Solid light?

[kirbsrob]

Any material can become a solid with the right temperature. So could it be possible to freeze photons into a solid or gaseous state? Though you would need contain the photons into a static state in order to freeze them. This could help with future space travel for going almost as fast as light.

Edited March 22, 2014 by kirbsrob

[Unity+]

Any material can become a solid with the right temperature. So could it be possible to freeze photons into a solid or gaseous state? Though you would need contain the photons into a static state in order to freeze them. This could help with future space travel for going almost as fast as light.

It depends on what you mean by freeze. The different states of matter are a result of the speed of movement that the particles within that material. For example, solids will have a slower movement of the particles that are more packed together while with liquids and gases the particles are more spread out and moving faster.

 

Since a photon is simply a particle, in this definition photons cannot freeze. However, the right question to ask, most likely, is if it is possible to slow down photons to a slower speed and be able to allow them to remain static(correct me if I am wrong anyone).

[rktpro]

Photons have zero rest mass, so they can't be made static in strict sense. To behave like a solid, they would have to oscillate about their fixed point. If we can make such scenerio possible, I wonder would they make same lattice pattern and voids like solids do. How about a photon of different wavelength occupying the voids of the lattice. However, that is secondary. The first thing is to know if solid containing photons is possible.

Edited March 22, 2014 by rktpro

[Enthalpy]

Temperature won't do anything.

 

A standing wave is immobile for some time limited by loss. Microwaves, not light, can stay indefinitely in a superconductive cavity. However, it won't support any object.

 

Photons have no mass in vacuum. In a medium, their speed depends on frequency, so one can define a non-zero mass. Some materials, especially meta-materials, are very dispersive, so they can slow light down a lot, around specific frequencies.

 

Some papers claim to have "stopped" light, but this involves a conversion into an excited atomic state, and back.

[timo]

The different states of matter are a result of the speed of movement that the particles within that material. For example, solids will have a slower movement of the particles that are more packed together while with liquids and gases the particles are more spread out and moving faster.

Why would particles that are packed denser have lower speeds? They sure have smaller mean free paths. But why wouldn't they bump around just as fast as if they had more space?

[Unity+]

Why would particles that are packed denser have lower speeds? They sure have smaller mean free paths. But why wouldn't they bump around just as fast as if they had more space?

Though the particles vibrate, they are more closely packed because the forces between them are stronger. If they are stronger forces between the particles then they have less tendency to be more spread apart. I think that answers the question.

Edited March 22, 2014 by Unity+

[swansont]

Solidification requires an attractive force between the particles. Photons lack this.

[timo]

Though the particles vibrate, they are more closely packed because the forces between them are stronger. If they are stronger forces between the particles then they have less tendency to be more spread apart. I think that answers the question.

Not really. I wasn't doubting that particles in a solid have less tendency to move apart from each other. I was doubting that their speed (in the sense of magnitude of velocity) is lower. In fact, increasing the attraction seems quite compatible with the particles still having similar speeds but not separating anymore.

Edited March 23, 2014 by timo

[Unity+]

Not really. I wasn't doubting that particles in a solid have less tendency to move apart from each other. I was doubting that their speed (in the sense of magnitude of velocity) is lower. In fact, increasing the attraction seems quite compatible with the particles still having similar speeds but not separating anymore.

Ignore what I said about velocity. It is just how strong the forces are between the particles.

[Endercreeper01]

However, the right question to ask, most likely, is if it is possible to slow down photons to a slower speed and be able to allow them to remain static(correct me if I am wrong anyone).

Light can be slowed down if it travels through a medium. However, no known material makes light static when it travels through it.

Edited March 23, 2014 by Endercreeper01

[Sensei]

Light can be slowed down if it travels through a medium. However, no known material makes light static when it travels through it.

 

Stopping of light passing through material would be pretty much equal to absorption of photons by that material (if we will assume energy-momentum conservation must hold in any case)

So material would have to be made hotter, or chemical reaction would have to happen, or photon being transformed other way.

 

We can observe very clearly such behavior in Coca-Cola, or a few days old beetroot's juice.

Green laser 532 nm 100 mW fades away completely in Coca-Cola after 3-4 cm.

[SamBridge]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/26/4773354/scientists-create-light-saber-material-with-photon-binding-technique ???

[swansont]

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/26/4773354/scientists-create-light-saber-material-with-photon-binding-technique ???

How about a link to an actual science article, rather than a pop-sci summary of a summary of a press release?

 

Short answer: the photons are interacting with other things.

[SamBridge]

How about a link to an actual science article, rather than a pop-sci summary of a summary of a press release?

 

Short answer: the photons are interacting with other things.

If yahoo was reporting on its own I'd agree, but they are reporting directly from actual scientists. Plus they already use supercool substances to slow down light because of the density for quantum computing as I'm sure you know.

Otherwise,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-bind-photons-together-to-create-new-state-of-matter-comparable-to-lightsabers-8841612.html

It probably isn't that exciting or anywhere near an actual light saber, but I'd still bet there is a legitimate way scientists can keep photons within a closed region.

Edited April 1, 2014 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

Reporting directly from actual scientists doesn't mean anything (though it's worth noting that neither of your links are actually sourcing their information from the paper, just from the press release on phys.org). It's the media. They are terrible at accurately reporting science, no matter where their quotes come from. Anyway, it took me 30 seconds to find the link to the paper. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7469/full/nature12512.html

I don't understand it, so I'll leave it to others here to figure it out.

[SamBridge]

Reporting directly from actual scientists doesn't mean anything (though it's worth noting that neither of your links are actually sourcing their information from the paper, just from the press release on phys.org). It's the media. They are terrible at accurately reporting science, no matter where their quotes come from. Anyway, it took me 30 seconds to find the link to the paper. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7469/full/nature12512.html

 

I don't understand it, so I'll leave it to others here to figure it out.

But the point is, it has a quote from a so called Harvard Professor who I can look up to see is an actual Harvard professor. Unless your saying he's full of it, you'd have to think that after subtracting the things he's pressured to say to seem exciting by the reporters that there's some truth to the matter. Otherwise it's your word against his, and there's no reason for it to resort to that. Also, your source isn't any more credible since its a .com site.

THIS is what should have been found

http://www.rle.mit.edu/eap/documents/Nature_attractive_photons.pdf because that is at least from a .edu site which means when they posted that information they weren't doing it for commercial gain.

 

Anyway, the phenomena sounds like what I already mentioned, which is that in a "cold rubidium gas" (page 1) (which reminds me of the bose-einstein experiments), the photons essentially keep bouncing around in such a way that they don't get absorbed since the atoms are already in an excited state and are at a close enough proximity for a long enough period of time that they become entangled as they travel through the medium and take a long time to exit the medium. How do you have a high rydberg state but a supercooled gas at the same time? Not sure, I guess intense low frequency lasers which is actually what they used to cool matter in some instances anyway.

Edited April 1, 2014 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

But the point is, it has a quote from a so called Harvard Professor who I can look up to see is an actual Harvard professor. Unless your saying he's full of it, you'd have to think that after subtracting the things he's pressured to say to seem exciting by the reporters that there's some truth to the matter. Otherwise it's your word against his, and there's no reason for it to resort to that. Also, your source isn't any more credible since its a .com site.

THIS is what should have been found

http://www.rle.mit.edu/eap/documents/Nature_attractive_photons.pdf because that is at least from a .edu site which means when they posted that information they weren't doing it for commercial gain.

 

 

Wait...are you actually trying to tell me that nature.com isn't a credible source for journal articles?

[SamBridge]

 

 

Wait...are you actually trying to tell me that nature.com isn't a credible source for journal articles?

I'm saying the specific link you posted isn't more credible, not that it's bad. So if you accept nature.com, you must rationally accept other .com sites unless specific .com sites have been proven to be inaccurate, and those ones you wouldn't have to accept. On the other hand, nature.EDU would be more credible, especially if it was directly from a University study.

Edited April 1, 2014 by SamBridge

[Klaynos]

I'm saying the specific link you posted isn't more credible, not that it's bad. So if you accept nature.com, you must rationally accept other .com sites unless specific .com sites have been proven to be inaccurate, and those ones you wouldn't have to accept. On the other hand, nature.EDU would be more credible, especially if it was directly from a University study.

Suggesting all .com sites are equal is not a sensible approach. Nature.com is the website for a very prestigious peer review publishing house. The journal articles it publishes have been through a thorough (though fallible) peer review process. There are no such processes required for .edu sites, the administrators can choose what and how they publish on their site, I'd even say in lots of cases they're unlikely to publish anything that makes their academics look bad. I'd choose nature any day.

[hypervalent_iodine]

There's also a pretty big difference between posting links to media articles reporting about the contents of a scientific journal article and a link to the journal article itself (and in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, no less).

[swansont]

Nature has the actual frikkin' paper that was published. If you're looking for what the scientists are reporting, it gets no more credible than that.

 

The Phys.org report (typically they re-hash the press release) isn't horrible: they explain that the effect takes place inside a Rubidium vapor, and the photons strongly interact with the atoms. For two photons their behavior is correlated because of the way they interact with the atoms. Instead of describing it as a correlated set of interactions with the atoms, it is probably simpler to model it as an interaction between the photons.

 

"It's a photonic interaction that's mediated by the atomic interaction," Lukin said. "That makes these two photons behave like a molecule, and when they exit the medium they're much more likely to do so together than as single photons."

 

That's code for the photons mutually interacting with an atom. Not directly with each other. However, there's nothing here that claims that light is a solid.

 

They also mention that since the light slows down via the interaction it behaves like it has mass. It doesn't really have mass, of course, but you can model the behavior that way. You use the simplest model that works.

[SamBridge]

Suggesting all .com sites are equal is not a sensible approach. Nature.com is the website for a very prestigious peer review publishing house. The journal articles it publishes have been through a thorough (though fallible) peer review process. There are no such processes required for .edu sites, the administrators can choose what and how they publish on their site, I'd even say in lots of cases they're unlikely to publish anything that makes their academics look bad. I'd choose nature any day.

Treating all .com sites that you don't have evidence to support as being uncredible is sensible, which is what I'm talking about. There are sites that are already discredited for scientific findings like foxnews and religious sites you would not have to take as seriously. But nature.com might as well be some any random website, .com means the information is there for commercial gain which means they have an incentive to be biased and over exaggerate. Edu on the other hand is the main domain of links to universities and their studies, the main purpose of which is to inform which no prospect in mind. Journalists are not likely to also have Ph. Ds in every scientific field, and they don't "have" to be peer-reviewed, just edited and put through a basic screening. In fact you could have a science department of a journal with a biologist and physicists an an architect, but they probably aren't going to know a whole lot about something like anthropology or psychology. They can even use paraphrasing from random .com sites that they cite which is why the best possible internet reference you can use is either a publication directly from an accredited Ph. D professor themselves who specializes in the feild they are reporting on or a published study from an accredited university. Those merely report the results of experiments and go over what the experiments did, there's not much potential for any bias or exaggeration if the university or professor is credible.

 

There's also a pretty big difference between posting links to media articles reporting about the contents of a scientific journal article and a link to the journal article itself (and in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, no less).

So science journals never ever exaggerate or stretch the truth or over-hype a new theory that doesn't actually have evidence huh?

 

Nature has the actual frikkin' paper that was published. If you're looking for what the scientists are reporting, it gets no more credible than that.

 

Ummm, I said that publication that I used was the one she should have herself used because she was trying to make a point of using a more credible link but ironically did not actually do this even when a more formal and credible link was right inside the very site she was using.

 

 

 

That's code for the photons mutually interacting with an atom. Not directly with each other. However, there's nothing here that claims that light is a solid.

 

They also mention that since the light slows down via the interaction it behaves like it has mass. It doesn't really have mass, of course, but you can model the behavior that way. You use the simplest model that works.

Yeah the light slowing down is all what makes sense, but didn't the paper I posted say the photons become entangled?

Edited April 3, 2014 by SamBridge

[hypervalent_iodine]

This is my last comment on the matter because it is off topic.

 

Your link was to a secondary source of information. A report about a scientific article. I said that an article about a press release about an article is probably not the best source, as the media often obfuscates the content they report on. So I linked two things: the actual article from Nature, which you seem to have a problem with, and the press release from the scientists that put it together. The difference here is between primary sources (which I linked in the nature.com link) and secondary sources such as yours. Obviously, the primary source is more credible.

 

Universities do not link to every publication their staff makes and even if they do, they usually send a link to the where the journal is located online (in other words, to the journal's website - nature.com would be one such website). It doesn't matter that it's nature.com and not nature.edu; nature.com was where the actual article was housed and the link I was provided was to that article so of course it's more credible. Regardless, your distinction between .edu and .com is a pretty silly metric. Also, journals such as Nature or Science (both .com) are not filled with articles written by Nature or Science staff, they are filled with peer-reviewed articles written by scientists reporting on their findings from whatever work they are doing.

 

Perhaps you are confusing what I mean by article or you are not familiar with how scientific work is published? The nature.com link was not another media / press release. It was a link to the body of peer reviewed scientific work to which all the other media articles were referring to. Did you even look at it? I can only assume this is where the misunderstanding is, because I cannot think of any other reason someone would claim a scientific article from Nature is as (un)credible as a media piece that does a write up about it.

 

In any case, if you want to say anything more on this, I suggest you open up a new thread.

[swansont]

 

Yeah the light slowing down is all what makes sense, but didn't the paper I posted say the photons become entangled?

 

No, it says nothing about entanglement, but it wouldn't matter anyway, since entanglement is not an attraction/interaction between photons.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Everyone

The discussion regarding where an article or press release appears, on the relative validity of top level domains etc is offtopic. Please concentrate on the IQ (that's Initial Question - my new abbreviation for the day). Any further posts that go offtopic may be hidden. If you wish to discuss further then open a new thread.

Do not respond to this modnote.