Banner
    ELI Super Laser To Tear Space Time Apart So Ghost Particles Can Enter From Other Dimensions?
    By Sascha Vongehr | November 8th 2011 05:07 AM | 9 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Sascha

    Dr. Sascha Vongehr [风洒沙] studied phil/math/chem/phys in Germany, obtained a BSc in theoretical physics (electro-mag) & MSc (stringtheory)...

    View Sascha's Profile

    UHFF stands for Ultra-High Field Facility. The project is at times confused with the Extreme Light Infrastructure (ELI), which includes three other experiments apart from UHFF. The total bill is $1.6 billion Euros (as of now).


    ELI Hungary – one of four locations in the total ELI project.


    According to various sources, UHFF will probably be located in the UK somewhere in 2020, earliest 2017. Ten lasers will concentrate 200 petawatts of power, the equivalent of 100 thousand times the world's electric power output, into “a single point for a trillionth of a second”.


    Homework for science writers: Given the velocity of light and “trillions of a second”, actually they mean an attosecond, or in scientific notation 10-18 seconds, how many hours do you need to figure the length of “a single point”? Well let me help: 10-18 seconds times a few 108 meters per second equals a few 10-10 meters, which is a few atoms across. Certainly not “a single point”: this length is enormously bigger than the tiny length scales that matter in fundamental particle physics. So, what is UHFF supposed to do that is so awesome?


    As with the LHC and similar endeavors, “super fundamental physics” hype is created to justify the price tag. UHFF may find dark matter, which is the same empty promise as with the LHC. Since we do not know much about dark matter, dark matter may pop up anywhere unexpectedly for all we know.


    “We may accidentally destroy the universe” hype is heaped on top of finding all the holy grails. The LHC was sold as making black holes as well as recreating the big bang. And the UHFF? Ed Gerstner, senior editor on Nature Physics:

    “Physicists are planning lasers powerful enough to rip apart the fabric of space and time.” Laser physics: Extreme light


    People understandably become worried about making the vacuum unstable in our backyard. People do not like their world being destroyed, but the creation of panic and corrosion of public trust in science is collateral damage.

    Are independent media mediating that hype?

    “scientists claim it could allow them boil the very fabric of space ... pulling this vacuum "fabric" apart.” Science News Telegraph


    What about the science blogs that are supposedly better than traditional media:

    “they want to build a laser so powerful that it will literally rip spacetime apart ...by giving spacetime a hernia, it is hoped that theorized "ghost particles" may spill from the fissure, providing evidence for the hypothesis that extra-dimensions exist and the vacuum of space isn't a vacuum at all -- it is in fact buzzing with virtual particles ... this immense energy will punch a hole through the fabric of spacetime itself” Discovery blog


    So, here we go again. Apart from empty promises, they start telling people that we open portals to other dimensions, and again it is not “the media”, but the science media and scientists themselves!


    Luckily, none of these claims have anything to do with reality. What is UHFF actually supposed to do? I have not found a single source yet that would spell it out to the wider public in sober ways, so let me do what all those media claim to do and actually inform you soberly:


    ELI-UHFF will try to explore high electric field strengths to hopefully see something that can be interpreted as traces of mechanisms which theory predicts for fields which ELI will not get anywhere close to.


    Sock-Puppet: “That is it?


    Yep


    Sock-puppet: “No collapse of space-time?


    No, sorry, not with some light.


    Sock-Puppet: “But that mysterious mechanism is ultra important new stuff and can only be done by ELI, correct?


    The mechanism in question is electron-positron pair creation, which should happen at the so called Schwinger limit named after Julian Schwinger. That limit is 8 times 1018 Volt per meter, which needs light intensities exceeding 1030 Watt per cm2 and is unattainable by ELI’s mere 10²³ Watt per cm². Electron-positron pair creation is well known from particle accelerators where these high fields turn up implicitly in the reactions triggered by particle collisions. HiPER, the High Power laser Energy Research facility dedicated to laser driven fusion, promised the exact same thing.


    HiPER


    Sock-Puppet: “So you are anti science and say that ELI should not be funded by the tax payer and we should read the bible instead?


    The facility is comparatively cheap and should be build. But why the science distorting hype? What annoys is the distortion of science – again, by scientists with no bad Oil company manipulating the media being involved!

    Professor Wolfgang Sandner, coordinator of the Laserlab Europe network and president of the German Physics Society:

    “even a true vacuum is filled with pairs of molecules that come into our universe for an extremely short time. ... An extremely powerful laser should be able to pull these particles apart and keep them in existence for longer.” Source


    This is actually nonsense, but media and scientists support it with more nonsense:

    “In the 1970s, Stephen Hawking predicted that when a virtual particle–antiparticle pair is created just 'outside' a black hole, the warping of the local vacuum by the hole's gravity will be strong enough to tear the pair asunder,” Nature


    “As predicted by Stephen Hawking, black hole evaporation is caused by virtual particles. Right at a black hole's event horizon -- the point at which even light cannot escape the extreme gravitational warping of the black hole -- virtual particles will pop in and out of existence as normal.

    However, one of the pair of virtual particles may get sucked into the event horizon while the other is ejected. With no partner to annihilate with, the ejected particle keeps the borrowed energy all for itself, and becomes a real particle.

    As this newly-real particle is ejected, it is effectively stealing energy (and therefore a tiny bit of mass) from the black hole -- this effect is known as Hawking radiation.” discovery blog


    Interesting, isn’t it? Only problem: General relativity tells us that there is no extreme gravitational warping” at the event horizon of a black hole! On the contrary, you do not notice anything at all for hours after falling into a sufficiently big black hole. All physics will be unremarkable and normal. If there is something like particle pairs that “pop in and out of existence as normal”, they will do the exact same in your rocket ship that falls into the black hole, namely pop in and out (!) of “existence” (whatever “existence” means in case of on principle unobservable theoretical entities).


    An electron-positron pair that is at rest relative to the horizon (and therefore cannot be considered to be at rest in any rocket ship) would have to travel with light velocity. Anybody see a problem?


    Hawking radiation does indeed have virtual particles in its mathematical description, which is a semi-classical calculation, so we know it is gets the correct result via an in a sense wrong approach (of which we happen to know when results are still reliable). These are intuitive interpretations which ease dealing with theoretical tools.

    Virtual particle pairs are ripped apart by a gravitational field which does not even exist in the better (not semi-classical) description??? Well, be glad about the particles being virtual, which basically means that they do not "exist" either. If two non-existing entities interact, all is well in the world of science outreach.


    --------------------------------------------

    More from Sascha Vongehr sorted Topic for Topic

    Comments

    Hasn't Schwinger pair production already been observed in heavy ion collisions? Essentially, you create a transient nucleus of sufficiently high Z, and the electric field will be strong enough to create e+e- pairs... Beg your pardon, rip a hole into spacetime out of which ghostly particles pour like the lifeblood from a mortally wounded deer, I guess is the correct terminology now.

    vongehr
    Hasn't Schwinger pair production already been observed in heavy ion collisions?
    Stuff like that is what I meant to include by writing perhaps rather cryptically "Electron-positron pair creation is well known from particle accelerators where these high fields turn up implicitly in the reactions triggered by particle collisions."
    Right! Sorry, I think I must've skipped over that sentence...

    Brit egg-heads with no apprehension
    Plan to test their new laser invention;
    To disrupt outer space,
    Causing all to erase,
    And pass into the seventh dimension.

    So.... a trillionth of a second is 10e-12, not 10e-18. Not sure what point you're trying to make with the speed of light vs. the area of the laser beam. The whole point of that thing is to focus a very large amount of energy into a very small space.

    Good point, though I think it depends on what scale you're talking about (Short scale for U.S. and modern British or Long scale for continental Europe, older British) . Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_large_numbers. The wikipedia article Sascha cited says one quintillionth of a second, not trillionths. I think it would be good for him to clarify this, although honestly it seems the claim of "a single point" was meant for lay people to whom that and a few atoms across is the same thing. Regardless, the point Sascha made about it not being the realm of fundamental particle physics is the important thing to see. Overall, an illuminating article!

    vongehr
    As the previous commenter pointed out, there is a lot of confusion with different uses of these terms. That is why science writers should not use them and I put them in "". Moreover, the 10-12 was actually a statement given at times - maybe that also leads to confusion. Your mentioning of the area of the Laser beam forgets that we live in three dimensional space. If your area is extremely small but the energy distributes over a long length, nothing is gained. Moreover, this is not just about energy or even field in a small space (A single laser would not work).
    I think you owe it to yourself to correct misreporting rather than just shout "Rubbish!" and a more measured and less knee-jerk response would have been easier on this poor reader.

    For example...

    Gravitational warping - the quote said a black hole's event horizon is "the point at which even light cannot escape the extreme gravitational warping of the black hole" not "the point of extreme gravitational warping at which..." You are complaining about an imaginary error: a black hole can reasonably be described as a region of extreme warping, and the horizon as the "point" (1D view) that divides potential escape to infinity from inevitable collision with the singularity [Schwarzschild solution, to avoid superfluous nit-picking]

    See here http://www.extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/High-field_5_2.php for a note on how they could use ELI to reach the Schwinger limit and do other interesting things reasonably well described within the constraints of space, or you can look here: http://www.extreme-light-infrastructure.eu/pictures/Extreme-laser-light-.... It's not for the man on the Clapham Omnibus but could you take what they say and rewrite it for him?

    And having ridiculed poor reporting you then introduce your own gibberish - the "collapse of space-time"!

    Fortunately "petard" does not suffer the same ambiguities of informal number naming, but even there I think you are tilting at windmills again. I cannot recall the last time "billion", "trillion" etc. of the old English system were actually used; Wikipedia's references to e.g. the Oxford English Dictionary are no doubt correct but such dictionaries are descriptive and not prescriptive, so old usages will be recorded there in perpetuity. You're statements only service to maintain such number name usage myths.

    If you object to the "media" and other reporting to date and can do better, you should - I expect youd could if you tried. Alas a post best characterised as mostly sound and fury...

    vongehr
    a black hole can reasonably be described as a region of extreme warping,
    No, empirically a black hole is a black region beyond the event horizon of which we have no confirmation yet whatsoever of whether GR's predicted singularity is real. In fact, string duality allows a description in which the horizon is an actual membrane and the singularity merely a thermalization (spreading) of the strings. Apart from that, almost all emergent gravity scenarios also deny any strong curvature of large black holes, but most of them can account for Hawking radiation.

    Also, I have never doubted that they of course are going to spin it the way as if the Schwinger limit maybe just around the corner. Thank you for providing the links.

    If you have any other misunderstandings, please ask before talking about my "own gibberish". I am known for not talking gibberish, but at times issues are difficult of course. ;-)

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.