http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...saber-like-state-of-matter-photonic-molecules OK, it's really not anything like a lightsaber, but that's what the media is comparing it to. I don't understand it completely, but I still think it sounds cool.
I think it is super disingenuous to to compare them to a light saber. Undoubtedly, nothing like a lightsaber is remotely possible with given technology, nor really even related to this, yet this is the first reported attraction between photons, which is huge. So of course to get any press at all, the lightsaber is the best way to do it, and it probably has been far more successful that the researchers anticipated. The fact that it so far only works with super diffuse and very cold rubidium means it is all happening in some box (or cell more likely). Not quite what people picture when they are reading about it in their top stories.
relevant: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1623 What most confused me about all this, was pretty much the incredibly lousy way of reporting ExtremeTech did on this. Nowhere in the source article is there a mention of this phenomenon being a state of matter. As ExtremeTech starts off by correctly saying, light is a form of electromagnetic radiation. Any mention of matter or molecules is preposterous. I'm all for popularizing science, but the completely irrelevant science-fiction comparisons are ridiculous, and don't add any value in the slightest. If anything, it'll piss people off when they do find out it's bogus. (EDIT: I get this is to get the most amount of views possible. I'm just disappointed that reporting on science would resort to such low standards) on the actual discovery: I'm interested to see what applications this could have. Apparently photon-on-photon interaction is something that has been theorized for a while now.
First of all, it isn't just Extreme tech which is reporting it in this way. I actually chose that article specifically over others, because of its mention of the mention of 'photonic molecules', which I thought was amusing. They are calling it a molecule because the two photons become bound to one another by attraction. I think it's more of a science writer trying to use terms that a layman will understand, rather than a conceptual error. But I could be wrong (I don't completely understand the science myself). According to the article, the photons begin to behave kind of like as massive particles, so the jump to calling it a molecule, while maybe a bit colorful, does create a mental picture that is easier for a layman to grasp than maybe a more precise description..
Using layman's terms has the sole purpose of making people not familiar with jargon understand what is going on, which is impossible to do when you're using comparisons and analogies that don't make one lick of sense. I'm talking about the Star Wars references now, the other thing is probably a somewhat accurate representation without the technicalities. People who don't care about this type of thing at all will go along thinking that we're making tremendous steps in the direction of developing lightsabers, and people like you and me who do care, are kept from what is actually being discovered. Either way, it's an insult to the scientists and the work they're doing. The fact that this indeed is not an isolated reporting makes it even worse, and is a hint to the modern day evils in journalism. Again, I'm all for popularizing science, and I understand that dumbing down the impossible-to-understand research is necessary, but that and what is happening here are ways apart. People talking out of their ass is detrimental to whatever field it is happening in, be it science, religion, or what-have-you.
I agree that there are lots of problems with journalism, period, regardless of what subjects are being covered. Too often the flashy headline takes precedence over accurate reporting. I suspect that occasionally, the source of the story is at least partially responsible (cold fusion, to name one very memorable example). That said, oftentimes, people don't need any extra help in jumping to unfounded, and occasionally ridiculous conclusions based on science articles that they don't necessarily understand. Quantum mechanics, for example, has become integrated into all sorts of mysticism and pseudoscience. And sometimes it has nothing to do with misunderstandings, and everything to do with the nature of the scientific process itself and the fact that old science is too often adhered to long after new evidence is found that overrides the old (antioxidants, for example). I believe that no matter how the story is reported, there's going to be bad conclusions drawn from it. But I agree that it would still be better with more accuracy.
I do agree, but there is one problem here. You see, the people who decide whether the scientists will get funding aren't scientists themselves, and this is pretty much the only comparison they could make in layman's terms. Yes, it is a dissimile as it's "like lightsabers and yet not like lightsabers at all". But it's possible that it is one which had to be made in this case.
