Crater Lake

Ran across this awesome time-lapse taken at Crater Lake, OR. During my time in grad school I only went there once, as it was a five-hour trek from Corvallis. The camping trips we took were generally closer to town.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

If Romeo Were a Physics Student

How does the light through yonder window break? Seriously, Juliet, tell me. I have a test tomorrow!

Uncertain Principles: How Does Light Travel Through Glass?

It’s important to note that when [the quantum] picture is valid the probability of being absorbed then re-emitted by any individual atom is pretty tiny– when the light frequency is close to a resonance in the material, you would need to do something very different. (But then, if the light was close to a resonant frequency of the material, it wouldn’t be a transparent material…) while the probability of absorption and re-emission is tiny for any individual atom, though, there are vast numbers of atoms in a typical solid, so the odds are that the photon will be absorbed and re-emitted at some point during the passage through the glass are very good. Thus, on average, the photon will be delayed relative to one that passes through an equal length of vacuum, and that gives us the slowing effect that we see for light moving through glass.

You'll Put Your Eye Out, Kid!

BA review: The Spyder III Arctic Blue laser from Wicked Lasers

But the blue lasers… I’ve heard about them. The brightness of a laser depends mostly on the power used*. A typical red laser might have a power of about 5 milliWatts (5 mW). My green one has a power of roughly 160 mW, which is a lot more than the red one. The blue one, though, has a power of 1250 milliWatts, nearly 8 times that of the green one!
So yeah, I wanted to try one out.

* Color is the next biggest factor, since our eyes are much more sensitive to green light than blue, or even red. Beam focus is another factor, and so on.

(edit: post seems to have disappeared. Erased from existence, using far less than 1.21 GW. Here is a copy of it from an aggregator site)

Thoughts:

More than a Watt of laser power in a handheld device? Damn dangerous. I agree, this is almost like having a gun in terms of safety & handling issues. The potential damage that could occur through stupidity and carelessness is significant. It comes with safety goggles, which not everyone will use, and even if Luke is wearing his blast shield while he waves his light-saber around, what about everyone else? I see trouble a’brewing.

 

 

The BA (sort of) underplays the significance of color. Color, or more specifically, wavelength, is in fact a huge factor in how bright a laser appears. In the early days of green lasers being available, they used some shady advertising tricks to exploit this by telling you the green laser was as bright as a red laser of a certain power, typically 5 mW.  But in the fine print you found that the green laser had less than a milliWatt of actual output they were leveraging the fact that the sensitivity near 550 nm is more than five times the sensitivity out past 650 nm. So the BA has rigged the answer a little by using large difference in power. A green laser is going to look brighter than a red laser that has twice the power.

I suspect that one of the issues here is that the eye’s sensitivity is usually portrayed on a linear scale, like here (fig 154), which shows the photopic (light-adjusted) sensitivity ranging from 400 nm out to 700 nm, which is the usually-cited range. Notice that scotopic, or dark-adjusted vision really kills the sensitivity to the red, which is a killer in an optics lab using red lasers. Turning off the lights has a smaller effect in one’s ability to detect a spot because of the loss in sensitivity fighting the reduction in background.

But the effect isn’t best portrayed on a linear scale, because you can still detect photons beyond those boundaries, and the linear scale doesn’t give this impression. If you look at it on a log scale, you see that while the photopic vision has a shoulder near 700 nm, it doesn’t stay flat. You can see light out near 800 nm (we use a lot of 780 nm in the lab, for Rubidium, and you can see diffuse reflections from a few-mW source), but your eye is a million times less sensitive to it than to green light. Put another way, if you see even dim light in the near-infrared (NIR), it’s fairly powerful. I once saw a spot from a misaligned 852 nm laser (used for trapping Cesium), which was disconcerting, because it must have been really, really fracking powerful.

One might cut the BA some slack, because my examples aren’t laser pointers, and while he said lasers, he probably meant laser pointer and was thinking of only those wavelengths — color kind of restricting one to the 400nm-700 nm range — rather than what one might find in a lab. And they don’t make laser pointers in the IR, because what would be the point? Right? Well, not so fast. Green laser pointers are commonly made from pumped, frequency-doubled IR light, and this arrangement can let a lot of the IR through if there is no filter, and there may not be one. So you can get a blast of 808 nm light from the pump, and 1064 nm from the beam that doesn’t get doubled to 532 nm. While often the bright green light would trigger a blink to help save your eyes, it’s possible that it won’t, because light that has refracted or diffracted (phenomena which depend on wavelength) won’t line up anymore. You could potentially get an eyeful of IR, while the green spot doesn’t hit your eye. By the time you notice a problem, it will likely be because retinal damage has already been done.

So color is a big deal in how bright something appears. Let’s be careful out there.

Let Them Taste the Triple Gun

Navy test fires electromagnetic cannon

The story tells you it was a 33 MegaJoule shot, and it traveled (or would travel) 200 km. What it doesn’t say is how big the projectile is. The maximum range for a projectile is going to be v^2/g, in the limit of no air resistance (and also assuming a flat surface, but we’ll ignore that because that’s probably a small effect here). If we pop in the equation for kinetic energy and solve for the mass of the particle, we get m = 2E/dg. The amount of recoil energy given to the ship will be negligible; momentum is conserved and KE = p^2/2m, so the amount of energy scales with the mass ratio, which will be some number measured in kg compared to a kilo-metric-ton or so, which gives us a part in a million. So yeah, we can ignore that.

So 33 MJ gives us a mass of about 33 kg. But that’s assuming the energy of the pulse is the same as the energy of the projectile, i.e. the system is 100% efficient, and still ignores the pesky air resistance. This article mentions an earlier test, and puts the weight of the projectile at 7 pounds, or about 3.3 kg, meaning the system is at least 10% efficient.

The article also mentions the launch happening at five times the speed of sound, which is about 5*340 = 1700 m/s, which for a 3.3 kg projectile, is just under 5 MJ. All of those estimations seem to agree reasonably well. It also predicts the ideal maximum range of about 290 km, so we see just how much loss we have due to the air. Engadget says Mach 7, which is 10 MJ. Still ballpark; I wonder if one is launch speed and the other is impact speed, since the maximum range formula assumes a 45º launch, and in reality this isn’t the case.

The time it takes the shell to travel this path is at least four minutes. I’m guessing that the final version would not be “dumb;” you would attach a gps guidance system to it and have some better control of where it would land.

A Matter of Perspective

The Virtuosi: The Law and Large Numbers

The US budget, deficit and the ludicrous “Youcut” program (which has been rightly lambasted almost everywhere in the science blogohedron)

I just want to point out again, claiming that cutting NPR funding makes a dent in the US budget is similar to claiming you’ve moved closer to Orlando (while in LA) by crossing the room

In my undergraduate physics lab, the instructor had a mantra: “A number without context is meaningless”. Now, he originally meant the statement to be a lesson on how important it is to quote errors on your measurements, but I think I can adapt it to apply to giving out numbers like 7 billion without a sense of scale.

(I think the motivation for “cutting NPR” has less to do with budget than ideology, and NPR doesn’t actually get any direct appropriations from the government, but it’s still a nice example of scale)

X Doesn't Mark the Spot

io9: Poisson’s Spot: The Greatest Burn in Physics

There was nothing left to do but award the prize to Fresnel. Poisson had put forward a consequence of light as a wave that was so ridiculous, so unlikely, that it couldn’t be explained by anything else. Fresnel was smart enough to come up with the theory. Poisson was smart enough to have proved Fresnel right, and proved himself wrong. Even though Dominique Arago had actually done the test, the tiny dot of light at the center of the shadow of a spherical object has ever after been called Poisson’s Spot. There is no perpetual motion in physics, but there is perpetual taunting.

If you want a short story about the essence of science, here it is. You have a model, it makes a testable prediction which will either confirm or falsify it. You do the experiment, find out that the model was right, and then tweak a detractor’s nose in perpetuity.

Attack of the Math Monster

Uncertain Principles: Two Cultures Within Science

[No equations in a paper] is almost completely inconceivable to me (at the risk of leaving myself open to the Vizzini joke). In my part of science, a paper without an equation is suspect, and I’m not exactly the world’s most mathematically inclined physicist. Physics is so intimately connected to math, and the business of doing physics is so inherently mathematical that its difficult to imagine a scientific paper about physics that doesn’t contain at least one equation. A press release or popular article, sure, but to a physicist, the equations aren’t some offal to be avoided en route to the science. The equations are the science. Objecting to the presence of an equation in a scientific paper is like objecting to the presence of meat in a steak sandwich.

I had the serendipity of reading another post just before reading Chad’s, related to the closing remarks concerning physicists sometime needing to learn some less “standard” math to do the physics they are interested in pursuing:

Medical researcher discovers integration, gets 75 citations

My more reasonable friends claim that this abstract isn’t really as amusing as I make it out to be. And to be sure, they’re right.

Murray Gell-Mann developed the “eight-fold way” to explain the spectrum of hadrons in the 1960s. It wasn’t until after he’d developed this formalism that he discussed his model with mathematicians, who then told him that he’d rediscovered group (representation) theory. This ushered ina new era in the history of particle physics where symmetry became our guiding light and group theory became a necessary tool for any particle theorist. Though, to be fair, in the 1960s group theory—unlike calculus—wasn’t something that physicists were expected to take during high school.

I’m also aware of a few instances of some of my colleagues struggling through some new way of analyzing clock performance, only to find out that the math is standard analysis of some other sort of problem. As they say, math is the language of physics.