# Is water subject to intensification, like light with lasers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 20, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953 "2005-11-20T17:26:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![butler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@butler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/1 "2005-11-20T17:26:39Z")
I know you can increase water pressure enough to cut marble at quarrys and glass at factories. It that done in a way comparable to laser light? Where you line up the waves? or is the water just jumbled. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/2 "2005-11-20T18:04:46Z")
Completely different. You know, of course, that two objects can’t be in the same place at the same time (in its more detailed theoretical form, this is the Pauli Exclusion Principle). In addition to solid objects, this also applies to things like water molecules: You can’t have more than one stream of water in the same place at the same time. If you try it, you’ll just get a bigger stream. However, this does _not_ apply to light. In a laser, you do actually have photons in the same place (and in the same state) at the same time. All of the light in a laser is acting sort of like it’s all the same photon, which is something that water can’t do. Now, you could have something comparable to a water-jet cutter, using light. If you made a light source bright enough, it could cut through things, even if it wasn’t a laser. But jumbled sources like that (whether of water or of light) tend to disperse and interfere with themselves, so they’re not as efficient. With water, we accept this, since we have no choice. But with light, we can make it more efficient, so we do so. ---
**Author:** ![butler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ac91a4/32.png) [@butler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/butler)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/3 "2005-11-20T18:14:43Z")
Hmmm. I’d bet you can’t get two photons to be in the same place at the same time. How could they then be differentiated from a twin or super-photon, which I’ve never hear of? Clearly, they are simply small enough to be side by side. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/4 "2005-11-20T18:48:43Z")
> [@butler](#): > > Hmmm. I’d bet you can’t get two photons to be in the same place at the same time. How could they then be differentiated from a twin or super-photon, which I’ve never hear of? Clearly, they are simply small enough to be side by side. Nope. It’s literally part of the definition that they can be in the same state. > [@Dictionary.com](#): > > bo·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bsn) > n. > Any of a class of particles, such as the photon, pion, or alpha particle, that have zero or integral spin and obey statistical rules permitting any number of identical particles to occupy the same quantum state. ---
**Author:** ![chrisk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@chrisk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chrisk)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/5 "2005-11-20T18:51:39Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > Nope. It’s literally part of the definition that they can be in the same state. This may be opening up a big can of heisenberg worms in the thread, but is “the same quantum state” really comparable to “the same place?” I know know this physics stuff, just thought I’d ask. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 20, 2005, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/6 "2005-11-20T21:44:21Z")
Location is part of the quantum state. A particle may or may not have a definite location, but to the extent that it does, it’s part of the state. As it happens, photons in a laser have only a very poorly-defined position, but they’re all poorly-defined in the exact same way. ---
**Author:** ![Beware\_of\_Doug](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/278dde/32.png) [@Beware\_of\_Doug](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beware_of_Doug)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/7 "2005-11-21T01:55:21Z")
The laser basically makes light brighter. Would a “waser” make water “wetter”? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/8 "2005-11-21T02:21:56Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > The laser basically makes light brighter. Would a “waser” make water “wetter”? 😕 Why yes! Yes, it would. In fact, I expect the manufacturers of bottled mineral water and homoeopathic remedies to cash in on this very soon. ---
**Author:** ![Padeye](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@Padeye](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Padeye)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 11:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/9 "2005-11-21T11:24:47Z")
> [@Beware of Doug](#): > > The laser basically makes light brighter. Would a “waser” make water “wetter”? 😕 But lasers don’t make light brighter, it just bundles it together more efficiently. Making water wetter isn’t a good analogy anyway but you can do that by adding anything that breaks down the surface tension. This allows water to more easily wet surfaces that it might otherwise just bead up on. ---
**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/10 "2005-11-21T13:40:44Z")
As **Chronos** wrote, light an water are entirely different. Light is the result of the action of electric and magnetic force fields. Water is a material substance on the macro level. However water _waves_ can certainly be synchronized in phase so as to produce huge [rogue waves](http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMOKQL26WD_index_0.html) 100 ft. high. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 2:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/11 "2005-11-21T14:30:20Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Location is part of the quantum state. Is water a boson or a fermion? Does it even make sense to speak of such properties for molecules? Would a watery Bose-Einstein condensate have peculiar cutting properties? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/12 "2005-11-21T14:52:15Z")
You’re not going to make water more “intense” in the same way that light can be made more intense. As noted above, it’s like comparing apples and oranges. Or photons and molecules. One way you _can_ make water more usable for cutting things, besides increasing the pressure, is to add things to it. Not as scientifically sexy as “laserizing” water, I suppose, but a lot more practical. One additive is _polyoxyethylene_, a plastic marketed under the name _Polyox_. Its “backbone” consists of two carbons (singly bonded to each other, with the other bonds saturated with hydrogen) followed by one oxygen, repeated endlessly. Whereas alternating carbons and oxygens (even with an occasuional double carbon) makes _acetal_, a tough, water-resistant plastic, polyox is a water-soluble plastic that can be added tro water to lower its resistance to flow and make it cohere better. Without polyox, pressurized water has a tendency to break inmto a spray. With it, the water stays in a thin stream that can cut with precision. If you add a little abrasive grit now, you have a potent cutting tool. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2005, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/13 "2005-11-21T23:25:53Z")
Just to clarify, that would make polyox ```auto H H | | ... -O-C-C- ... | | H H ``` , correct? And strictly speaking, a molecule can be a fermion or a boson, and strictly speaking, the most common isotopes would make a water molecule a boson. But by the time you get to the scale of a molecule, the fermion-ness of the component particles is generally much more important than the boson-ness of the whole molecule. If you did somehow manage to produce a watery B-E condensate, though, I can almost guarantee you that all of its properties, cutting and otherwise, would be peculiar. ---
**Author:** ![Angels\_Flight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/6bbea6/32.png) [@Angels\_Flight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Angels_Flight)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/14 "2005-11-22T15:00:46Z")
I’d settle for peculiar properties. Perhaps if all the water molecules were lined up in tight rows they would be able to travel much farther in a straight line. Whatever they scatter (like the air) would be unable to regroup behind the assault of endless waves. Like a phalanx of soldiers. And then you could use this super-stream of water to shoot high into tall buildings to fight fires with pinpoint accuracy. ---
**Author:** ![pletchap](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8e7dd6/32.png) [@pletchap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pletchap)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/15 "2005-11-22T16:21:32Z")
Non-physics person here… but… Isn’t all matter (water included) primarily consisting of empty space? Since water is more malleable that, say, wood or metal, why couldn’t press and press water to release the empty space… does a firehose do this already? What are the functional limitations toward pressing water to reduce space between water molecules? ---
**Author:** ![eviladam\_part\_2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/da6949/32.png) [@eviladam\_part\_2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eviladam_part_2)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/16 "2005-11-22T16:24:54Z")
if you use an icicle to stab someone, the evidence melts away! the perfect crime. ---
**Author:** ![CookingWithGas](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cookingwithgas/32/485_2.png) [@CookingWithGas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CookingWithGas)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/17 "2005-11-22T16:54:28Z")
From [http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm](http://science.howstuffworks.com/question553.htm) > [@](#): > > The key to cutting metal with water is to keep the spray coherent. Waterjets are able to cut because the spray is channeled through a very narrow jeweled nozzle at a very high pressure to keep the spray coherent. Unlike metal cutters, a waterjet never gets dull and it cannot overheat. It’s interesting that they use the word “coherent,” the same word often used to [describe the light in lasers](http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859189.html). However, HSW does not define what “coherent” means with regard to water. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/18 "2005-11-22T18:04:16Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s interesting that they use the word “coherent,” the same word often used to describe the light in lasers. However, HSW does not define what “coherent” means with regard to water. They mean concentrated in a thin, well-defined stream, and not splaying out, as I noted in my post above. Good nozzle design is needed here. Adding something like PolyOx, to effectively increase the cohesion of the water, helps too. > [@](#): > > They’re viscoelastic so they can reduce spattering and misting From this site: [http://www.dow.com/polyox/](http://www.dow.com/polyox/) If you look around, you see they recommend it for cutting the fluid drag for “water jet cutting”, but they no onger seem to list it as a major use. This isn’t the only product sold for this purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/19 "2005-11-22T18:04:46Z")
> [@CookingWithGas](#): > > It’s interesting that they use the word “coherent,” the same word often used to [describe the light in lasers](http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0859189.html). However, HSW does not define what “coherent” means with regard to water. They’re likely using the term to describe the laminar flow you get at a low [Reynolds number](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_number). It’s not a proper use of the word, but still gives the flavor of what’s going on, without introducing complications. ---
**Author:** ![spingears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@spingears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/spingears)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2005, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953/20 "2005-11-22T18:22:38Z")
> [@butler](#): > > It that done in a way comparable to laser light? Where you line up the waves? or is the water just jumbled. No it is not comparabel. Water cuts edue to the high pressure and the coherencey as mentioned elsewhere refers to the jet of water staying together because of the nozzele design rather that spreading out in a conical shape. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-water-subject-to-intensification-like-light-with-lasers/331953.md?page=2)