 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Astronomy / January 2008Light Travels Backward and Faster than Light
[Quoting Livescience.com ...] It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go backward. And this is not a simple trick of mirrors. Previous work has slowed light to a crawl. But in the new research, a pulse of light is given a negative speed and-as if just to make your head spin-the researcher says the experiment made light appear to exceed its theoretical speed limit. If you totally confused, don't worry. This reporter doesn't get it either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists. "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this one," says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of Rochester. "It's weird stuff." The research was reported in the May 12 issue of the journal Science. Though not normally stated in news reports, Science is a peer-reviewed journal. That means some experts read Boyd's paper and said it was good to publish. That said, nobody would blame you if you stop here. Otherwise, grab a couple aspirin, have a look at depictions of the experiment in this graphic or this animation, and read on. .... See http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html Intriguing. Double-A > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you totally confused, don't worry. This reporter doesn't get it > either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists. Neither do you, kook. > "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this > one," says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html The fake Art Deco will soil his pants over this! > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html More info on this: http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544 Double-A > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/kliban/bklight.gif  Signatureah > > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > http://www.coldbacon.com/pics/kliban/bklight.gif Thanks, ah ... choo! >> > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] >> > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Thanks, ah ... choo! Pardon? Signatureah ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest like residual waves.,and that begs this question. At the peak of crest are they both stationary? TreBert > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest > like residual waves.,and that begs this question. At the peak of crest > are they both stationary? TreBert Now consider light going backwards through time to escape an event horizon! Double-A > > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Double-Anus And having it disappear up your own fundamental orifice(s)? >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >And having it disappear up your own fundamental orifice(s)? Do you get to choose, Bruce? Or does Nature take its course? > >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Do you get to choose, Bruce? Or does Nature take its course? As you know, Carl, the saucerheads think it shines out of there. So it may as well go back up there. >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >As you know, Carl, the saucerheads think it shines out of there. So it >may as well go back up there. Are we talking about Uranus, Bruce? > >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Are we talking about Uranus, Bruce? No, Carl, we are not talking about Myanus, Conn. >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >No, Carl, we are not talking about Myanus, Conn. Does it say "Welcom to Mianus" as you drive through? > >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Do you get to choose, Bruce? Or does Nature take its course? How can you have negative speed? >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >How can you have negative speed? Use reverse gear. That's the one marked "R"! > >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Use reverse gear. That's the one marked "R"! I've always wondered, why is there only one reverse gear? >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >I've always wondered, why is there only one reverse gear? There isn't. Eye-talian tanks in WW2 had four reverse gears and one forward gear. The forward gear was in case the enemy attacked from behind! > >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > forward gear. The forward gear was in case the enemy attacked from > behind! What do you Merkins have? Of course, you could just turn the turret around and pretend you're not going in reverse. >> >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >What do you Merkins have? We have tanks that blow Eye-rakis away. >Of course, you could just turn the turret >around and pretend you're not going in reverse. They're made to turn 360 degress, Bruce. > >> >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > We have tanks that blow Eye-rakis away. Typical. > >Of course, you could just turn the turret > >around and pretend you're not going in reverse. > > They're made to turn 360 degress, Bruce. So you can run away in any direction? >> >> >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >Typical. Any ragheads will do: Arabs, jews, Greeks... >> >Of course, you could just turn the turret >> >around and pretend you're not going in reverse. >> >> They're made to turn 360 degress, Bruce. > >So you can run away in any direction? We are just like Daleks, Bruce. > >> >> >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > >> >> >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Any ragheads will do: Arabs, jews, Greeks... Sure. > >> >Of course, you could just turn the turret > >> >around and pretend you're not going in reverse. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > We are just like Daleks, Bruce. What? Can't climb stairs? >> >> >> >> >> >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to >> >> >> >> >> >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > >Sure. You bet, Bruce. >> >> >Of course, you could just turn the turret >> >> >around and pretend you're not going in reverse. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >What? Can't climb stairs? Who needs to climb when you can levitate, Bruce? > > >> > ah Glad I never theorized light going backwards to the past. Going to > > >> > the future is bad enough. If they went back and forth they would crest [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > How can you have negative speed? Moving backwards in time? Double-A > > How can you have negative speed? > > Moving backwards in time? > > Double-A In science, speed is a scalar quantity, while the vectorial is "velocity". So speed cannot be negative, and velocity can be. Negative velocity is just moving in a direction opposite the positive velocity. I've never been even remotely convinced that it is at all possible to move backwards in time. SF&F at best. happy days and... starry starry nights! SignatureIndelibly yours, Painius http://www.savethechildren.org > > > How can you have negative speed? > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > happy days and... Perhaps. Perhaps. But the lightwave in this experiment moving backwards from where a new light wave emerges going forward, to then cancel out the original lightwave going forward, seems very reminiscent of the scenario where a positron moves from where an electron emerges to where an electron annihilates. The positron is sometimes theorized as the electron moving backwards in time. Double-A > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you totally confused, don't worry. This reporter doesn't get it > either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists. > "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this > one," says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html What does it mean to have a negative speed? > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you totally confused, don't worry. This reporter doesn't get it > either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists. > "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this > one," says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html What does it mean to have a negative speed? >> [Quoting Livescience.com ...] >> It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > What does it mean to have a negative speed? The light beam is moving backwards in time. greysky Photons never slow down,never stop, never bounce never travel in a straight line. Light is used by humankind to measure events in spacetime. There are five arrows of time Bert There probably is already light in the fiber optic cable... as soon as a little bit goes in, something on the other side pops out or reflects ;) (?) Like a tube of water, big deal :) Bye, Skybuck. > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If you totally confused, don't worry. This reporter doesn't get it > either. Nor do a lot of really smart scientists. > "I've had some of the world's experts scratching their heads over this > one," says Robert Boyd, a professor of optics at the University of [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > See > http://www.livescience.com/technology/060518_light_backward.html What does it mean to have a negative speed? > > [Quoting Livescience.com ...] > > It sounds nuts, but a scientist says his team has made light go [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > What does it mean to have a negative speed? Two possible ways of thinking of it ... 1) Time flows backwards ... (which might not make sense) 2) Cause & effect, coalesce & cohere as opposed to diverge & disperse. I suspect that the speed of light is at a maximum because space is like an aether ... ... Yes, I know that the aether doesn't exist. That is because it was defined/conceived as applying to volumetric space, itself. One forgets that the speed of light is at a maximum *relative* to the observer. Hence Max. c. != aether ... because the aether is an absolute measure of location. The aether is the dimensionality of space. That dimensionality is relative to every observer. Geometry concerns itself with the 'enclosed set' and it's 'enveloping perimeter'. Geometry describes characteristics of sequence of interaction. ... time, propagation of shock front, scattering all pertain to much the same thing, it seems ( ... uhm *feels*) Didn't Einstein view time as being part of space .. the curvature of space? In case it hadn't occurred to you, much of this seems to relate back to Fermat's last theorem (which was rumored to have a simple proof.) I don't claim that I understand maths, nor physics, nor do I have a simple proof of Fermat's theorem ... Nevertheless, I do find mathematics ( and (less modern?) algebra, geometry ) to have some major holes/irregularities. Specifically . and as it pertains to Fermat's theorem ( which I have forgotten .. and shall leave that way) Specifically ... It has to do with *only* two operators ..(Please excuse my ultra vagueness) commutative - distributive ... or ... additive - multiplicative ... (??? whatever .. Best to leave loose and vague!) Here is the peculiarity! The additive property deals with counting ... with putting in 'correspondence'. 'Correspondence' is a very crucial perceptual type of tool. .. The one-to-one matching allows a person to maintain the books in an awareness sense very effectively! ( *cough* *cough* .. I haven't a clue what that means! :) ) Thus there is the 'accumulative' ( or additive .. or commutative ... or .. ? ) operator in algebra. And *THEN* there is also a *distributive* or multiplicative operator. ... Why bother with a multiplicative operator? ... Invoking geometry brings considerations of sequence-of-interaction ... i.e. ordering considerations. From a heuristic perspective multiplication is "chunking" the 'accumulative' thing into easy counting ( a.k.a. enumerable) same sized ( equivalent ) chunks. As I see it dimly/weakly/vaguely the distributive operator imposes 'correspondence' on equivalent chunks of accumulated strings ( I am using a perceptual metaphor. 'Correspondence is intensely implicit within it.) When I first considered the distributive operator it seemed to be unnecessary. It seemed to be no more than an abstraction which conveniently did book-keeping. .. O.K. my sense is that the distributive operator does more. If it were not so, it would have been dispensed with as superfluous, long ago ... Space is all about ordering and sequencing of interaction. Two space is created by a chunking of one space via the distributive operator ( multiplication) ... And the story seems to end abruptly there! No 3rd operator for 3 dimensions .. No 4th operator for 4 dimensions, etc ... For myself, it suggests that there is something perceptually *lacking* .. *misunderstood* ... concerning euclidean space. Cordially, Raving |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.