Skip to comments.
Reversing And Accelerating The Speed Of Light
Space Daily ^
| Jul 25, 2006
| Staff Writers
Posted on 07/25/2006 10:13:18 AM PDT by Ben Mugged
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
To: Just another Joe
That's unlikely to affect this research, any more than it affects research on superconducters.
21
posted on
07/25/2006 11:04:45 AM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: FreedomNeocon
I never was totally comfortable with the whole "Light is both a wave and a particle" explanation. It's not a cop-out.
It's that the universe fundamentally operates in ways a lot different that our extremely narrow perceptions indicate.
It's that "waves" and "particles" are in fact the same thing, just showing certain facets more promenantly than others (kinda like the outside of your head looks a lot different than the inside).
To: Just another Joe
The Wright brothers were asked a similar question.
To: FreedomNeocon
I guess it's sort of like when you see movies of automobiles and the wheels look like they are turning backwards. Of course, they aren't really turning backwards, but because the shutter speed of the video or movie camera is different from the speed that the wheels on the vehicle are rotating, they look like the wheels are moving backward.
Very rough analogy, but I don't know how else to explain it.
To: Brilliant
Yeah, I understand that, but what kind of an analogy can you come up with that the average guy would understand? I've illustrated the "photonic bandgap" problem as a long train leaving Washington D.C. for Baltimore, where the length of the train is a significant fraction of the distance between the cities. The train is not said to "leave" or "arrive" until the center of the train gets to the station. Just as the train is approaching Baltimore, the engine detaches from the rest of the train, and it "arrives" in Baltimore when the center of the engine gets to the station, which happens to be in record time.
To: Ben Mugged
Einstein must be spinning like a top
No this is not strange.
Although somewhat counterintuitive, a negative index of refraction doesn't break any laws of physics because the math works out, said Schultz. In fact Russian physicist V. G. Veselago pointed this out in a little-known paper published in 1968, Schultz said.
All electromagnetic waves harbor both electric and magnetic fields. In order to have a negative index of refraction, a material must have both a negative electrical field, or permittivity, and a negative magnetic field, or permeability.
A material's index of refraction is the square of its permittivity times its permeability. The counterintuitive part is, because a negative number times a negative number is a positive number, it seems like the index of refraction is destined to remain positive. "When you go to take that square root, if you are a little sloppy you think of it also as positive. But because the negative of the square root can be positive or negative," it is mathematically possible to get a negative index of refraction, said Schultz.
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/041101/Material_bends_microwaves_backwards_041101.html
26
posted on
07/25/2006 11:17:34 AM PDT
by
AdmSmith
To: Just another Joe
"Give me a practical application that will help the common man.......in the next 7 years."
Did you read the article? No? Well why should we do your work for you?
27
posted on
07/25/2006 11:22:11 AM PDT
by
MineralMan
(non-evangelical atheist)
To: Physicist
Nice try. I'm not sure that would clear it up to the average guy, though.
Another way I've heard it explained is in reference to water waves... Drop a stone in the water and watch the waves. It's not just one wave, but several ripples which spread out in concentric circles from the point of impact. The wave front moves at a specific rate of speed, which is the group velocity analogous to the speed of light, but if you look at each ripple in the group, and follow it carefully, then you will notice that each ripple starts at the inside of the circle of waves, then slowly moves up the pack until it is on the outside of the wave packet. Obviously, the ripples are each moving faster than the wave packet as a whole. That is the phase velocity.
But it's still a little esoteric for the Bud Light crowd.
To: MineralMan; ctdonath2; js1138
Did you read the thread before you posted to me?
If you did you would have seen that I did read the article and saw no practical application affecting the common man in the next X years.
I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done.
Great things have come out of research that no one thought was important.
I wanted to know if anyone saw a practical application for this in the next 7 years.
29
posted on
07/25/2006 11:55:00 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: MineralMan; ctdonath2; js1138
Did you read the thread before you posted to me?
If you did you would have seen that I did read the article and saw no practical application affecting the common man in the next X years.
I'm not saying the research shouldn't be done.
Great things have come out of research that no one thought was important.
I wanted to know if anyone saw a practical application for this in the next 7 years.
30
posted on
07/25/2006 11:55:35 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Ben Mugged
I'm proud to say that I passed Classical Physics at Iowa State. In my experience, the tests there were every bit as difficult to understand as this.
31
posted on
07/25/2006 11:56:20 AM PDT
by
IronJack
To: MineralMan; ctdonath2; js1138
Sorry about the double post, my PC hiccuped.
32
posted on
07/25/2006 11:59:20 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Just another Joe
Time warp due to a negative index of refraction.
33
posted on
07/25/2006 12:03:27 PM PDT
by
js1138
(Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
To: js1138
Time warp due to a negative index of refraction.Would that be in the next 7 years, or the past 7 years? (jk) ;^)
34
posted on
07/25/2006 12:05:28 PM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Ben Mugged
I disagree with the next post. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light and you CAN'T travel back in time!!!
35
posted on
07/25/2006 12:07:41 PM PDT
by
PMCarey
To: Ben Mugged
I think faster-than-light travel would be great and I look forward to travelling backward in time! Comments?
36
posted on
07/25/2006 12:07:47 PM PDT
by
PMCarey
To: Ben Mugged
37
posted on
07/25/2006 12:13:07 PM PDT
by
mike70
To: FreedomNeocon
[I never was totally comfortable with the whole "Light is both a wave and a particle" explanation. Seemed like a similar cop-out to the whole dark matter idea when calculating the mass of the universe, or the entire understanding of 'strong' and 'weak' nuclear forces.]
Nobody should be satisfied with it. I think it's just a useful analogy physics teachers have come up with to try to help students solve physics equations. As far as I can tell, the analogy breaks down as a meaningful way of intuitively understanding just what's going on with the fundamental pieces of the universe. NOBODY intuitively understands that yet.
38
posted on
07/25/2006 12:17:31 PM PDT
by
spinestein
(Follow "The Bronze Rule")
To: Ben Mugged
186,000 miles per second. Its not just a good idea, its the law.
39
posted on
07/25/2006 12:19:24 PM PDT
by
LegionofDorkness
(A Proud South Park Conservative)
To: Ben Mugged
Mark for later read:
40
posted on
07/25/2006 12:19:29 PM PDT
by
AxelPaulsenJr
(Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-74 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson