A Great Un-Idea

Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine

Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine is ready to receive manuscripts on all aspects of unexpected, controversial, provocative and/or negative results/conclusions in the context of current tenets, providing scientists and physicians with responsible and balanced information to support informed experimental and clinical decisions.

One of the reasons that the popular press report studies that have come out with surprising, but ultimately wrong, results is that you’re going to get that 3-sigma outlier 5% of the time, and without a baseline of null results you might assume that the outlier is, in fact, typical. It’s only after the “Cold Poison Good for You!” headline that it’s worthwhile to publicize the contrary (and expected) result. And who would have published that study, before now?

Sorry, Wrong Model

Extreme Ultraviolet Laser Challenges Einstein

No, not really. (Any headline that implies that Einstein might be wrong is invariably incorrect — these are things that have been tested for 100 years)

In the new study, the physicists shot xenon atoms with FLASH, an x-ray laser that uses intense photons in the extreme ultraviolet energy range, about forty times the energy of visible light. The xenon atoms lost a whopping 21 electrons at once, which indicates that it was hit by 50 photons simultaneously. Not only that, but the first electrons to pop off were from an inner region of the atom, like if you peeled an onion starting with the second layer.

Here’s the thing: there are situations where you look at E&M interactions classically. If you put a large electric field around a material, you can ionize it; even though E&M interactions are explained by virtual photons, this is a case where classical physics works out just fine, and a high-intensity laser has a large electric field. Another case is a FORT (far off-resonant dipole force trap), where the intensity profile of a focused laser gives an electric field gradient.

So ionizing 21 electrons is pretty cool, but one needs to be careful in how one phrases these “challenge to Einstein” headlines. You have models of light that are wave-like and particle-like, and you use the model that works. The lesson of the photoelectric effect is NOT that light always exhibits particle properties.

What About the Other Half?

Poll: How many millions are in a trillion?

I’m not sure which is worse: that only a fifth of the respondents knew the answer, or that two-thirds thought they knew, and were wrong.

This report presents the findings of a telephone survey conducted among a national probability sample of 1,001 adults comprising 501 men and 500 women 18 years of age and older, living in private households in the continental United States.