Hi I'm Dan and I am in Grade 11 so I'm no expert but if light has no mass than how can it slow down or speed up in cesium vapor.
Hi I'm Dan and I am in Grade 11 so I'm no expert but if light has no mass than how can it slow down or speed up in cesium vapor.
Encyclopedia Britanica.com had an article on this but was not too definite as to whether this was "solid" research or just a quirt of experimentation.
Chip
it would seem to me that since the light exits before it finishes entering the cesium chamber that it would imply a new speed limit of light ,assuming the experiment accomplished what it claims. But then if u changed the length of the chamber it would give the photon a new top speed ,since from what i understand it emerges with no delay from when it entered, so if it takes the same amount of time to cover a given distance it must have a greater velocity. so if simply changing the length of the chamber can change the velocity that to me implies there is no actual speed limit and there are likely other ways to go about acclerating light. anyone with any thoughts on this please share.
-Fred
Just an outside comment but did you know that light is affected by gravity? It is.
yea i got that. thats the whole principle of why a black whole is black.
Most lens indexs are based on the speed of light in air 186k per second and when the light goes from a less dense medium such as air ( n=1) to a more dense medium such as glass (n=1.530) and the light will deviate toward the normal. Whenever the light leaves the denser medium and goes to less dense medium (air) it will deviate away from the normal. This is how the process of incident light and reflected light keeps bouncing back and forth from the front and back of the lens thus loosing some light due to these reflection factors. That is why its very important to suggest AR coating in higher power lenses as more light gets lost by internal reflections and the patient will not see as well. Some of this theory is based on thin lens in air and it does change as the lenses get thicker.
The physics hackers on this thread may be interested to know that the U.S. Air Force just accepted an 88 page research paper "Teleportation Physics Study" which discusses some ideas about transportation and communication going faster than the speed of light.
Teleportation Physics Study (88 page PDF document)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/eprint/teleport.pdf
Beam me up! USAF Teleportation Study
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11260
-----------
Wewelsburg: Castle of Evil. Take the complete photo tour at http://www.wwiirelics.com/wevelsburg.htm. See my brief photo essay Talking Heads! at http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...&postcount=552
Last edited by rinselberg; 12-05-2004 at 01:19 AM.
Thanks guys, this thread has been bringing up bad memories from hs physics class, giving me all sorts of adija(sp?), headaches, and mental anguish! I had to dust of my old Handbook of Optics(optical society of America), old physics textbooks to try and follow this thread. Very interesting! Keep up the good work, and I'll go take a few aspirins. ;^)
Fezz
:cheers:
We had similar postings on another thread. What some physicists are supposing now is that light is not gaining speed but actually losing speed, as seen below:
Headlines in several newspapers around the world have publicized a paper in Nature by a team of scientists (including the famous physicist Paul Davies) who (according to these reports) claim that ‘light has been slowing down since the creation of the universe’
Davies, P.C.W., Davis, T.M. and Lineweaver, C.H., Black holes constrain varying constants, Nature 418(6898):602–603, 8 August 2002
This whole hypothesis is based upon the "fine structure constant" along with the
"Second Law of Thermodynamics" in relation to a blackhole and it's event horizon.
But then if you dig further you will find just as many physicists who believe that light according to Einstein's relativity formula is the same. E=MC2 (that refers to being squared 2 )
Last edited by jediron1; 12-14-2004 at 09:15 PM.
I remember reading about a star that appears to be moving toward us and away from us at the same time faster than the speed of light. Hmmmm. The only thing we can be sure of is that we don't know much about a lot of things. If the next 100 years produces equal discoveries as the last 100, think of the possibilities! :0)
shutterbug
Or perhaps the speed of light is constant and time is changing......This stuff freaks me out!!!!!!Originally Posted by jediron1
There is one optical theory that the reason light bends is it slows down when it passes through various media. If it can be slowed, it can be speed up.
Other theories feel the deviation of light is because it travels further through the media.
Even others feel that it's rate of travel is bent because it finds other media (glass for instance) easier to travel through.
Remember always theories are theories and we really don't have clue.
And no, I don't believe in the Big Bang theory.
Chip
Of course, I see evolution as part of God's plan, not a substitute for it.
Last edited by chip anderson; 01-09-2005 at 07:54 AM. Reason: Big Mistake
The bigger the band the louder the oom-pah? ;)Originally Posted by chip anderson
I agree!Originally Posted by chip anderson
I have a little trouble with the "new earth" creationists who believe the planet is only 10,000 years old. If one accepts this notion, then the Flintstones is actually a documentary, what with dinosaurs co-existing with man. I try to be tolerant of all religious beliefs, but must say I struggle with this one!
WIL-MA!!!!!!:D
Actually I believe that a significant segment of the 10,000 year old earth people posit that the dinosaur fossils were placed there by Satan to lead the faithful astray.Originally Posted by chm2023
Well as long as there's a reasonable explanation!;)Originally Posted by coda
It's not such much that light can't slow down or speed up, it's that light (and, according to Einstein, everything else) has a maximum possible speed of 300,000 km per second. While this speed is attainable for light in a vacuum or free space, light will travel more slowly (less than 300,000 km) through other media, such as glass or plastic. So, the question becomes, is the maximum possible speed of 300,000 km/s changing? If so, it would be interesting to see what the implications are for the Special and General Theories of Relativity. Though this is quite possibly the kind of voodoo science that was brought up earlier with "faster than light travel" in cessium.
Best regards,
Darryl
I want some of that gas for my car!
The only think I know of that is faster than light is a wavefront. Next time you are at the beach notice that waves travel down the beach much faster than they move onto the beach.
Well I want to point out this experiment relies on results based on a "leading edge", a wavelike property, which is not the actual particle or wavelength coming out to the destination point where the measurements are taken.. Secondly and very importantly the experiment took place using a chamber filled with Cesium gas, Cesium is used in spectroscopy due to it's abilities to give off characteristic spectral lines and it is very reactive considered to be the most reactive (besides francium)....... so it is entirely possible that once the light or lazer was fired and struck the cesium it created a situation similar to this example to help visualize: You have 100 marbles in a tube, you touch the marble at your end at a speed of 5mph, the other marbles react and the marbles at the other end spill out almost instantly. This reaction took place many times faster than the applied 5mph which I believe is a logical explanation to what happened. Do not mean to be a buzz kill but if you can make sense of this explanation then I merely think more tests should be done to research it. There are other theoretical means to accelerate light but I will not post on that at the moment unless requested.
I can hardly wait until Wm. Shatner and Leonard Nimoy weigh in on this. Too bad old H.G. Wells isn't around now.
One could produce a cessium-filled lens with super-thin front and back surfaces and end up with a one with a negative refractive index.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks