What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
64 Comments
- MacEnvy, on 07/14/2009, -0/+10All of the things you mentioned are in an active development cycle and several of them have already produced products or improved existing products.
- robdiggity, on 07/14/2009, -5/+14Tony Stark discovered this like 50 years ago.
- anexanhume, on 07/14/2009, -0/+8It's interesting that the perpendicular direction of this force is very similar to the perpendicular magnetic fields an EM wave generates. It also would seem to have great potential for hybrid nanodevices that can use light for transmitting digital data as well as mechanical motion.
- pgiessel, on 07/14/2009, -0/+7This isn't new. I talked with Dr. Phillips in I believe 1998 (could have been 1999) and that property of light is what they used to slow molecular motion which resulted in their Nobel prize:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureat ... - jayhawk88, on 07/14/2009, -0/+6I was under the impression that photons were not created until well after (relatively speaking) the theorized inflation of the universe?
- Genady, on 07/14/2009, -1/+6Hrm... one wonders if this only applies to light confined in close proximity if this has any bering on inflation. (That is the period of intense expansion in the universe after the big-bang, not the effect of ever increasing prices for goods and services)
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5Stem Cells are currently being used to restore sight to the blind. Carbon Nanotubes are being used in high-impact, low-weight alloys, and are currently being sold in high-end Performance bicycles, among other things. Fuel Cells are used all the time, just not for mainstream automobiles. And Electric Vehicles, while certainly uncommon, are real enough. I agree that the use of these things isn't nearly wide-spread enough, but it's not like they're in a crate next to the Ark of the Covenant somewhere. :)
- ReedYoung, on 07/14/2009, -0/+5Sure, it's more ways light can be useful.
- DJAltair, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Well I'm sorry, but they weren't Tony Stark.
- kaidovak, on 07/14/2009, -0/+4Wonder if there's any sort of thermal component to the interaction. If not, this could have interesting application for data processing. (mhz barriers not being set by temp any more)
- ApokalypseNow, on 07/14/2009, -1/+5...built it in a cave? With scraps?
- xeriscaped, on 07/14/2009, -4/+7Quite an illuminating article.
- sanosuke001, on 07/14/2009, -1/+4Yeah, but there's a big light source in the sky that costs us nothing to tap into. Letting us know if it were feasible and the amount of energy you could harness would let us compare it to solar.
- kcasper, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3It makes the possibility of optical logic units for electronics a more likely possibility in the future.
- kcasper, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Where there is energy there is always some thermal problems. That barrier will always be there. However optics shouldn't have as much.
- inactive, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3Came for Repulsor Ray comment, left satisfied.
- GunWraith, on 07/14/2009, -0/+3This is fascinating! I wonder if this discovery could be used to help explain why our universe is expanding instead of collapsing. I know that the article said that these forces were impossible in free space, but perhaps there is a natural phenomenon where the conditions are equivalent to their nanowires. Regardless, great work!
- novenator, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2These comments suck
- malcolmlo, on 07/15/2009, -0/+2Light can move things? Holy *****.
- kcasper, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Fuel cells are commonplace in industry and science for specialized facilities and applications. They have been in use as such since the beginning of the Apollo space program.
- diggydougie, on 07/14/2009, -1/+3Or you could use filters and different length waveguides with sunlight for energy.
If you can convert light to mechanical force you have an energy generator. Not perpetual motion, the energy comes from the sun. - 4AntiStupid, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2In fact it's exactly like it. Light is an oscillation between an electrical and magnetic field. The speed of that oscillation is what we see as color.
- MacEnvy, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2The result - were you to be able to make it work out with filtering natural sunlight through waveguides - would be far, FAR smaller than using traditional solar cells based on the photoelectric effect.
This is going to be a useful technology for small-scale mechanics, but it's simply not anything that's going to produce power. - lebruf, on 07/14/2009, -0/+2Very few of them are in mainstream use the way hybrid vehicles, 3G Networks, 802.11N, GPS and other technologies are starting to enter the mainstream. At best, those things are used in applications that border on the fringe.
- GunWraith, on 07/16/2009, -0/+1What I mean, is instead of the mystical "dark matter" effect, it is actually light repulsing away.
- spunalot, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2Solar sails pushed by ground based or moon based lasers have been proposed.
- diggydougie, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1This looks like it will be a very finicky process fraught with problems.
- ryanward87, on 07/23/2009, -1/+2Repulsing light, eh? And to repulse us? Simple solution: digg.com/d3yIka
- dsmx, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2I think he was referring to an alternative solar energy power plant
- LarkStew, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1While we're all speculating, maybe this has something to do with dark energy/dark matter?
- Killbot2015, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crookes_radiometer
Very little energy potential though. - ReedYoung, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1I disagree. Once there was matter, energy could act on particles with mass (electrons, protons, etc.), in the form of velocity, but before there was matter, by definition there was no mass either so all energy had to be within massless particles: photons.
- Genady, on 07/14/2009, -0/+1Nah, the CMB would be those photons.
- malcolmlo, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1<ADVANCED SOUNDING ***** SCIENCE COMMENT>
- flossdaily, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1you're
- ReedYoung, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2This technology requires perfectly monochromatic light. Solar panels focus on a range around yellowish green, which is the greatest component of the Sun's output, but at least it is a bit of a "band" of wavelengths, albeit a narrow band. So, no, this is not potentially useful for collecting solar energy.
- flamingduck, on 07/14/2009, -1/+2I believe "hypothesized" would be a better word than "theorized" in this particular sentence...
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -0/+1sounds like it has a direct relation to space and time
- MacEnvy, on 07/14/2009, -3/+3The energy required to create the light would be much more than the energy you'd get out of the turbine, even assuming it was possible.
There's no such thing as perpetual motion. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1yup... and it will take 20 years just to think of all the uses for carbon nanotubes alone...
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/14/2009, -0/+0In fact it is an EM wave. That's why I wonder if the polarity matters because the vectors would need to be lined up.
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/15/2009, -0/+0Lack of your education in the subject != people that did learn it BSing.
- inactive, on 07/15/2009, -1/+1Demonstration of the repulsive force of light: http://i31.tinypic.com/2e1uezr.jpg
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/14/2009, -1/+1Actually the problem in optical computing is size. Light wavelengths are too big compared to the size of circuits these days.
- MacEnvy, on 07/14/2009, -3/+2No, the article has nothing to do with the sun.
Seriously guys, this has zero to do with solar energy. And it has nothing to do with the mass effect that photons exert on other objects like solar sails. It's about the effect that two out-of-phase light beams have on each other. - inactive, on 07/14/2009, -4/+3Captain Janeway's fiber optic flight deck will soon be a reality.
- yourmomsnutz, on 07/15/2009, -2/+1HOW many times has the EARTH been DESTROYED & REMADE.2009
http://www.h33t.com/details.php?id=81e1d479d043ddc ... - ReedYoung, on 07/14/2009, -2/+1No. The first particles were all electrons, which repel one another. This is unrelated.
- Garciat, on 07/14/2009, -4/+2*Does not understand.*
- 4AntiStupid, on 07/14/2009, -3/+1Heh...a couple of people actually interested in the subject and a whole bunch of dorks trying to be funny and failing.
They mention it's related to the phase offset. I wonder how it relates to polarity. -
Show 51 - 64 of 64 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 