nuclear weapons work.

a reply to: BobAthome

Read the actual paper, density and the correlated effects are central to the research...

journals.aps.org...

Will take me a little while to ponder over.

It's particle entanglement there's a theory that every particle is like a long string. So take that concept and think about the middle of the two points that can be seen in time and space of 2 dimensions, if the middle is intercepted with another particles middle they literally become entangled, this entanglement however long it lasts can combine into a sort of conglomerate, transforming into well basically all the matter you can see.

If you look at perspective and dimensions from the stand point of Descriptive Geometry it also makes complete sense. If you were to see a line from either end point it would look like this period -> . from the perspective or dimension (taken loosely) one cannot see the middle but it is there. That point observed from the side looks like this -> ________________ so when you take two particles like this _________________ ___________________ and entangle them you get the effects or qualities of both particles to co-mingle in the same point of time and space for awhile, basically until one particle decays. If you have a lot of one particle entangled in one spot it becomes an element. We do this pretty rudimentary when we make an alloy of two metals, or experiment with different compounds and mixtures to form something else we may find useful.

The nice thing about this, is it just opened up a whole other can of worms to entangle and make new "alloys" at the particle level, and perhaps just proved string theory.

Exciting times.

a reply to: BobAthome

What is the density?

My guess would be wave length of whatever artificial atom they used combined with that of photons.

The mass would be the atomic weight of the two also. if they were to co-mingle on a 1:1 ratio then in my opinion, they would be the same particle and form an element... could you imagine light as an element instead of a particle? Hey here's a solid block of light for ya :p

Edit: yeah skip that whole element thing... different elements can attract and form ionic bonds in a seemingly 1:1 ratio, the atomic weights and properties of the two different ones together however are not the same... but if they were... my apologies lack of sleep this past weekend has me thinking in boxed patterns.

as a side note on this, perhaps gravity is nothing more than all of these particles entangled in various densities, these densities give off different wavelengths making them visible depending on what spectrum the photons are bent around these various masses of quantum entanglements.

it may be reaching quite a bit but perhaps when one particle decays there is still some sort of entanglement and when the second or third particle decays this becomes dark matter, and since we can't directly observe dark matter but only see it's effects... perhaps dark matter repels photons giving what appears to be a space between.

a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

First, let me display my ignorance and ask, If light is made up from photons, how do you get light to flow "in" a wire? Super conductive or not, isn't it still a solid material?

Also, if this light has become "solid" then it must have aquired some amount of mass.
Taking this one step further, according to Newton, if mass is ejected from one end of a craft it should make the craft move in the opposite direction. Could this "solid light" be used as a propellant mass? If the light were allowed to escape at light speed, thus driving a craft forward at light speed?

i wonder if this means light is an element...

originally posted by: teamcommander
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

First, let me display my ignorance and ask, If light is made up from photons, how do you get light to flow "in" a wire? Super conductive or not, isn't it still a solid material?

Answer - you can't. The journo didn't understand the paper or the explanation given by the writers.

If the light were allowed to escape at light speed, thus driving a craft forward at light speed?

You can do that with plain old photons.

eta: you can make t-rays flow around a conductor, in fact, that's how you do the "plumbing" for t-waves. The waves flow along the guide instead of inside it.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No.

What it means is that you can make Jaynes-Cummings structures.

originally posted by: Bedlam
a reply to: TzarChasm

No.

What it means is that you can make Jaynes-Cummings structures.

how many electrons does a photon molecule have?

a reply to: teamcommander

Carbon fiber routes light from point A to B in whatever divergent path you desire.

a reply to: TzarChasm

None. A photon is not a molecule.

I'm wondering if it's edible....

Mix one part liquid light with one part tequila
add a bit of grenadine and a splash of orange juice

brings all new meaning to eating a light lunch

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: TzarChasm

None. A photon is not a molecule.

but they have made photon molecules. no netrons or protons? just electrons?

a reply to: TzarChasm

It was an analogy of the behavior, not a actual molecule.