“Breaking the vacuum” with petawatt laser

[Frannie]

Again, you seem to strikingly ignorant of the subject. You can combine matter and antimatter and this has in fact been done Many times.

“When matter and anti-matter particles collide in high-energy collisions, they turn into energy and produce new particles and antiparticles. At the Fermilab proton-antiproton collider, scientists observe hundreds of millions every day.”

Fermilab scientists find evidence for significant matter-antimatter asymmetry

When matter and antimatter combine, the yield is almost pure energy (remember mass/energy conversion?). Even for a non-scientist, I’m surprised you don’t understand this.

She's not a non scientist, she's an anti scientist. Christian fundimentalist and extreme right winger. The other day she was trying to say there were no dinosaur bones because they are rocks and the earth isn't that old anyway.

The point of saying there are no dinosaur bones was to point out that DNA can not be extracted from rock.

Something you are too ignorant to understand obviously

CIAO

Soft tissue preserved millions of years in dinosaur fossils/bones.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science | Smithsonian

And now they are going to clone dinosaurs

Must be real if there is an internet link

I could say that the internet is fake, but that would be an understatement, your mind is controlled as such you think what they tell you

The age of dinosaurs ended 66 million years ago, the museum might close if not enough morons attend

It's from Smithsonian, not Infowars. Try to keep up please.

The Smithsonian does not have any 100 million year old flesh

Stop jerking off in public

I have seen the info. The Smithsonian is desperate to sell a ticket

 

[toobfreak]

Ah, thank you for the astute response.

After talking with Fran, a babbling chimp would be an astute response, but thanks anyway.

I tend to agree with this from the standpoint of pure brightfield or dark field optics, Abbe’s original equations hold. However, Hell’s rewrite of Abbe’s law establishes new resolution limits based on laser power rather than wavelength and as such represents heretofore recognized potential and is the reason his work received such recognition...and a rewrite of Abbe’s equations to reflect this new understanding.

That is all fine and good, but as you cannot apply laser power to an astronomical telescope to increase resolution, I still see Hell's work as conditional. Far more than wavelength affects the resolution limit of an optic: assuming the quality of the optical figure is sufficiently good to reduce spherical, astigmatism, chromatism and the various mono Seidel aberrations to below negligible levels (< lambda/4), other factors such as the working aperture of the optic (which in effect is what sets up the diffraction pattern in the first place), the effective focal ratio of the system (which affects the lines per millimeter resolution and contrast transfer function), and other subtle things not the least of which is the spatial frequency of the object under observation, all contribute to the final resolution limit. So while Hell's work may be a breakthrough revolutionizing microscopy, it cannot be applied to the entire field of optics as Abbe's Laws are.

We could consider this similar to Newton’s Law of Gravity in view of dark matter. Newton’s Law holds for planetary systems but for intergalactic distances, different equations rule.

Newton's laws may "get us there" generally within the solar system but really fail there as well as in the case of Mercury's perihelion.

So, we see this in so much of science, that what we consider to be a universal law ends up being actually a special case, limited by our ability to perceive the complete picture.

OB, I prefer to see these less of a failing of said laws if I'm reminded that scientific laws are, in their essence, contextual. Laws may occasionally be found wrong, inaccurate, in some cases or get revamped, but only really because the framework of their understanding and usage has changed, which really is just saying the same thing as you in a different way. Put another way, a law of science is really just an expression of how we see and understand the universe at some given fixed moment in time; there is no shame in revising or replacing them as that understanding improves!

 

[Frannie]

Ah, thank you for the astute response.

After talking with Fran, a babbling chimp would be an astute response, but thanks anyway.

I tend to agree with this from the standpoint of pure brightfield or dark field optics, Abbe’s original equations hold. However, Hell’s rewrite of Abbe’s law establishes new resolution limits based on laser power rather than wavelength and as such represents heretofore recognized potential and is the reason his work received such recognition...and a rewrite of Abbe’s equations to reflect this new understanding.

That is all fine and good, but as you cannot apply laser power to an astronomical telescope to increase resolution, I still see Hell's work as conditional. Far more than wavelength affects the resolution limit of an optic: assuming the quality of the optical figure is sufficiently good to reduce spherical, astigmatism, chromatism and the various mono Seidel aberrations to below negligible levels (< lambda/4), other factors such as the working aperture of the optic (which in effect is what sets up the diffraction pattern in the first place), the effective focal ratio of the system (which affects the lines per millimeter resolution and contrast transfer function), and other subtle things not the least of which is the spatial frequency of the object under observation, all contribute to the final resolution limit. So while Hell's work may be a breakthrough revolutionizing microscopy, it cannot be applied to the entire field of optics as Abbe's Laws are.

We could consider this similar to Newton’s Law of Gravity in view of dark matter. Newton’s Law holds for planetary systems but for intergalactic distances, different equations rule.

Newton's laws may "get us there" generally within the solar system but really fail there as well as in the case of Mercury's perihelion.

So, we see this in so much of science, that what we consider to be a universal law ends up being actually a special case, limited by our ability to perceive the complete picture.

OB, I prefer to see these less of a failing of said laws if I'm reminded that scientific laws are, in their essence, contextual. Laws may occasionally be found wrong, inaccurate, in some cases or get revamped, but only really because the framework of their understanding and usage has changed, which really is just saying the same thing as you in a different way. Put another way, a law of science is really just an expression of how we see and understand the universe at some given fixed moment in time; there is no shame in revising or replacing them as that understanding improves!

So many words to say absolutely nothing of consequence

 

[OldBiologist]

I can see by the impression you hold of yourself that you are very easily impressed. Congratulations on self elevating to infallibility; though you should learn that insults, arrogance and condescension, as well as being just plain wrong, do not constitute any kind of argument. It more resembles a two year old kicking and screaming because when he doesn’t get his way.

Ah, thank you for the astute response.

After talking with Fran, a babbling chimp would be an astute response, but thanks anyway.

I tend to agree with this from the standpoint of pure brightfield or dark field optics, Abbe’s original equations hold. However, Hell’s rewrite of Abbe’s law establishes new resolution limits based on laser power rather than wavelength and as such represents heretofore recognized potential and is the reason his work received such recognition...and a rewrite of Abbe’s equations to reflect this new understanding.

That is all fine and good, but as you cannot apply laser power to an astronomical telescope to increase resolution, I still see Hell's work as conditional. Far more than wavelength affects the resolution limit of an optic: assuming the quality of the optical figure is sufficiently good to reduce spherical, astigmatism, chromatism and the various mono Seidel aberrations to below negligible levels (< lambda/4), other factors such as the working aperture of the optic (which in effect is what sets up the diffraction pattern in the first place), the effective focal ratio of the system (which affects the lines per millimeter resolution and contrast transfer function), and other subtle things not the least of which is the spatial frequency of the object under observation, all contribute to the final resolution limit. So while Hell's work may be a breakthrough revolutionizing microscopy, it cannot be applied to the entire field of optics as Abbe's Laws are.

We could consider this similar to Newton’s Law of Gravity in view of dark matter. Newton’s Law holds for planetary systems but for intergalactic distances, different equations rule.

Newton's laws may "get us there" generally within the solar system but really fail there as well as in the case of Mercury's perihelion.

So, we see this in so much of science, that what we consider to be a universal law ends up being actually a special case, limited by our ability to perceive the complete picture.

OB, I prefer to see these less of a failing of said laws if I'm reminded that scientific laws are, in their essence, contextual. Laws may occasionally be found wrong, inaccurate, in some cases or get revamped, but only really because the framework of their understanding and usage has changed, which really is just saying the same thing as you in a different way. Put another way, a law of science is really just an expression of how we see and understand the universe at some given fixed moment in time; there is no shame in revising or replacing them as that understanding improves!

So many words to say absolutely nothing of consequence

 

[toobfreak]

In my field, Abbe’s Law of Diffraction was the 800 lb gorilla in the room when it came to determining ultimate resolution of optical systems in microscopy. That held for over a century until Stefan Hell smashed the optical resolution barrier, rewrote Abbe’s equations and won a noble prize doing it. The truths science uncovers often depend on certain technology or tools to reveal them. So things change as we grow our smarts and technology.

Sharing this topic with a friend of mine who still works as a research scientist in the field of plastics (polymers) and both teaches and spends a lot of time using SOTA microscopes in his work, had this to say:

The approaches discussed here take advantage of special conditions to gain information at length scales smaller than we traditionally associate with visible wavelength light. In particular, near field optics is a very interesting variant whose theoretical underpinnings date back to Newton. I am in the process of acquiring for our laboratory something called a Near field Scanning Optical Microscope, that will enable us to examine surfaces using optical light with resolutions down to 50 nm or so. It can be coupled with Atomic Force Microscopy topology data to get detailed chemical and morphological information on the Nanoscale for surfaces. But, as (toobfreak) suggests, this technique and the others mentioned in the articles take advantage of very carefully controlled conditions that are not generally applicable to standard optics like camera lenses or telescopes. Still, very fascinating avenues of physics to explore

NSOM, AFM Raman, TERS, and all Scanning Probe Microscopy

 

[OldBiologist]

Again, good points. I think we might be having a heated agreement.
Here’s another different optical method of imaging beyond the diffraction barrier in microscopy.

Widefield Super-Resolution with GSDIM

Ah, thank you for the astute response.

After talking with Fran, a babbling chimp would be an astute response, but thanks anyway.

I tend to agree with this from the standpoint of pure brightfield or dark field optics, Abbe’s original equations hold. However, Hell’s rewrite of Abbe’s law establishes new resolution limits based on laser power rather than wavelength and as such represents heretofore recognized potential and is the reason his work received such recognition...and a rewrite of Abbe’s equations to reflect this new understanding.

That is all fine and good, but as you cannot apply laser power to an astronomical telescope to increase resolution, I still see Hell's work as conditional. Far more than wavelength affects the resolution limit of an optic: assuming the quality of the optical figure is sufficiently good to reduce spherical, astigmatism, chromatism and the various mono Seidel aberrations to below negligible levels (< lambda/4), other factors such as the working aperture of the optic (which in effect is what sets up the diffraction pattern in the first place), the effective focal ratio of the system (which affects the lines per millimeter resolution and contrast transfer function), and other subtle things not the least of which is the spatial frequency of the object under observation, all contribute to the final resolution limit. So while Hell's work may be a breakthrough revolutionizing microscopy, it cannot be applied to the entire field of optics as Abbe's Laws are.

We could consider this similar to Newton’s Law of Gravity in view of dark matter. Newton’s Law holds for planetary systems but for intergalactic distances, different equations rule.

Newton's laws may "get us there" generally within the solar system but really fail there as well as in the case of Mercury's perihelion.

So, we see this in so much of science, that what we consider to be a universal law ends up being actually a special case, limited by our ability to perceive the complete picture.

OB, I prefer to see these less of a failing of said laws if I'm reminded that scientific laws are, in their essence, contextual. Laws may occasionally be found wrong, inaccurate, in some cases or get revamped, but only really because the framework of their understanding and usage has changed, which really is just saying the same thing as you in a different way. Put another way, a law of science is really just an expression of how we see and understand the universe at some given fixed moment in time; there is no shame in revising or replacing them as that understanding improves!

 

[CWayne]

Actually, current theory on quantum fluctuations says particles are popping in and out of existence in vacuum constantly. Here’s a wiki link.

“A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle.”

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

However, even better, with less math and more humor, is this talk by Lawrence Krause. I’ve listened to this through several times and always enjoyed it. I hope you find it equally interesting.

Perhaps this is old news for some but this was the first I heard about it, ripping particles from empty space.

“...most alluring, Li says, would be showing that light could tear electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons, from empty space—a phenomenon known as "breaking the vacuum." It would be a striking illustration that matter and energy are interchangeable...”

Physicists are planning to build lasers so powerful they could rip apart empty space | Science | AAAS

There is nothing in empty space to tear apart, though this may prove false, nor does matter if there have a present antimatter counterpart to rip away as matter and antimatter can not cohabitate the same space without neutralizing each other

Nice story though, popping in einstein makes it seem logical, at least to an illogical processor, which I lack

To pop in and out of existence is a theory that requires totally new physics. Furthermore antimatter can not be separated from matter because they can not exist together.

It's all gibberish

My theory is that fools are pushing pseudoscience in an attempt to dethrone the current title holder

Frannie, YOU are gibberish. That "new physics" you suggest needed has been around since about the 1920s. Further antimatter DOES exist because it HAS to be separated! The problem with antimatter is that not enough of it can be produced to be particularly useful. Every particle has its opposite. One exists because of the other.

There is no new or old physics as the properties of matter have never changed. Only human understanding changes

As far as I have been able to determine, this is the only truthful or accurate statement you have made thus far in this thread.

Truthfully, it is ONLY human understanding of the universe that has changed. Most of us call it learning. How do we learn about the universe and its physical limits?

Why we develop theories on the basis of known information to test if the theory is valid or not. You keep going back to this nonsense about matter and anti-matter not being together because they destroy each other. This is a decided lack of knowledge on your part. Of course, you could impress us with the conditions in which matter and anti-matter do destroy each other.

You remind me of a kid who, while using a magnifying glass to burn ants on the sidewalk, deny that lasers could ever exist.

 

[Frannie]

Actually, current theory on quantum fluctuations says particles are popping in and out of existence in vacuum constantly. Here’s a wiki link.

“A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle.”

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

However, even better, with less math and more humor, is this talk by Lawrence Krause. I’ve listened to this through several times and always enjoyed it. I hope you find it equally interesting.

There is nothing in empty space to tear apart, though this may prove false, nor does matter if there have a present antimatter counterpart to rip away as matter and antimatter can not cohabitate the same space without neutralizing each other

Nice story though, popping in einstein makes it seem logical, at least to an illogical processor, which I lack

To pop in and out of existence is a theory that requires totally new physics. Furthermore antimatter can not be separated from matter because they can not exist together.

It's all gibberish

My theory is that fools are pushing pseudoscience in an attempt to dethrone the current title holder

Frannie, YOU are gibberish. That "new physics" you suggest needed has been around since about the 1920s. Further antimatter DOES exist because it HAS to be separated! The problem with antimatter is that not enough of it can be produced to be particularly useful. Every particle has its opposite. One exists because of the other.

There is no new or old physics as the properties of matter have never changed. Only human understanding changes

As far as I have been able to determine, this is the only truthful or accurate statement you have made thus far in this thread.

Truthfully, it is ONLY human understanding of the universe that has changed. Most of us call it learning. How do we learn about the universe and its physical limits?

Why we develop theories on the basis of known information to test if the theory is valid or not. You keep going back to this nonsense about matter and anti-matter not being together because they destroy each other. This is a decided lack of knowledge on your part. Of course, you could impress us with the conditions in which matter and anti-matter do destroy each other.

You remind me of a kid who, while using a magnifying glass to burn ants on the sidewalk, deny that lasers could ever exist.

Everything I have said here is correct though not all will have the mental capacity to understand

PS Everything is a theory when referencing the universe. Are you aware that because the gravitational math does not add up that supposed brilliant physicist are now claiming that the entire universe is really a computer program on a hard drive? Yo that includes you by the way

Yea you tell us more about what you were programmed to believe that you comically think is real....

Did the NSA stop recording Americans because Snowden proved they were?

 

[OldBiologist]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Actually, current theory on quantum fluctuations says particles are popping in and out of existence in vacuum constantly. Here’s a wiki link.

“A quantum fluctuation is the temporary appearance of energetic particles out of empty space, as allowed by the uncertainty principle.”

Quantum fluctuation - Wikipedia

However, even better, with less math and more humor, is this talk by Lawrence Krause. I’ve listened to this through several times and always enjoyed it. I hope you find it equally interesting.

To pop in and out of existence is a theory that requires totally new physics. Furthermore antimatter can not be separated from matter because they can not exist together.

It's all gibberish

My theory is that fools are pushing pseudoscience in an attempt to dethrone the current title holder

Frannie, YOU are gibberish. That "new physics" you suggest needed has been around since about the 1920s. Further antimatter DOES exist because it HAS to be separated! The problem with antimatter is that not enough of it can be produced to be particularly useful. Every particle has its opposite. One exists because of the other.

There is no new or old physics as the properties of matter have never changed. Only human understanding changes

As far as I have been able to determine, this is the only truthful or accurate statement you have made thus far in this thread.

Truthfully, it is ONLY human understanding of the universe that has changed. Most of us call it learning. How do we learn about the universe and its physical limits?

Why we develop theories on the basis of known information to test if the theory is valid or not. You keep going back to this nonsense about matter and anti-matter not being together because they destroy each other. This is a decided lack of knowledge on your part. Of course, you could impress us with the conditions in which matter and anti-matter do destroy each other.

You remind me of a kid who, while using a magnifying glass to burn ants on the sidewalk, deny that lasers could ever exist.

Everything I have said here is correct though not all will have the mental capacity to understand

 

[Frannie]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

To pop in and out of existence is a theory that requires totally new physics. Furthermore antimatter can not be separated from matter because they can not exist together.

It's all gibberish

My theory is that fools are pushing pseudoscience in an attempt to dethrone the current title holder

Frannie, YOU are gibberish. That "new physics" you suggest needed has been around since about the 1920s. Further antimatter DOES exist because it HAS to be separated! The problem with antimatter is that not enough of it can be produced to be particularly useful. Every particle has its opposite. One exists because of the other.

There is no new or old physics as the properties of matter have never changed. Only human understanding changes

As far as I have been able to determine, this is the only truthful or accurate statement you have made thus far in this thread.

Truthfully, it is ONLY human understanding of the universe that has changed. Most of us call it learning. How do we learn about the universe and its physical limits?

Why we develop theories on the basis of known information to test if the theory is valid or not. You keep going back to this nonsense about matter and anti-matter not being together because they destroy each other. This is a decided lack of knowledge on your part. Of course, you could impress us with the conditions in which matter and anti-matter do destroy each other.

You remind me of a kid who, while using a magnifying glass to burn ants on the sidewalk, deny that lasers could ever exist.

Everything I have said here is correct though not all will have the mental capacity to understand

Continue following me as it clearly fills an emptiness in your life

 

[toobfreak]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Continue following me as it clearly fills an emptiness in your life

You know Frannie, not only isn't that necessary, it just ain't plain right. Do you have even a single civil bone in you?

 

[toobfreak]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Many people just ignore Frannie, considering her a troll of the worst kind. Me, I think it is organic brain damage combined with Aspergers. Obviously needs to up her doses of Mellaril + Etrafon Forte.

 

[Frannie]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Continue following me as it clearly fills an emptiness in your life

You know Frannie, not only isn't that necessary, it just ain't plain right. Do you have even a single civil bone in you?

I pointed out a fact that should be obvious and again is the truth. I find it amusing how so many do not mind badmouthing me yet not one can disprove anything I have ever posted.

Go on keep repeating and believing what they programmed you to believe

They tell you that you came out of a pond, but do they have aliens with human compatible dna

See what you do not know can matter

 

[Frannie]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Many people just ignore Frannie, considering her a troll of the worst kind. Me, I think it is organic brain damage combined with Aspergers. Obviously needs to up her doses of Mellaril + Etrafon Forte.

You can ignore the truth, for just so long

 

[Frannie]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Many people just ignore Frannie, considering her a troll of the worst kind. Me, I think it is organic brain damage combined with Aspergers. Obviously needs to up her doses of Mellaril + Etrafon Forte.

No tube I do not need your meds

 

[toobfreak]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Many people just ignore Frannie, considering her a troll of the worst kind. Me, I think it is organic brain damage combined with Aspergers. Obviously needs to up her doses of Mellaril + Etrafon Forte.

No tube I do not need your meds

 

[Frannie]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Many people just ignore Frannie, considering her a troll of the worst kind. Me, I think it is organic brain damage combined with Aspergers. Obviously needs to up her doses of Mellaril + Etrafon Forte.

No tube I do not need your meds

View attachment 284583

Well it is plain to see that you have given up posting fake science.....

In fact you have just plain given up

All do

Nothing new there

 

[daveman]

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Continue following me as it clearly fills an emptiness in your life

You know Frannie, not only isn't that necessary, it just ain't plain right. Do you have even a single civil bone in you?

I pointed out a fact that should be obvious and again is the truth. I find it amusing how so many do not mind badmouthing me yet not one can disprove anything I have ever posted.

Go on keep repeating and believing what they programmed you to believe

They tell you that you came out of a pond, but do they have aliens with human compatible dna

See what you do not know can matter

Thing is, you would not accept anything that proved you wrong. Of course, your acceptance would have no bearing.

 

[OldBiologist]

Ha, no worries. I have to have respect for a person to place any value on their opinion of me. As far as I’m concerned, she’s doing a better job of exposing herself to readers than I could ever do.

Continue in your fantasy. It obviously makes you feel good.

Continue following me as it clearly fills an emptiness in your life

You know Frannie, not only isn't that necessary, it just ain't plain right. Do you have even a single civil bone in you?