As much as the science behind this is interesting, the writing / explanation here is a little bit juvenile. I guess the writer wanted to trump the already-Star-Wars-ed explanation on phys.org[1]. There has to be a better intermediate explanation between these and the actual paper itself.
I've always assumed that we still barely understand much of the physics of the universe. Every time people think they have figured it all out the universe laughs and doles out something new. It's not much of a lightsaber but making molecules out of photons is way cool.
On the one hand, I'm happy whenever people get excited about physics. On the other hand, I hate it when they get excited because somebody said "Star Wars" and completely fail to see why an experiment is actually cool. This experiment will never lead to light-sabers. I'm sorry geeks, but it won't. It's still damned cool.
Just like you can build classical computers with many different things representing bits, from photons to electrons to mechanical levers, it is theoretically possible to build quantum computers with qubits made out of many different things. Photons have many tremendous advantages over most other things people have thought of, but some huge weaknesses. One of them is that it's very hard to get photons to interact with each other. If you can't make qubits interact with each other then you can't build a logic gate. That means you're humped. Strong photon-photon interaction is one of the holy grails of photonic quantum computing. It's huge (if indeed the interaction in this paper can be made strong and there isn't huge loss involved).
So, screw you cnet and screw your lightsabers. I love Star Wars as much as the next guy, but you've done the science a huge disservice by completely failing to explain why it's significant and geeking out over space opera that has about as much relevance to it as a flaming rodent of unusual size!
The headline isn't even accurate within the Star Wars universe: lightsabers aren't powered by the Force. They're just a piece of technology. That's why Han Solo can use Luke's on Hoth.
How did people ever get confused to the point where they think the Force has anything to do with the operation of light sabers? I've heard people say the Force activates it, shapes it, whatever. It's just tech. You only need the force to safely wield it. It is massless and saber against saber strikes cause intense backlash that you otherwise can't control. And of course you need the Force to block blaster bolts and stuff. Although in traditional pen and paper star wars you need the force to just swing a lightsaber safely. Non force sensitive users have a percentage chance to remove a limb :P
Yeah, photon "molecules" and coming close to QUANTUM COMPUTING is far more awesome than coming close to light sabers (as if you'd get to use them even after they are invented)
18 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 45.2 ms ] threadYeah, but let's just write the article that way anyway.
"Science trumps the Force to create a real-life lightsaber"
Not an in-apt analogy == an apt analogy
So the article didn't misconstrue the professor's quote.
Just don't try and fight drones.
http://i.imgur.com/JlN7gYY.jpg
[1]: http://phys.org/news/2013-09-scientists-never-before-seen.ht...
Just like you can build classical computers with many different things representing bits, from photons to electrons to mechanical levers, it is theoretically possible to build quantum computers with qubits made out of many different things. Photons have many tremendous advantages over most other things people have thought of, but some huge weaknesses. One of them is that it's very hard to get photons to interact with each other. If you can't make qubits interact with each other then you can't build a logic gate. That means you're humped. Strong photon-photon interaction is one of the holy grails of photonic quantum computing. It's huge (if indeed the interaction in this paper can be made strong and there isn't huge loss involved).
So, screw you cnet and screw your lightsabers. I love Star Wars as much as the next guy, but you've done the science a huge disservice by completely failing to explain why it's significant and geeking out over space opera that has about as much relevance to it as a flaming rodent of unusual size!
Edit: I am offended. Never have I read such a condescending article.