Skinner!

Chalmers scientists create light from vacuum

“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 “mirror” transfers some of its kinetic energy to virtual photons, which helps them to materialise.

I would like to take this opportunity to caution anyone against taking this result and recasting it as some hocus-pocus, or a magical way to tap the vacuum as an energy source, but it’s already happened. An article in Forbes is the kind of thing that opens up that door.

After rotating the SQUID at those high speeds, the team were able to detect several real photons that were essentially created from nothing.

No, not essentially. The interesting detail here from QM (and specifically quantum electrodynamics) is that the vacuum isn’t “nothing” and Forbes just completely ignores that to create an abracadabra moment.

Method Acting

What eight years of writing the Bad Science column have taught me

Science isn’t about authority, or white coats, it’s about following a method. That method is built on core principles: precision and transparency; being clear about your methods; being honest about your results; and drawing a clear line between the results, on the one hand, and your judgment calls about how those results support a hypothesis. Anyone blurring these lines is iffy.

Conflict of interest stories – where someone has a vested interest in the results of their study – are important, because they tell you when there’s a risk that something’s wrong in a piece of science. But this is only motive: the gruesome, fascinating mechanism of a crime against science – the methodological flaws – that’s where the action is. People who don’t really understand science can only critique it in terms of motive. Let them have that; we’ll do the details.

Be a Journalist, not a Refereee

Fighting the “he said, she said” cowardice

The issue of hiding behind the skirts of “getting involved” is something I’ve mentioned before. Letting people spout off (and apply spin) without calling them on their claims shouldn’t count as journalism.

The included link, If “he said, she said” journalism is irretrievably lame, what’s better? is well-worth a read, too, so I’m linking it separately. Good list of reporter guidelines, including some that especially apply to science stories, such as

* There is no such thing as 50/50 balance. There is a truth and we work our damndest to get there.
* Sometimes two viewpoints don’t deserve 50/50 treatment.

And the Check's in the Mail

Trust me, I’m a scientist.

Merton’s description of this community value is a bit more subtle. He notes that disinterestedness is different from altruism, and that scientists needn’t be saints.

The best way to understand disinterestedness might be to think of how a scientist working within her tribe is different from an expert out in the world dealing with laypeople. The expert, knowing more than the layperson, could exploit the layperson’s ignorance or his tendency to trust the judgment of the expert. The expert, in other words, could put one over on the layperson for her own benefit. This is how snake oil gets sold.

The scientist working within the tribe of science can expect no such advantage. Thus, trying to put one over on other scientists is a strategy that shouldn’t get you far.

There’s a bit on hucksterism, and there’s actually a double-whammy here. Not only do you have people willing to misrepresent the science to prey on people unable to distinguish the quantum snake oil from shinola, but in the advertising game Janet mentions they will use anecdotal evidence — they won’t say the gizmo cures your ailment, they will have someone tell you how they used the gizmo and their ailment cleared up. They invite you to draw a conclusion that they won’t state, knowing that most people aren’t scientifically literate to know that it’s intellectual entrapment (inviting a correlation/causation and/or post hoc ergo propter hoc error).

Journalists and politicians are complicit in this game as well, in different ways. When journalists, in their quest for balance, interview scientists on the opposite side of a claim, they give the appearance of a divide that often isn’t there. And there always seems to be some person with credentials — an expert — who will take a contrary position. This leaves us open to people using science in reverse: using ideology to decide what the right answer is for their story or for government policy, and the going out and finding an expert who will support that position.

Fool Me Once …

Neutrinos Travel Faster Than Light, According to One Experiment

I chose this particular link because of the headline, specifically the addendum According to One Experiment. If it’s not reproducible, then it will go down in the annals of science as a fluke measurement.

[T]he result would be so revolutionary that it’s sure to be met with skepticism all over the world. “I suspect that the bulk of the scientific community will not take this as a definitive result unless it can be reproduced by at least one and preferably several experiments,” says V. Alan Kostelecky, a theorist at Indiana University, Bloomington. He adds, however, “I’d be delighted if it were true.”

It’s important to note that the experimenters are not claiming to have overturned relativity and are calling for independent confirmation. If you read otherwise, that’s the journalists or editors trying to show some scientific cleavage.

Another reason I chose this article was that they mentioned how the timing was done, because that’s a likely candidate for introducing error.

Jung, who is spokesperson for a similar experiment in Japan called T2K, says the tricky part is accurately measuring the time between when the neutrinos are born by slamming a burst of protons into a solid target and when they actually reach the detector. That timing relies on the global positioning system, and the GPS measurements can have uncertainties of tens of nanoseconds. “I would be very interested in how they got a 10-nanosecond uncertainty, because from the systematics of GPS and the electronics, I think that’s a very hard number to get.”

Some other commentary: This Extraordinary Claim Requires Extraordinary Evidence!

Update: Here is the CERN press release

Given the potential far-reaching consequences of such a result, independent measurements are needed before the effect can either be refuted or firmly established. This is why the OPERA collaboration has decided to open the result to broader scrutiny. The collaboration’s result is available on the preprint server arxiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897

Unbalanced is Unfair

‘Shape of the Earth – Both Sides Have a Point’

The argument is that the mainstream news media attempts at all costs to appear “balanced”, by giving both sides of any dispute equal footing — as opposed to simply trying to report what is actually accurate. Thus, in the debate over climate change, they give undue emphasis to arguments claiming that climate change lacks scientific consensus, when in fact the opposite is true.

Throw Me a Frikkin' Bone Here, People

BMW tests ‘1,000 times brighter’ laser headlights

The intensity of laser light poses no possible risks to humans, animals or wildlife when used in car lighting, BMW says reassuringly. The automaker says that’s because the laser light is first converted for use in road traffic, a bright, white that “is very pleasant to the eye.”

Maybe your eyes, but we’re not sure about everyone else’s. Did we mention laser headlights are 1,000 brighter than LEDs. Oh yeah. We did.

Yes, you did. Only that’s not what the BMW press release said. What they do say is

[L]aser lighting can produce a near-parallel beam with an intensity a thousand times greater than that of conventional LEDs. In vehicle headlights, these characteristics can be used to implement entirely new functions. Also, the high inherent efficiency of laser lighting means that laser headlights have less than half the energy consumption of LED headlights. Simply put, laser headlights save fuel.

So the observation is that lasers are 1000 times brighter than LEDs, which gets contorted into the claim that the headlights are 1000 times brighter. But they won’t be using as many lasers as LEDs — the goal is to save on energy use. The bottom line here is that laser diodes are more efficient at generating light than LEDs. You would lose that energy savings if for some reason you simply turn the brightness up to eleven.

A single statistic will make this clear: whereas LED lighting generates only around 100 lumens (a photometric unit of light output) per watt, laser lighting generates approximately 170 lumens.

For comparison, in generating white light the best you can do is about 250 lm/W. Presumably you would be using the same technology (phosphor or something else) to generate the white light, so you have to be more efficient at generating the photons.

The way you do this is by making more efficient use of the light. Laser diodes are LEDs with mirrors at both ends of the material, fashioned from cleaving the material — you get reflections whenever you pass from one medium to another with a different index of refraction. You can enhance or suppress this with the appropriate coating; high-power lasers will have a good reflector on one end of the lasing cavity and an anti-reflection coating on the other. Without the mirrors the light from the electrons spontaneously dropping down from one energy band to another can go in all directions. The mirrors allow for stimulated emission, and that will give you gain for photons that can reflect off the mirror and make another pass (or more) through the material. This means you are wasting a much smaller fraction of the photons to spontaneous emission. If you do something to the facets and interrupt the ability to lase (and I’ve seen this), the device reverts to just being an LED. One shortcoming is that laser diodes generally have a shorter lifetime than LEDs — they are static-sensitive and the coatings age — so for this to be viable there has to be the expectation that the lasers will last for several years.

You Break it, You Bought it

Violating relativity by breaking equivalence

It’s fairly well-known that general relativity and quantum mechanics don’t get along, so the mock surprise that this happens is a little tedious, but that’s the state of (science) journalism. Once you get beyond that, it’s pretty neat.

Numerous experiments, measuring all types of phenomena, have proven that the equivalence principle holds. However, a new thought experiment published in a recent version of Physical Review Letters demonstrates that, depending on how you measure temperature, a scientist in the sealed laboratory could tell where she is. On the surface, this result would seem to suggest that the equivalence principle it not valid under all conditions, but there is a wrinkle—the researchers here suggest making a local quantum mechanical measurement. The fact that quantum mechanics is an inherently non-local phenomenon may provide a way of cheating the prerequisites that Einstein put on his equivalence principle.

One caveat here is that this is still a thought experiment, and it’s still possible that someone else will come along and show that it’s not a problem. One needs to recognize that papers are a way that scientists “think out loud” and get feedback. No doubt that this idea went through discussions and then peer-review, which are steps that should weed out obvious loopholes and problems, but when you’re at the edge of GR and QM there might be more subtle concepts lurking.

One thing to note in the article is the ambiguity/error they have presented in explaining GR

Einstein proposed the equivalence principle in 1907, a full nine years before his publication of general relativity. The idea, however, guided the development of general relativity. When combined with Einstein’s theory of special relativity, it gave rise to the prediction that clocks will run at different speeds in gravitational fields with differing strengths, and that light would be bent by gravitational fields.

If strength means the acceleration (or force), and that’s usually what is meant, then this is wrong. Time dilation depends on the gravitational potential, which is the depth of the potential well. The acceleration is the slope of the side of the well. It’s possible to be very deep in a well and have a large amount of time dilation while having a local value for g that is small.

Using Tiny Nets

How do you catch atoms? In very tiny traps

Trapping atoms is near and dear to my heart, regardless of whether you do it for sport or food or to knit the tiny pelts into a shawl. So it’s disappointing to find conceptual holes in an article on the subject.

Traps for neutral atoms come in three different flavors. One is called an optical molasses trap, where the Doppler shift is used to turn the atom’s translational motion into light, which prevents atoms from flying away from the trap.

In short, no. Optical molasses uses radiation pressure to slow atoms down — atoms scatter photons and slow down, much like throwing pong-pong balls at a a bowling ball will slow it down. “turn the atom’s translational motion into light” is somewhere between awkward wording and flat-out wrong. The rest is OK up until this part

If I use three pairs of laser beams all facing a cloud of atoms, then no matter what direction the atoms are moving, they always get driven back to the place where the laser beams meet.

For optical molasses, this isn’t true — it’s a dissipative or damping force, which is very strong (hence the use of molasses — near resonance the accelerations can be hundreds of g’s), but there is nothing that pushes the atoms to a particular place. Atoms will random walk— very slowly — until they leak out, like a drunken frat boy in a field, wearing heavy boots. Now, you can get the atoms to tend to collect at a point with the addition of a quadrupole magnetic field and the appropriate polarization of your light, because there is a restoring force that depends on the field strength. This is now a drunken frat boy with heavy boots and the center of the field is a low spot. That’s called a Magneto-Optic Trap, or MOT. (Which, of course is “TOM” backwards, so it’s ridiculously easy to remember). In very rough numbers, a MOT will confine an order of magnitude or so more atoms than a molasses, at least in my experience with a few species of alkali atoms. The atoms in a MOT want to be both slow and at the zero point of the field, whereas in a molasses they just want to be slow. But there’s a cost — the atoms in a MOT tend to be hotter, so if you are going for cold atoms what you can do is trap your atoms in a MOT and the turn the magnetic field off. The cloud expands since there’s no longer a restoring force but it does so slowly because you still have a molasses. I did a video of this a few summers back, though the system is not optimized to give the nice expansion into molasses (the price of getting to play with it)

The big drawback of this trap is that it puts atoms into an excited state. From there they have many options, only one of which involves emitting the absorbed photon—atoms that don’t choose this path escape the trap. Furthermore, the excited state destroys a BEC (remember, all the atoms need to be in the same state to form a BEC), so the trap must be switched off at some point in the preparation process and cannot be used to manipulate the BEC.

Atoms in a molasses are neither dense nor cool enough to form a BEC, so this is a bit of a non-sequitur. There’s no BEC to manipulate. Typically the next step is to load the atoms into a magnetic trap, which the article explains next, and do evaporative cooling — you change the shape of the trap to let the most energetic ones out, which lowers the temperature, similar to evaporation.

Next up is the dipole force trap.

Take an atom sitting just to the right of the center of the laser beam. As photons pass through the electron cloud of this atom they are deflected—those on the left-hand side are deflected to the right, while those on the right are deflected to the left.

Another instance of ummmm, no. The author is likely confusing the explanation of forces on macroscopic spheres (as in optical tweezers) for the atomic response. This indeed explains what happens to a polystyrene sphere, but an atom? The light used is of order a micron in wavelength, which is orders of magnitude larger than the atom itself. So there is no way for a photon to go through one side or the other. What’s going on here is that the intense light has an electric field, and because the light has an intensity gradient, there is a gradient of the electric field. This induces an electric dipole in the atom, which gives rise to a force in the direction of the gradient — the atom is pushed toward the region of highest intensity. There’s no dissipation here, though, so no cooling is going on. Once again, you typically cool the atoms first and then load them into the trap.

Plasmonics, the last section, is not something I’m “up” on, so I can’t really critique anything, but given the rest of the article, there’s a decent chance of a large conceptual gaffe in it.

FFS is Probably not "Fox Fails Science"

FFS: Fox Fails Physics

In short — and we’ll describe it in more detail below — their “expert” argues that the 1st law of thermodynamics and Le Chatelier’s Principle explain why carbon dioxide can’t cause global warming. This is not only wrong, this is high school physics-level wrong. Either the FOX folks are incredibly stupid, or stunningly sociopathic. I’m guessing both.

Short version of this (and many other anti-AGW arguments) is that if they are right, then insulation of any type can’t possibly work. Congratulations, you’ve just proved that wearing a coat in winter is pointless. Surrender your coat.