However, the question still remains, is light a particle or a wave? The debate continues. A lab in the Midwest attempting to reach absolute zero noticed they can also slow down light. What is light? (Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength) the color spectrum is a great example of the speeds. While some are noticeable and some are not, the various wavelengths are such because they travel at a different frequency. The speed of light in the STP (standard temperature and pressure) conditions will mostly remain constant.

There is NO question and the 'debate' ended 80+ years ago. Light is (matter also is) both - partiles and wave. Its just different natures are showed in different experiments. The difference is that photons are mass-less, thus You cannot slow them down the same way You can slow down other particles, which have a mass. If that was the case then f.e. You wouldnt be seeing the sun as it was 8 minutes 51 seconds ago, but millenia ago. Nonesense.

What is light? (Electromagnetic radiation of any wavelength) the color spectrum is a great example of the speeds. While some are noticeable and some are not, the various wavelengths are such because they travel at a different frequency.

.............. You cannot "travel at different frequency" and there is a DIRECT correlation between wavelength and frequency so saying that one is becouse of the other is... unphysical.

 

The speed of light in the STP (standard temperature and pressure) conditions will mostly remain constant. However, in computers and other imperfect conditions, the speed of light is actually slowed down, do to fiber channeling. The reason there are different levels of fiber optics (not to mention pipe size)

... now thats a new one. I am sorry, but this is complete nonesense. Its not a matter of temperature or pressure, but of material. Thats one. Two, thats the same reason for light going slower in optic fibers and not fiber chanelling. And three - the different 'levels' in optic fibers are called mods and are not a reason of 'different velocities'. There can be only one group velocity in a meterial.

Well, I guess there are those who hide in the shadows and wait for someone to say something they didn't know Then, they attack them for speaking in a syntax that online gamers use and understand. In the sense of lacking grammar, punctuation, and full sentences and words. It's still nice to know that not all of America, or the world for that matter have gone down the hole and lost any sense of correct communication. Thanks Haya

I love you too, Finner. I wasn't trying to insult. As a moderator, I was just trying to insure that you would communicate clearly to avoid any confusion and such. Just because this is a gamers' forum, it still doesn't change the fact that, without punctuation, technical sentences can become confusing. I for one could understand what you said, but I had to read that phrase a few times to make sense of it.

That being said, please continue to argue over light, in a clear and concise manner, because I find this topic interesting. :peace:

It's the grammar police! Pull over!! :\

musa, there are still some scientist that would argue it never ended. STP has complete control over the results of the movement of matter and the energy contained there in.

 

http://www.usbyte.com/common/approximate_wavelength.htm

 

How old are you Musa?

I dont mean to be antagonistic FINNER, but EDIT: Kywalker (sorry) is I think the equivalent of our doctorate students (or close to it) in all sorts of crazy physics. Debating with him over physics is like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Search some of his previous thread, he explains some the crazy stuff he is studying (quantum well lasers was it?).

FINNER->I dont know any scientist, that would argue about that. Light AND matter has both the properties of a wave and of a particle. Its just a matter of scale and the experiment involved. Even You are a wave when taken from the right perspective. Keyword: de'Broglie(?) wavelength.

 

STP has NO control over anything. Its just a set of two coordinates on the temperature-pressure phase plane, such, that they represent what humans could call 'normal' enviroment: 25degC and 1 atm. Its merely a reference point, NOTHING ELSE!

 

Also saying, that temperature has control over the movement on the matter is not quite correct. Temperature is defined as an average kinetic energy of the statistical set of particles. Therefore You cannot define it the other way around.

 

PS. What does my age have to do with anything?

 

PS2. Dont call me 'Musa', please.

 

DEFCON->Quantum well lasers, thats just the start of the road. I will be writing MEng paper on quantum cascade lasers.

And also, i like debating about physics. I am not always right, You know. This discussion is one of those rare treats, that i can express myself on this forum. And, if this means, i can get to teach somebody something, the better.

cool, cool. I just wanted to make sure no hostilities arose. I dont think (correct me if i am wrong finner) was aware of your background so I just wanted to make sure he knew before things got too heated

>>The difference is that photons are mass-less

 

I disagree, I read a paper somewhere that proved all the photons hitting the earth per year weigh about 20 pounds collectively.

 

As for annihilating time space because some light travels faster then light. Bwhaha. Sorry, but that is silly. That's a good a fable as Einstein's "Time" dimension.

 

Truth is, there is no such thing as time, it's just our monkey flesh perception describing the universe... well, acording to rational scientists anyways. :peace: Watching a ball bounce visually or describing it with a math equation in real time is the same thing... a translated description for your brain as to what is really happening... basically you'll never actually "know" thanks to your obcenely poor conscious bandwidth and it's 1/2 second lag behind real time.

 

I guess the best way to describe the article is to say that the light is "stretched" so it hits the end of the cable faster, but it still takes the same amount of time for the entire "beam" to completely travel the distance.

 

As for light that travels faster then light... well, things wiggle, and then go back to normal... there are lots of theories to make light travel faster then light, mainly in magnetic and plasma physics, and, of course, there is always the stranger (and more interesting when backed with real science)things out there people say, like a Dr. Chaos kind of entropy where light traveling in 4 space would temporarily interceded back into our 3 space at FTL. The said "wiggle" that then goes back to the collective norm.

i had no i dea it wa sky, im not around her often enough to keep up with name changes. i know ive argued with him. Ky some scientist still believe that i was taught in high school that it is both, but also that some scientist are figthing for one solid stance on either or. yo usound a lot like my teacher and now that you repeat it i remember a lot. i still think that your literal and correct sense of explanation will confuse some. such as the difference between the temperature and the reason it is the temp. maybe i can ask you for help when i start school? now that i know who you are i may just bow down and let you take it away... that and i am about to start college soon and i can't keep visiting this thread. :peace: gg Ky

>>The difference is that photons are mass-less

 

I disagree, I read a paper somewhere that proved all the photons hitting the earth per year weigh about 20 pounds collectively.

No, You probably mean neutrinos. If the photons had a mass, they could not travel at the speed of light (duh). And if they did have it, then we have a big thermodynamic problem.

 

As for annihilating time space because some light travels faster then light. Bwhaha. Sorry, but that is silly. That's a good a fable as Einstein's "Time" dimension.

It was something off the top of my head when i thought about the time-space conswquences of light traveling faster than itself. But nehtertheless i wouldnt call it silly. Speed of light is not the same as, comparing, hearing the blast some time after seeing it. These are different mechanisms.

 

Truth is, there is no such thing as time, it's just our monkey flesh perception describing the universe... well, acording to rational scientists anyways. :peace: Watching a ball bounce visually or describing it with a math equation in real time is the same thing... a translated description for your brain as to what is really happening... basically you'll never actually "know" thanks to your obcenely poor conscious bandwidth and it's 1/2 second lag behind real time.

...so what does it have to do with the topic in-hand? ...other than that... well, i could start off by saying, that in fact there is no electric, magnetic, gravitic field. They are just mathematical, continuous, representations of discrete functions, so that the calculations can be easier (so-called quantum field theory).

 

I guess the best way to describe the article is to say that the light is "stretched" so it hits the end of the cable faster, but it still takes the same amount of time for the entire "beam" to completely travel the distance.

...no. A wave packet is, sure, stretched over distance (as a result of Heisenbergs relation, but it does not hit 'the end' faster. The front and the back of a wave packet enter and leave at the same intervals.

 

As for light that travels faster then light... well, things wiggle, and then go back to normal... there are lots of theories to make light travel faster then light, mainly in magnetic and plasma physics, and, of course, there is always the stranger (and more interesting when backed with real science)things out there people say, like a Dr. Chaos kind of entropy where light traveling in 4 space would temporarily interceded back into our 3 space at FTL. The said "wiggle" that then goes back to the collective norm.

I now nothing of such theories. Furthermore, i see no reason to believe that magnetism or plasma physics could have anything to do with sucha theory. As for the time-space fluctuations, sure, large enough gravity ripple can CREATE effect of light traveling faster than light, but it does not mean, that it really does. Its all the matter of relativity. Inside that ripple, light still travels at its speed (i am considering it all to be in vacuum). I see, or know of, any physical reasons, that could make that happen.

EDIT: Kywalker (sorry) is I think the equivalent of our doctorate students (or close to it) in all sorts of crazy physics.

I've heard a story of a Polish gal who studied something like 'business management' in US. After her second year she realised that everyone on her faculty is a son or a daughter of someone with a private factory/ firm etc. so she wouldn't find a job in US. She decided to change a subject and chose chemistry (her bf studied it). After 3-4 years of chemistry in Polish HS she could pass all the exams of the 1st and 2nd year of a chemistry at the American University. She started new year at the 3rd year of chemistry instead of 3rd year of business management...

Yeah, sciences aren't taught too well in our high schools. In an effort to have higher passing rates, many of the important courses have been "dumbed down." That being said, there are still schools out there that can give a solid education in chemistry and such. Also, most public universities give base courses in chemistry on the assumption that the person has never taken the subject before. Although they hope for students that have prior knowledge in the subject, the first and second year chemistry courses are a joke and can easily be passed by someone who has almost no knowledge of chemistry. I wouldn't find it hard to believe that the Polish gal you mentioned would be able to bypass the first two courses. I was able to skip past the first chem course, and that's because I retained some of the things I learned in 10th grade chem class (which my teacher happened to botch; she was a month behind in the material she was supposed to teach by the time the year ended).

 

Yay for science.

Unfortunately, i will have to cut the discussion on speed of light short, by saying:

Up till now i was writing from memory. But yesterday in ITE i, especially for YOu, looked into book, that covers optical relativity. Results: light cannot travel at speeds greater than c. Sorry.

If anyone wants reference: "Theory of field" by Landau & Lifszyc.

Its right there in the first chapter.

 

Sorry, there wont be breaking of any laws of physics today.