Scientists create light from vacuum

Nov 17, 2011
In the Chalmers scientists’ experiments, virtual photons bounce off a “mirror” that vibrates at a speed that is almost as high as the speed of light. The round mirror in the picture is a symbol, and under that is the quantum electronic component (referred to as a SQUID), which acts as a mirror. This makes real photons appear (in pairs) in vacuum. Credit: Philip Krantz, Chalmers

(PhysOrg.com) -- Scientists at Chalmers University of Technology have succeeded in creating light from vacuum – observing an effect first predicted over 40 years ago. The results will be published tomorrow (Wednesday) in the journal Nature. In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum.

The experiment is based on one of the most counterintuitive, yet, one of the most important principles in mechanics: that is by no means empty nothingness. In fact, the vacuum is full of various particles that are continuously fluctuating in and out of existence. They appear, exist for a brief moment and then disappear again. Since their existence is so fleeting, they are usually referred to as virtual particles.

Chalmers scientist, Christopher Wilson and his co-workers have succeeded in getting to leave their virtual state and become real photons, i.e. measurable light. The physicist Moore predicted way back in 1970 that this should happen if the virtual photons are allowed to bounce off a mirror that is moving at a speed that is almost as high as the speed of light. The phenomenon, known as the dynamical Casimir effect, has now been observed for the first time in a brilliant experiment conducted by the Chalmers scientists.

“Since it’s not possible to get a mirror to move fast enough, we’ve developed another method for achieving the same effect,” explains Per Delsing, Professor of Experimental Physics at Chalmers. “Instead of varying the physical distance to a mirror, we've varied the electrical distance to an electrical short circuit that acts as a mirror for microwaves.

The “mirror” consists of a quantum electronic component referred to as a SQUID (Superconducting quantum interference device), which is extremely sensitive to magnetic fields. By changing the direction of the magnetic field several billions of times a second the scientists were able to make the “mirror” vibrate at a speed of up to 25 percent of the speed of light.

“The result was that photons appeared in pairs from the vacuum, which we were able to measure in the form of microwave radiation,” says Per Delsing. “We were also able to establish that the radiation had precisely the same properties that quantum theory says it should have when photons appear in pairs in this way.”

What happens during the experiment is that the “” transfers some of its kinetic energy to virtual photons, which helps them to materialise. According to quantum mechanics, there are many different types of virtual particles in vacuum, as mentioned earlier. Göran Johansson, Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics, explains that the reason why photons appear in the experiment is that they lack mass.

“Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy.”

The scientists find the photons that appear in pairs in the experiment interesting to study in closer detail. They can perhaps be of use in the research field of quantum information, which includes the development of quantum computers.

However, the main value of the experiment is that it increases our understanding of basic physical concepts, such as vacuum fluctuations – the constant appearance and disappearance of virtual particles in vacuum. It is believed that vacuum fluctuations may have a connection with “dark energy” which drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. The discovery of this acceleration was recognised this year with the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics.

Explore further: Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

More information: "Observation of the dynamical Casimir effect in a superconducting circuit" C. M. Wilson, G. Johansson, A. Pourkabirian, M. Simoen, J. R. Johansson, T. Duty, F. Nori, & P. Delsing, Nature 479, 376–379 (17 November 2011), doi:10.1038/nature10561

Read our earlier reporting: Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Journal reference: Nature search and more info website

Provided by Chalmers University of Technology

4.8 /5 (80 votes)

Related Stories

Researchers create light from 'almost nothing'

Jun 06, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- A group of physicists working out of Chalmers University of Technology in Gothenburg, Sweden, have succeeded in proving what was until now, just theory; and that is, that visible photons could ...

Vienna physicists create quantum twin atoms

May 02, 2011

At the Vienna University of Technology, sophisticated atomchips have been used to create pairs of quantum mechanically connected atom-twins. Until now, similar experiments were only possible using photons.

Physicists build first single-photon router

Aug 22, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- By demonstrating that an artificial atom embedded in a transmission line can route a single photon from an input port to one of two output ports, physicists have built the first router working ...

Recommended for you

New method for non-invasive prostate cancer screening

13 hours ago

Cancer screening is a critical approach for preventing cancer deaths because cases caught early are often more treatable. But while there are already existing ways to screen for different types of cancer, ...

How bubble studies benefit science and engineering

14 hours ago

The image above shows a perfect bubble imploding in weightlessness. This bubble, and many like it, are produced by the researchers from the École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne in Switzerland. What ...

Famous Feynman lectures put online with free access

14 hours ago

(Phys.org) —Back in the early sixties, physicist Richard Feynman gave a series of lectures on physics to first year students at Caltech—those lectures were subsequently put into print and made into text ...

Single laser stops molecular tumbling motion instantly

19 hours ago

In the quantum world, making the simple atom behave is one thing, but making the more complex molecule behave is another story. Now Northwestern University scientists have figured out an elegant way to stop a molecule from ...

User comments : 105

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Isaacsname
4.9 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
I just love the fact that a greater portion of the universe pops in and out of existence :)
antialias_physorg
3.6 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
Woha. This is clever.

(Reactionless drives here we come.)
hjbasutu
4.4 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
i jus wonder what else awaits us in the vaccum...are the particles popping out of the vaccum or from another dimension...i also wonder...
Henka
4.7 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
Absolutely fascinating. I can't wait for more discoveries of this nature.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (28) Nov 17, 2011
One of the most surprising predictions of modern quantum theory is that the vacuum of space is not empty. In fact, quantum theory predicts that it teems with virtual particles flitting in and out of existence. ...these vacuum fluctuations had measurable consequences, for instance producing the Lamb shift of atomic spectra and modifying the magnetic moment for the electron.
Dense aether theory models space-time like the density gradient of particle environment, for example the 4D space-time with 3D water surface. This surface is full of Brownian noise, which manifests for example with quantum noise of atoms of helium, which never freeze at room pressure. The helium atoms play a role of pollen grains at the water surface, which are under wild motion, when being observed under the microscope.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (22) Nov 17, 2011
Preprint http://arxiv.org/...14v1.pdf suppl. info: http://www.nature...1-s1.pdf

This experiment isn't first of its kind, compare for example here http://arxiv.org/...40v1.pdf
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (20) Nov 17, 2011
If we consider the literal experiment of moving a physical mirror near the speed light, we quickly see that this experiment is not feasible. For example the case of moving a typical microwave mirror in an oscillating motion at frequency of 2 GHz with a displacement of 1 nm would produce 1 photon per day. Nevertheless, it would require an input of mechanical power of 100 MW while the system would need to be cooled to 20 mK temperature to ensure that the EM field is in its vacuum state.

But this arrangement could be achieved with fast rotating mirror more easily. For example, if we would make one half of rotating rod black and the second one reflective, this rod would generate the photons from vacuum, if it would rotate with megahertz frequency speed - which is achievable even with contemporary technology. http://www.techno...v/26813/
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2011
The introduction highlighted here is essentially a condensed version of the introduction given in review article on the same topic posted in March http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.0835
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Nov 17, 2011
if it would rotate with megahertz frequency speed - which is achievable even with contemporary technology

The problem isn't the rotation speed but the extreme precision with which the two surfaces must be aligned. Getting one (or two) rapidly rotating surfaces to within one nanometer of one another - and keeping them there - is something we haven't achived yet.
Jayded
4.8 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
I love this site. What a cool story.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
"In an innovative experiment, the scientists have managed to capture some of the photons that are constantly appearing and disappearing in the vacuum."

One thing puzzled me: have the photons previously been observed in vacuum? I know they were predicted, but has there been observation of them naturally "appearing and disappearing" as the article suggested prior to this new capability to show them at will?
Callippo
1.3 / 5 (21) Nov 17, 2011
The problem isn't the rotation speed but the extreme precision with which the two surfaces must be aligned
You're just confusing the observation of Casimir force with observation of dynamic Casimir effect. Dynamic Casimir effect doesn't use any coplanar mirrors.

http://www.aether...rror.gif

Try to spent another ten minutes with reading about both.
know they were predicted, but has there been observation of them naturally "appearing and disappearing" as the article suggested prior to this new capability to show them at will?
Of course, this is what the CMBR noise is called.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
Bit hard to show them 'appearing AND disappearing' since then you couldn't measure them. We're talking virtual photons here - not real ones.

In order to make them real you need to have something like the dynamic Casimir effect (as described in the article) or some other extreme condition (e.g. near a black hole horizon) which gives them enough of a boost to become real or (as in the black hole example) separate them enough for them to become real (which is what Hawking radiation is). Once they are real they don't disappear again.

Another related effect may be Unruh radiation (which - like Hawking radiation - hasn't been observed, yet)

But the static Casimir effect has been demonstrated (i.e. that _something_ is going on in vacuum which can be described as virtual photons popping in and out of existence)
http://en.wikiped...surement

Callippo
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2011
you couldn't measure them. We're talking virtual photons here - not real ones
They're called virtual because they're shortliving. CMBR photons are real ones and their wavelength can be measured. They're just appear temporarily.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (10) Nov 17, 2011
CMBR photons are real ones and their wavelength can be measured. They're just appear temporarily.

Temporarily? 13 billion years flight time is 'temporarily'? Also the energy distribution is all wrong if that were the source of the CMBR.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (21) Nov 17, 2011
13 billion years flight time is 'temporarily'?
This is just a Big Bang theory BS. In AWT the CMBR photons appear and disappear all around us like the Brownian noise at the water surface and their density and intensity is permanent.

http://people.rit...4565.jpg

The space-time "expands" even for ripples spreading along the water surface, but it doesn't mean, something really expands here. BTW The recent observations indicating, the various effects of red shift (like the integrated Sachs-Volfe effect) disappear just for CMBR photons.

http://www.tgdail...t-at-all

It means, in microwave light the Universe is steady state, without red shift and nonexpanding. It implies, the red shift is dispersive effect and the galaxies inside of the Hubble deep field are experiencing the same CMBR noise, like we do.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2011
This is just a Big Bang theory BS. In AWT the CMBR photons appear and disappear all around us like the Brownian noise at the water surface and their density and intensity is permanent.

Wouldn't that mean that all bodies are permanently bombarded by freshly created photons (i.e. that all planets/moons/rocks should heat up inefinitely). I think we're running into Olber's paradox with this type of 'theory'.

Or do the photons then emitted as radiation suddenly, magically disappear again?

I.e. are there disappearing and non-disappearing photons? Sound s a ot like a fabrication.
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (22) Nov 17, 2011
The problem with mainstream physics isn't, it uses some theory for explanation of observation, but in the fact, it ignores the other alternative models, which lead into the same predictions and in some cases they fit the observations better. It's actually the same religion, like those which Holy Church used in medieval ages. Holy Church didn't prohibit the formal models, like the geocentric epicycle model of solar system. It was highly scientific approach in its time. The religious trait of this approach consisted in the point, it ignored all alternative explanations.

In this sense the modern astronomy doesn't differ from medieval astronomy at least a bit. Both they're using formal models for explanation of observations and both they're denying the alternative models being religious, not critical thinking based. We actually made no conceptual progress in application of scientific method.

http://aetherwave...day.html
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (17) Nov 17, 2011
Or do the photons then emitted as radiation suddenly, magically disappear again?
Of course, in the same way, like the Brownian noise penetrating the water surface. The CMBR photons aren't real photons - they're virtual, just quite long living photons. They're representing gravitational waves as well.
I think we're running into Olber's paradox with this type of 'theory'
Actually, just the Big Bang model leads into Olber's type paradoxes instead. It predicts, whole distant sky would be covered with quite energetic shortwavelength photons. Under such a situation the clouds of interstellar gas couldn't condense into dense stars at all - they should remain excited and glowing too.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (18) Nov 17, 2011
The CMBR photons are the analogy of thermal fluctuations of atmosphere, which are prohibiting us in observation of stars through telescopes. Most of light is dispersed with much smaller and faster fluctuations, which manifest with Rayleigh dispersion and with blue light of atmosphere. But these tiny fluctuations doesn't interfere the optical observations. Only the tiny fraction of these fluctuations of longest wavelength is directly observable with naked eye as the twinkling of stars - but they're as virtual, as these shortwavelength ones by their nature. There is no qualitative difference between thermal noise of atmosphere responsible for Rayleigh dispersion and the thermal noise responsible for twinkling of stars. In the same way, AWT assumes, there is no qualitative difference between CMBR photons and the virtual particles forming the vacuum. The later ones are just smaller.
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2011
Olber's paradox happens when you have an _infinite_ power source in a (in)finite space. The CMBR was a _finite_ power source in a finite space. So no: The BB doesn't run into Olber's paradox. Your 'explanation' of continuous creation of photons, however, does.

If photons appeared and disappeared all the time we wouldn't be able to see distant stars at all - because the photons emitted from them would be as likely to disappear than photons from any other direction would appear.

Oh, and gravity is a bit of another kettle of fish - has nothing to do with electromagnetic radiation.
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (15) Nov 17, 2011
If photons appeared and disappeared all the time we wouldn't be able to see distant stars at all
And we really aren't able to do so. This is the reason, why we cannot see the more distant objects, so that the sky remain dark. It's called the particle horizon of Universe.

Actually, the AWT doesn't deny the Big Bang model. It predicts, at the very distant future the Universe is just random and all theories will become indistinguishable each other. But there is no phenomena, which the tired light model cannot explain as easily, as the Big Bang model. And the tired light model fits some recent observations better.

Paradoxically, some phenomena like the Doppler's anisotropy of red shift, which are seemingly violating the Big Bang model by now can actually serve for its support later into account of tired light model. Because the tired light model is quite spatially symmetric by its very nature and it predicts very uniform Universe.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2011
Ahhh...Ooooookay...So the night sky has been a mirage all along. Yeah. Right.

I think I'll drop out of this 'coversation', now, if you don't mind.
(backs away slowly)
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2011
IMO it's worth recalling Wittgenstein's remark on the aether subject. "Tell me," he asked a friend, "why do people always say, it was natural for man to assume that the sun went round the earth rather than that the earth was rotating?" His friend replied, "Well, obviously because it just looks as though the Sun is going round the Earth." Wittgenstein replied, "Well, what would it have looked like if it had looked as though the Earth was rotating?"

We can now ask as well: "How the universe would appear if it had looked like being eternal and infinite and the red shift would be a consequence of the dispersion of light at vacuum fluctuations"?

Apparently, many people today aren't willing to even think about it at all, thus effectively behaving in the same shortseeing way, like the opponents of Galileo in his era.
El_Nose
2.2 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
Since they appear -- and thus are real -- for a very short period of time -- are they affected by gravity and would a huge vaccum like inter galactic space have a significant amount of these particles pooping into and out of existance -- if so does this effect galactic rotation?
Callippo
1 / 5 (13) Nov 17, 2011
if so does this effect galactic rotation?
The phenomena like the Lense-Thirring effect and dark matter effects can be interpreted like the drag induced with virtual particles in vacuum. In certain sense they're behaving like the sparse gas composed of colliding particles and/or aether of preEinsteinian era. So it's not accidental, the equations describing gravitomagnetic effects are isomorphous with Maxwell's equations and with Navier-Stokes equations for elastic fluid.

http://www.aether...hism.gif

So-called the Einstein's aether theory is based on this insight.

http://en.wikiped...r_theory

The dense aether model differs from these models for example in the point, it implies wavelength dependence for all phenomenological predictions.
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
The problem isn't the rotation speed but the extreme precision with which the two surfaces must be aligned
You're just confusing the observation of Casimir force with observation of dynamic Casimir effect. Dynamic Casimir effect doesn't use any coplanar mirrors.

http://www.aether...rror.gif

Try to spent another ten minutes with reading about both.
know they were predicted, but has there been observation of them naturally "appearing and disappearing" as the article suggested prior to this new capability to show them at will?
Of course, this is what the CMBR noise is called.


I didn't realize CMBR was visible-spectrum.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 17, 2011
I didn't realize we actually cannot create a dark room. (/sarcasm)

Because with these photons spontaneously popping into existence we shouldn't be able to create something like working photomultipliers at all (they'd be continually bombarder by all these photons popping into existence and be 'on' all the time).
Callippo
1.1 / 5 (14) Nov 17, 2011
Because with these photons spontaneously popping into existence we shouldn't be able to create something like working photomultipliers at all
The CMBR photons are sparse with respect to more energetic density fluctuations of vacuum. They can be shielded effectively, until the shielding chamber isn't large enough. But some phenomena are indicating, they cannot be shielded completely.

http://www.physor...719.html

Some dark matter models based on WIMPS are seeking these events systematically.
Ddoodle
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
I think, this is what the high voltage high frequency, nikola tesla stuff is all about. ( creating electrons from the vaccum -> i think this is also connected to Teslas "cold electricity". )
the release of this research if it doesn't turn out to be a measurment error could actually explain some of his stuff.
The anouncment of such a thing is more than most of the people can and want to comprehend in their waking state (me included).
and finally i think the anouncement of such article is not any more a technical or scientific issue, because as you see in the other comments a lot of people have discovered similar things. Its more about showing that there is no science behind the science as we know it now. Because what is science as we know it (i mean not Quantum physiks, where things pop up here and there and are actually everywhere at all), if you can push things out of nowhere to be somewhere and put them back too nowhere.
Callippo
1.2 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2011
what is science as we know it, if you can push things out of nowhere to be somewhere and put them back too nowhere.
A the water surface such events happen all the time: some density fluctuation appears from (extradimension of) underwater and it disappears again there. The density gradient of water surface just makes it visible. Why we couldn't sit at 4D space-time like the bubbles floating at the 2D watter surface? It violates anything what we know.
Cynical1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
For some odd reason this is reminding me of the Holograph theory of the universe...
javjav
1 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
If a future device (version 2.0) based on this principle could create protons, as it is mentioned in the article, could it be an efficient way to accelerate space probes?

I mean, if you can pick up mass from the void you do not need to carry mass, only energy is needed in order to keep the mirror rotating/vibrating. The new protons would appear in the nozzle and sent backwards to create thrust, or they could be accelerated more with ion engines. The required energy could be harvested from solar panels, nuclear decay, or fission (in the last cases you still need to carry mass in the form of plutonium, but you do not need to carry a huge deposit with the mass to thrown away... )
that_guy
5 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
Since they appear -- and thus are real -- for a very short period of time -- are they affected by gravity and would a huge vaccum like inter galactic space have a significant amount of these particles pooping into and out of existance -- if so does this effect galactic rotation?


Most likely negligible. The ratio of gravitational energy imparted from baryonic matter versus EM radiation is absolutely huge. Consider the mass of a photon.

Or look at it this way: Divide the energy of a photon by the speed of light squared to get its mass. the number you get is absurdly small.

Then, divide THAT number by the actual time spent in existence. It becomes...even more absurd.

And that's before you get into all the other theoretical work on the fabric of space.

So when are they going to take this experiment and make a virtual flashlight out of it? No batteries needed!

antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
If a future device (version 2.0) based on this principle could create protons, as it is mentioned in the article, could it be an efficient way to accelerate space probes?

That's why I made the coment about reactionless drives. But efficient? Probably not. However, efficiency might take a back seat given the truly enormous travel times we'll face getting anywhere extrasolar - and the shere impossibility of doing that using any kind of reaction-fuel-driven vehicle). But it's probably more efficient to drive a big flashlight using the energy gained from any powerplant and use that as a 'thruster' than going for dynamic Casimir effect drives.

For interplanetary stuff we're already well set with ion drives.
Turritopsis
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
This is not a measurable discernible effect. By involving variables (mirrors, atoms, photons, in this case magnetic field) you cannot separate causation of the photon pair.

The magnetic field created to oscillate space (the virtual particle pairs) lends its energy into the pairs derivation from the vacuum. The mirror is in effect producing the photons.

Phonons are converted to photons. The phonons release their potential becoming kinetic, the virtual photons fulfill their potential becoming kinetic. The virtual photons become real (lose their virtuosity) by absorbing the phonons energy.

This is not energy from vacuum. The mirrors (magnetic fields) are filling the vacuum with their energy. The mirrors energy in the vacuum is forming new (real) particles which without the mirrors energy would be virtual.
that_guy
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
The ratio of mass energy equivalence from an electron (At rest) to a photon looks to be something on order of at least 5 Octillion (10x27) to 1. add another 3 zeros to get the ratio for a proton.

Now, compare those numbers to the number of atoms in 'empty space'...much less in a star or planet.

but a photon technically has no mass, so it makes it even weirder.
Gawad
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 17, 2011
If photons appeared and disappeared all the time we wouldn't be able to see distant stars at all
And we really aren't able to do so. This is the reason, why we cannot see the more distant objects, so that the sky remain dark. It's called the particle horizon of Universe.

...It predicts, at the very distant future the Universe is just random and all theories will become indistinguishable each other. But there is no phenomena, which the tired light model cannot explain as easily, as the Big Bang model. And the [it] fits some recent observations better.

You know, I've accused you before of being out of your effing mind, or of being on LSD or both. But now I want to say I'm sorry: none of that even scratches the surface. The only comfort I can take in what you write is that you're not ALSO a religious whacko. Cold comfort indeed.

As to this article, it's practically a copy-paste job from june:

http://www.physor...ost.html
Cynical1
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 17, 2011
The Title is even almost the same (quantum effect - nothing is exactly the same). I guess Titles follow the rules stated in the article...
IF this is actually happening out in the cosmos - who/what's putting the "mirrors" so closely together and - where the hell are those mirrors coming from? Being that it appears the vacuum has only virtual particles, wouldn't the "mirrors" also be virtual?
I need a drink...
Standing Bear
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
Ok, we have established that the quantum vacuum is real. Now would IT be equivalent to the 'hyperspace' of so many science 'fiction' stories. If it 'is, and with a lot of energy baryonic matter can be coaxed out of it, maybe with a 'release' of energy baryonic matter can be put back into the quantum vacuum. That would make the quantum vacuum an energy source, put matter in, get energy out. Moreover, what about the integrity of the matter put in...can you get the same particles out that was put in?....there for implying a bit of localization in the 'quantum vacuum/hyperspace'. Carrying further, can we put an 'object' into this 'space' and get it out undamaged? Or maybe later put an object in in one place with some maneuverability, and get it out another place undamaged?...maybe instantaneously? implying three dimensional time is not operating there the same way?
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
The Title is even almost the same (quantum effect - nothing is exactly the same). I guess Titles follow the rules stated in the article...
IF this is actually happening out in the cosmos - who/what's putting the "mirrors" so closely together and - where the hell are those mirrors coming from? Being that it appears the vacuum has only virtual particles, wouldn't the "mirrors" also be virtual?
I need a drink...


That's the question I was trying to get answered earlier, and don't think I made myself clear. Callipo said it was CMBR. But that's not in the visible spectrum right? So, I still don't understand if this has ever been observed in naked-eye (or equipment) conditions without the Chalmers technique.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 17, 2011
The Title is even almost the same (quantum effect - nothing is exactly the same). I guess Titles follow the rules stated in the article...
IF this is actually happening out in the cosmos - who/what's putting the "mirrors" so closely together and - where the hell are those mirrors coming from? Being that it appears the vacuum has only virtual particles, wouldn't the "mirrors" also be virtual?

No need to worry. There's no mass conversion of virtual to real particles anywhere in the universe. That doesn't mean virtual particles are all that exotic-after all the magnetic field around a fridge magnet is mediated by virtual photons-but virtual particals tend to stay virtual and reals to stay reals. As Anti explained, it takes very special circumstances to bump a virtual partical to the status of a real one.
I need a drink...

What can help a lot is to start thinking of the vast foaming Dirac Sea that adds up to 0 (or very close) as the NORM, and the "real" as the exception. :)
Cynical1
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
What can help a lot is to start thinking of the vast foaming Dirac Sea that adds up to 0 (or very close) as the NORM, and the "real" as the exception. :)

Crap... Now I'll need a joint, too...
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
The research has been posted here on Physorg before:
http://www.physor...ost.html

QM and GR always meet at the vacuum energy density question.
The outcome of the question determines the 'health' of both.
QM and GR both enjoy uncontested successes. I look forward to where both share and benefit from the answer to the vacuum energy density question.
Dug
1 / 5 (2) Nov 17, 2011
So existence is defined and controlled by the input of energy?
hush1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 17, 2011
Dug
We differ by one word only:
So existence is defined and controlled by the distribution of energy.
I have no idea of the words "input" and "distribution" are irreconcilable to one another.
hush1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 17, 2011
Typo: of=if
Callippo
1 / 5 (8) Nov 17, 2011
QM and GR always meet at the vacuum energy density question.
QM describes the space-time from extrinsic perspective of longitudinal waves, the GR from dual intrinsic perspective mediated with transverse waves. It analogical to the difference in description of water from perspective of underwater and from perspective of the water surface. The general relativity describes the water from perspective of nearly massless water surface. These two theories can be reconciled only with introduction of high number of dimensions.
Ddoodle
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
what i concluded so far is:

** The Magnetic field is just virtual partikels flowing around
** The elektric field is just virtual partikels flowing in one direktion
** The LHC is a maschine that doesnt smash partikels appart but creates new ones from the vacuum by using the energy of the destroyed ones
** you can use energy to create electrons, put them into a electric field so that they accelerate, therby create light (energy, e.g by exiting gas) and then put them back to the vaccum before they destroy the dipole that creates the electric field. -> tada free energy
Thomas bearden is saying this for many years that a dipole is the source of all energy.
And i Think Tesla knew this 100 years ago.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (10) Nov 18, 2011
Wouldn't that mean that all bodies are permanently bombarded by freshly created photons (i.e. that all planets/moons/rocks should heat up inefinitely). I think we're running into Olber's paradox with this type of 'theory'.
No because those potential waves are not reflected back coherently from the universe. Only waves that are phase-conjugated can build a localized standing wave, or what you would call a particle with "mass."
And i Think Tesla knew this 100 years ago.
And some of the thicker heads in science will know this 100 years from now.
kochevnik
1 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2011
No need to worry. There's no mass conversion of virtual to real particles anywhere in the universe. That doesn't mean virtual particles are all that exotic-after all the magnetic field around a fridge magnet is mediated by virtual photons-but virtual particles tend to stay virtual and reals to stay reals. As Anti explained, it takes very special circumstances to bump a virtual particle to the status of a real one.
Not really. Matter is just phased space. Planets create hydrogen atmospheres simply by rotating the hyperdimensional tetrahedron nuclei from a completely imaginary 3D projection [space,vacuum] into an vector with real magnitude. Increasing rotations create matter in the various phases of condensation from plasma to gas to liquid to solid. In a planet the toroidal flow of coherent, frantically nested standing waves constantly creates new matter. In wheels it allows bicycles to stay upright. The latter case is the only practical application to date.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 18, 2011
Not really. Matter is just phased space. Planets create hydrogen atmospheres simply by rotating the hyperdimensional tetrahedron nuclei from a completely imaginary 3D projection [space,vacuum] into an vector with real magnitude.

A word of advice Kochevnik: stick to hockey.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
A good example of material particle is vortex ring. This is how particle collision appears in collider. During it the daughter vortex rings are formed.

http://www.youtub...8ijAUCiI
PoppaJ
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 18, 2011
Soooo you fluctuate a magnetic field at a a billions times a second, in a vacuum. It becomes a microwave. And you want me to believe it came from the vacuum? Come on now.
yogurtforthesoul
not rated yet Nov 18, 2011
I'll say it again... Who the hell doesn't vote these type of articles a FIVE, for crying out loud!?
Humpty
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 18, 2011
So things that don't exist, come into, and go back out of, existence.

"This is not really happening, I am imagining it - I don't think, therefore I am not - Let there not be".

(c)Me

hush1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 18, 2011
Quantum Physics states there is a transfer of energy.
Quantum Information Theory states there is a transfer of information.

Modes(states) of existence - scattered or organized.
You will still be around whether you or anyone is aware or makes heads or tails of the existing modes (states).
thuber
1 / 5 (1) Nov 19, 2011
Virtual particles arise naturally out of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in QM. As long as dEdT < h/2 we cannot detect the particle. Vacuum polarization HAS been experimentally detected before, but so far as I know, actual photons have not. One theory of why accelerated charges (for example an electron) radiate is simply that the particle is surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons, and when accelerating leaves the some of the virtual photons behind which become observable because dEdT becomes larger than h/2.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 19, 2011
The QE-Cat
"Cook describes Die Glocke as emitting strong radiation when activated, an effect that supposedly led to the death of several unnamed scientists and various plant and animal test subjects."

@jigga/Callipo/Jiggalo
Here is something else for you to champion-
Isaacsname
not rated yet Nov 19, 2011
Virtual particles arise naturally out of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in QM. As long as dEdT < h/2 we cannot detect the particle. Vacuum polarization HAS been experimentally detected before, but so far as I know, actual photons have not. One theory of why accelerated charges (for example an electron) radiate is simply that the particle is surrounded by a cloud of virtual photons, and when accelerating leaves the some of the virtual photons behind which become observable because dEdT becomes larger than h/2.

Interesting, it's really more like a smear then ?
kochevnik
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 19, 2011
So things that don't exist, come into, and go back out of, existence.
I suspect it's more that self-organizing systems like planets and life transmute nuclei and rotate the hyperdimensional tetrahedral nucleic geometry to yield matter from space. Space projects a purely imaginary component because it is at the periphery of the infinitely nested fractal vortex matter stream we call the universe.

Matter is simply standing scalar waves.
Cynical1
1.8 / 5 (5) Nov 19, 2011
Kochevnik - Space projects a purely imaginary component because it is at the periphery of the infinitely nested fractal vortex matter stream we call the universe.

Matter is simply standing scalar waves.

Wow, Koch, I actually agree with that - been my view for 30 years...
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2011
Matter is merely word wooze with no actual existence in fractal quantums from the zero point energy for Tesla was killed by the Elders of the Illuminati because free energy is to Liberty and Freedom for the Skull and Bones with amplification by stimulated matrices of transmutation via broadcast inert Canadian adamantium enhanced mutants from the black sun beyond Neptune that the Zionist Liberation of White Sands on the way to Area 51 via the Zyzzyx off ramp where a secret base holding up the sky to retain the aliens presence at low level for the forseen events coming in 2012 as can be found in Revelations and the Mayan Calendar with major input from Theodonts and the Precision Briefcase Marching Morons from Plan 9 and the Hollywood connection formed a vortex of waves of imaginary foundations in first principles of Biblical Prophecy that formed the entire Universe last Tuesday out the tetrahedron on the Giza Plateau thus this conclusively proves that someone is making shit up.

Ethelred
Trigger-Happy Jax
1 / 5 (2) Nov 20, 2011
Relatively little energy is therefore required in order to excite them out of their virtual state. In principle, one could also create other particles from vacuum, such as electrons or protons, but that would require a lot more energy.

If other virtual particles can theoretically be created in this fashion, could it be possible that virtual neutrinos could also be "created"?

And if so, could the conditions that the recent faster than light experiments are run under possibly be influenced by such virtual particles not being 'virtual' at some point during those experiments?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 20, 2011
Matter is merely word wooze with no actual existence in fractal quantums from the zero point energy for Tesla was killed by the Elders of the Illuminati because free energy is to Liberty and Freedom for the Skull and Bones with amplification by stimulated matrices of transmutation via broadcast inert Canadian adamantium enhanced mutants from the black sun beyond Neptune that the Zionist Liberation of White Sands on the way to Area 51 via the Zyzzyx off ramp where a secret base holding up the sky to retain the aliens presence at low level for the events coming in 2012 as can be found in Revelations and the Mayan Calendar with major input from Theodonts and the Precision Briefcase Marching Morons from Plan 9 and the Hollywood connection formed a vortex of waves of imaginary foundations in first principles of Biblical Prophecy that formed the entire Universe last Tuesday out the tetrahedron on the Giza Plateau thus this conclusively proves that someone is making shit up.
Not true!
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
"have the photons previously been observed in vacuum?" - NerdGuy

The photons are virtual. Thus by definition they are not observed.

What can be observed is their effects. Vandervan der Waals forces are thought to be an example of the exclusion of some virtual photons from the void, causing a net inward force between two atoms or objects on the atomic scale.

In addition there have been various tests performed that show within the limits of experimental error that forces between conducting plates, or a ball and plate are manifestations of the exclusion of virtual photons from the gap between plate and plate/ball.

The unfortunate thing about virtual EM particles is that the energy of photon pairs sums to zero. Meaning that one has negative energy.

Consider the following.

A neutral atom is moving from right to left and somewhere left of the atom a photon/photon virtual particle pair is created. Presume that one is moving left and the other right.

cont.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
The photons are virtual. Thus by definition they are not observed
Photons are real particles and they're commonly detected. The EM force is sometimes interpreted as an exchange of virtual photons, which is the probable source of your confusion. But you're right in the point, the photons have no definite life time.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
After a time t, the virtual photons will be separated by a distance of 2ct. Now have the atom absorb the right most photon, making the left most photon real.

That photon will become real at a distance of 2ct from the point at which it's anti-twin was absorbed.

Since t can be set to any time we please, and since the photon at 2ct can actually pair with other virtual photons in the vacuum, the distance between the absorption of the virtual photon and the realization of the real photon on the left can be any distance from the atom with the most probable value being at 2ct.

Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
The virtual photons are of very short life-time. If photons would be virtual particles, they couldn't mediate the infinite scope interaction and they would get nonzero rest mass. Therefore your interpretation violates the mainstream physics.
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
Show me on thing wrong with that post, Otto.

Every single word is a real word. Not one was made up. The grammar, within my personal limits, is correct. The logic is unassailable and the conclusion follows from the premises despite my not being sure exactly where those premises were.

I defy you to show an error in the non-controversial conclusion that someone was making shit up.

And you deleted "forseen" from my magnificent prose. That is taking things out context to change the meaning. Vile miscreant.

Ethelred
Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
"Photons are real particles." - Callippo

What is real or not real depends upon your frame of reference.

When an excited atom loses energy via a photon, that photon falls into and mixes with a sea of virtual photons that fill the void. When a photon of similar energy, polarization, momentum etc. is observed, is it the photon that fell in? Or is it another? Has the photon been disassembled and recomposed, or did it ever exist in the first place?
Vendicar_Decarian
1.8 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
"If other virtual particles can theoretically be created in this fashion, could it be possible that virtual neutrinos could also be "created"?" - Trigger

Not necessarily through the exact mechanism utilized here, but in principle any particle pair can be realized.

The term "create" is inappropriate because nothing is being created. The particle/antiparticle pairs are always there although they form more of a web of interactions rather than simple pairs.

It is important to note how short a time these virtual pairs "exist". On average they hardly exist long enough to call them particles. They are more like momentary variances in the charge/energy density of the vacuum.

It isn't as if they live long enough to separate a distance equal to their own wavelength. But with an accelerating conductive plate you can take some of the charge displacement that is attracted to the plate and by moving the plate, pull the charge farther from it's anti-twin, thus separating them enough 2 be real
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
"recent faster than light experiments are run under possibly be influenced by such virtual particles" - Trigger

Any individual measurement can be influenced yes. However on average you will get as much positive as you would negative so it will average to zero.

You might consider what happens to a virtual particle pair that are sitting less than their wavelength away from the event horizon of a black hole.

What happens to the component that appears inside the event horizon, and what can happen to the component that appears outside?

Callippo
1.5 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2011
When a photon of similar energy, polarization, momentum etc. is observed, is it the photon that fell in? Or is it another? Has the photon been disassembled and recomposed, or did it ever exist in the first place?
I've no problem with it, I'm just saying, the virtual photon concept violates the relativity. So you should present it as a your private theory here for not to confuse other posters. (Actually, whole the photon concept violates the relativity, but it's another story.)
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
When a photon of similar energy, polarization, momentum etc. is observed, is it the photon that fell in?
The current record in absence of decoherence is 17 km or so. So we can be sure, at the distance of 17 km the photon can remain unchanged.

link
Nerdyguy
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
"have the photons previously been observed in vacuum?" - NerdGuy

The photons are virtual. Thus by definition they are not observed.


FROM THE ARTICLE: "Chalmers scientist, Christopher Wilson and his co-workers have succeeded in getting photons to leave their virtual state and become real photons, i.e. measurable light. "

Hmmm...not sure you are on the same page Vendicar. The whole point is Chalmers is able to make these things observable. That's not in dispute. My only question is, outside of Chalmer's ability to make this happen at-will, have we previously recorded any observations. Looks like the answer is no.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
, outside of Chalmer's ability to make this happen at-will, have we previously recorded any observations. Looks like the answer is no
The CMBR photons are tangible evidence of TEMPORAL formation of photons just from vacuum. The were observed in 1964 already and everyone can detect them with his analog TV set. The vibrating mirror just shifts the equilibrium of the consecutive photon formation and annihilation (it makes it more local) - but this process occurs all the time with microwave photons spontaneously. We aren't required to build expensive devices for its detection.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (19) Nov 20, 2011
Show me on thing wrong with that post, Otto.

Every single word is a real word. Not one was made up. The grammar, within my personal limits, is correct. The logic is unassailable and the conclusion follows from the premises despite my not being sure exactly where those premises were.

I defy you to show an error in the non-controversial conclusion that someone was making shit up.

And you deleted "forseen" from my magnificent prose. That is taking things out context to change the meaning. Vile miscreant.

Ethelred
I just think you have it backwards, is all.

Here.
'foreseen'
-There's your word back. I fixed it for you.
Cynical1
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
Sheesh, Red - if I didn't know better, I'd think you were doing a doob and watching the show "Fringe"...:-)
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
This article and all the comments appear to me in English. This begs the question - Does it appear to each of the rest of you in whatever your native language is? If so, Physorg has a GREAT universal translator...
Vendicar_Decarian
1.5 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
"I've no problem with it, I'm just saying, the virtual photon concept violates the relativity." - Callippo

It does only if you work on the assumption that two particles with the same quantum numbers (excluding position) are the same particle.

In QM the speed of light is infinite, but measures as finite as a result of the interaction of photons with the vacuum sea.
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
"The CMBR photons are tangible evidence of TEMPORAL formation of photons just from vacuum." - Callippo

Or something else.

The expectation is as you state. The evidence for it is slim.

Vendicar_Decarian
1.6 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
"Hmmm...not sure you are on the same page Vendicar. The whole point is Chalmers is able to make these things observable." - NerdGuy

No. He claims to have made them real. If your question is "has anyone ever made virtual photons real", the answer is yes. Through a wide variety of means including chemistry since the binding energy of two atoms is greater than the computed binding energy based on charge alone. The extra energy liberated is hence a conversion of vacuum energy into "real" energy.

These vacuum fluctuations comprise the bulk of QM. Without them nothing would work. Even something like a proton obtains the vast majority of it's mass from field fluctuations inside the proton.

It is these fluctuations that also make the neutron and other radioactive particles unstable.

They underlay virtually everything in QM.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
"And you want me to believe it came from the vacuum?" - Poopie

Ya, that is the problem with the experiment from a lay person's point of view.

Is the energy spectra the same as you would expect from an oscillating field of the type generated?

No.

Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
Otto:
I just think you have it backwards, is all.
So then, you think shit is making people up?

Speak for yourself.

Cynical1:
I'd think you were doing a doob and watching the show "Fringe"...:-)
I don't do shit. I copied words from the word wooze posts and chose some extras that are popular in many other Crank posts.

Darn I left out Aether and Neutron Replusive.

The evidence supporting those are here:
http://www.handwave.com/

Somewhere. It sends you to amazon for some reason. They don't even own the domain. I checked.

NewsCloud Consulting LLC does.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Nov 20, 2011
"The CMBR photons are tangible evidence of TEMPORAL formation of photons just from vacuum." Or something else. ..The evidence for it is slim.
It just follows from dense aether model. The Brownian noise at the water surface arises in the same way and the water surface analogy explains/predicts many other things as well. The approach of mainstream science by now is strictly deterministic, it doesn't handle well the subtle, but widespread indicia. The ten of 10% evidences is still zero net evidence for people like you with schematic black & white vision of reality. Such people don't accept the cold fusion, aether theory or whatever else paradigm, until they find the 100% evidence for it. But after then such evidence becomes a subject of convinced religion and they cannot accept anything else.
Whereas for me the reality appears much more fuzzy. I'm willing to consider much weaker evidences both for, both against established theories, because it fits well with my emergent philosophy.
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
I left out Aether and Neutron Repulsive.
Believe it or not, the existence of virtual particles doesn't follow from (postulates of) any mainstream theory. Neither quantum theory, neither relativity theory requires nor expects such things. For me the existence of virtual particles serves as an apparent evidence of particle model of vacuum - simply because no other model can predict, neither explain such thing.

Or is it easier for you to believe, the virtual particles are here because of God's will or something similar? Probably not.
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
Believe it or not, the existence of virtual particles doesn't follow from (postulates of) any mainstream the
No I don't believe it. It follows from the Uncertainty Principle.

Neither quantum theory, neither relativity theory requires nor expects such things
QM is what predicts them. Via the Uncertainty Principle you can't have certainty that the energy is zero.

simply because no other model can predict, neither explain such thing.
Get a clue.

http://en.wikiped...particle

http://aeroja.blo...ple.html

http://math.ucr.e...les.html

Your claims of there being no theory behind virtual particles are the usual handwaving and not reality.

Or is it easier for you to believe, the virtual particles are here because of God's will or something similar?
They are mathematically valid. No god needed.

Ethelred
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Nov 20, 2011
No I don't believe it. It follows from the Uncertainty Principle.
How? Show us the derivation. And from what the Uncertainty Principle does follow?
Callippo
1 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2011
Most people don't realize, that the quantum uncertainty is a product of particle nature of vacuum as well. We are observing tiny objects in vacuum in similar fuzzy way, like we would observe the tiny objects at the water surface with its surface ripples. The Brownian noise would make all observations of tiny objects fuzzy.
Cynical1
3.5 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
The Brownian noise would make all observations of tiny objects fuzzy. - Calippo

Anyone else notice how the commentary/discourse in these threads seems to follow a "Brownian motion"-ish pattern?
Ethelred
3 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2011
How? Show us the derivation
I did show how. The links covered it extremely well.

If you have a problem with the Uncertainty Principle which fits the evidence quite well then take it up with the Universe or give some evidence to support your claim. Not handwaving, actual evidence.

Cynical1:
Zephyr has a problem with science. So he brings in BUZZ words and I think Brownian Motion, which is the result of random movement of atoms in liquids and gasses, is another buzz word for him. After all the atoms are buzzing around.

Ethelred
rawa1
1 / 5 (8) Nov 21, 2011
I did show how. The links covered it extremely well
These links explicitly say, the uncertainty principle allows the existence of virtual particles - but it doesn't predict them. Try it again.
Zephyr has a problem with science
I've no problem with science, just with religious trolls, which are surprisingly frequent between sympathisers of contemporary science. The quantum motion of helium atoms prohibits the freezing of helium at room pressure and it's direct analogy of Brownian motion of pollen grains at the water surface.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Nov 21, 2011
I showed how it is derived. There is no such thing as a perfect vacuum due to the Uncertainty Principle.

As for religion I don't have that particular problem. Perhaps you do. I am Agnostic. Calling a disagreement with your handwaving religious is just nonsense. Typical of you.

Ethelred
mayan
1 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2011
I know one Mirror called Magic mirror in which one enters(king in war) his mirror king comes out

Some mirror technologies are there in recently discovered by Chinese archeologists in ladhak, manuscripts to construct Flying Saucer, and its mirror technologies.

Also mirrors which show bones and no reflection after some time. A huge subject in Atharvana veda.

These are taken to Germany,
antialias_physorg
1 / 5 (1) Nov 21, 2011
W. T. F. ?
Ethelred
2 / 5 (4) Nov 21, 2011
Notice the name, mayan. Maybe he did a bit too much magic ... mushrooms.

Ethelred

Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 21, 2011
Yooze just no understood.

Take magic mirror and have unworking UFO go in and out comes working UFO is opposite.

All techmologolgy done this way on planet MetaLuna, home of Zorg not Zorg sent to Germany.

Understandish now?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (18) Nov 21, 2011
who this guy?
http://www.youtub...NIWPkNzA

-Hes right about destruction you know but he is obviously a bad guy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (20) Nov 21, 2011
Darn I left out Aether and Neutron Replusive.
You also didnot mention EMPIRE by which I take it you have finally accepted the existence of EMPIRE?

There is a Proper Time for everything under heaven, which includes believing in the People who indeed made that particular shit up. For the Greater Good. Hail.
Cynical1
2 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
who this guy?
http://www.youtub...NIWPkNzA

-Hes right about destruction you know but he is obviously a bad guy.

One of my Fave movies. But what was REALLY good was an associated video of "LeeLoo" at "Burning Man"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (17) Nov 22, 2011
One of my Fave movies. But what was REALLY good was an associated video of "LeeLoo" at "Burning Man"
Yeah would've been enriching to see her in person. This year should be especially good. But why do they need to hold it in the stinking desert in august?

@ET
""Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye." acts7:51
Cynical1
2.4 / 5 (5) Nov 22, 2011
But why do they need to hold it in the stinking desert in august?

That's easy - so girls have no prob dressing in as little as possible.
Vendicar_Decarian
2 / 5 (4) Nov 22, 2011
The desert is a large, isolated space that isn't going to go up in flames as the man burns.

srikkanth_kn
1 / 5 (1) Nov 26, 2011
For creation of electrons much more energy is required but can it be done with this same kind of SQUID 'mirror' ?