You are obsessed with copies of Razzle and hedgerows
..you had to know which hedgerows to look under, apparently
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:47, Share, Reply)
..you had to know which hedgerows to look under, apparently
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:47, Share, Reply)
*Whacks fluffybunnykiller with spade, fills in shallow grave and runs off with Razzle.*
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 23:21, Share, Reply)
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 23:21, Share, Reply)
Is this going to be like when CERN scientists broke the speed of light...
...only to find there was a wiring fault in the experiment?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:15, Share, Reply)
...only to find there was a wiring fault in the experiment?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:15, Share, Reply)
Not to piss in your cornflakes or anything,
but I wouldn't get that excited yet. The last time someone announced such a result it turned out that they hadn't connected the equipment up properly.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:17, Share, Reply)
but I wouldn't get that excited yet. The last time someone announced such a result it turned out that they hadn't connected the equipment up properly.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:17, Share, Reply)
Dunno
Have you noticed these new fangled light bulbs? They take ages to light up properly.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:20, Share, Reply)
Have you noticed these new fangled light bulbs? They take ages to light up properly.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:20, Share, Reply)
Maybe that's the flaw in the experiment?
Did someone replace one of the bulbs with a low-energy one?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:23, Share, Reply)
Did someone replace one of the bulbs with a low-energy one?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:23, Share, Reply)
You've got the wrong new-fangled light bulbs
The new new-fangled light bulbs come on instataneously.
But they're fearsome expensive.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:48, Share, Reply)
The new new-fangled light bulbs come on instataneously.
But they're fearsome expensive.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:48, Share, Reply)
Mine are so fast
They come on fractionally before I flick the switch.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 21:29, Share, Reply)
They come on fractionally before I flick the switch.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 21:29, Share, Reply)
It's never been a constant
unless you mean the speed of light in vacuum. Light slows down when passing though water, gas etc - that's how we get refraction.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:19, Share, Reply)
unless you mean the speed of light in vacuum. Light slows down when passing though water, gas etc - that's how we get refraction.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:19, Share, Reply)
True but once free of the medium it's passing through it normal speeds up again
These guys claim that once free of the mask it doesn't speed up again and remains slower than the constant even in a vacuum.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:28, Share, Reply)
These guys claim that once free of the mask it doesn't speed up again and remains slower than the constant even in a vacuum.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:28, Share, Reply)
We've only got a vax, it looks like a bit like a dyson though, will that do?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:46, Share, Reply)
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:46, Share, Reply)
30mph in frozen sodium
this is kind of different though because its been seen to not speed up after its been slowed down
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 17:14, Share, Reply)
this is kind of different though because its been seen to not speed up after its been slowed down
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 17:14, Share, Reply)
Its never been a constant
Hence prismatic refraction etc. What you're talking about is the speed of light in a vacuum.
Edit: damn, Joe beat me to it by seconds
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:20, Share, Reply)
Hence prismatic refraction etc. What you're talking about is the speed of light in a vacuum.
Edit: damn, Joe beat me to it by seconds
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:20, Share, Reply)
I haven't read the paper
but the summaries on popular news sites suggest that the "slowing down" is just the lights wavefunction taking a longer optical path due to being diffracted and reappearing on it's original path due to constructive interference.
I could be utterly wrong though.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:28, Share, Reply)
but the summaries on popular news sites suggest that the "slowing down" is just the lights wavefunction taking a longer optical path due to being diffracted and reappearing on it's original path due to constructive interference.
I could be utterly wrong though.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:28, Share, Reply)
That's passing through a medium other than a vacuum
You can actually get it down to 38 mph by passing it through cold sodium atoms.
Once passed the medium it speeds up again to the constant for whatever medium it's in.
The point is that these guys are claiming to slow it down permanently.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:33, Share, Reply)
You can actually get it down to 38 mph by passing it through cold sodium atoms.
Once passed the medium it speeds up again to the constant for whatever medium it's in.
The point is that these guys are claiming to slow it down permanently.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:33, Share, Reply)
Where did I mention media?
I'm talking about optical path lengths here.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:38, Share, Reply)
I'm talking about optical path lengths here.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:38, Share, Reply)
If I'm reading it right it's a diffraction effect
they have a ring shaped slot, the photon (wavelike) goes through the entire slot and creates a diffraction pattern on the other side. This interferes so the maximum probability of finding it is still on its original path.
When you measure it it acts like a particle so it is only in one place and that place is probably on the line it was going down initially, but because it has had to go through the bullseye ring it has actually covered more distance than it would if it had gone in a straight line, so it seems to be going slower.
But as I said, I haven't read the paper yet so I could be wrong. This is just what I remember from my nearly 20 year old uni quantum mechanics and optics.
Got to run now. I will see if I can get a chance to actually read it over the weekend.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 17:02, Share, Reply)
they have a ring shaped slot, the photon (wavelike) goes through the entire slot and creates a diffraction pattern on the other side. This interferes so the maximum probability of finding it is still on its original path.
When you measure it it acts like a particle so it is only in one place and that place is probably on the line it was going down initially, but because it has had to go through the bullseye ring it has actually covered more distance than it would if it had gone in a straight line, so it seems to be going slower.
But as I said, I haven't read the paper yet so I could be wrong. This is just what I remember from my nearly 20 year old uni quantum mechanics and optics.
Got to run now. I will see if I can get a chance to actually read it over the weekend.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 17:02, Share, Reply)
Some will heat the brick up by an infinitesimal amount
the rest gets scattered, which is why you see it.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:52, Share, Reply)
the rest gets scattered, which is why you see it.
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:52, Share, Reply)
Is it slowed down permanently or did they just give the other ray of light a bit of a headstart?
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:46, Share, Reply)
( , Fri 23 Jan 2015, 16:46, Share, Reply)