Started By
Message

Mind Blown: E=M?^2

Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:45 pm
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:45 pm
"C" may not be so "C" anymore ....

LINK

Could be an interesting year for relativity.
Posted by KSGamecock
The Woodlands, TX
Member since May 2012
22982 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:48 pm to
Nerd board
Posted by Stacked
Member since Apr 2012
5675 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:49 pm to
Yeah frick you nerd. Hahahaha, right?
Posted by KSGamecock
The Woodlands, TX
Member since May 2012
22982 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:50 pm to
U rite
Posted by CheeseburgerEddie
Crimson Tide Fan Club
Member since Oct 2012
15574 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:53 pm to
E could still equal mc^2
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 8:59 pm to
Yes, but "C" becomes a standard velocity (299,792,458 m/s) rather than a natural constant. To me, that's a significant adjustment to special relativity.
Posted by CheeseburgerEddie
Crimson Tide Fan Club
Member since Oct 2012
15574 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:14 pm to
I'm not able to hold a worthwhile conversation in that regard with you. I can do math and have dabbled in some physics.
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:17 pm to
quote:

I'm not able to hold a worthwhile conversation in that regard with you. I can do math and have dabbled in some physics.


I bet you could - I bet you could do a lot more than you think can.
Posted by CheeseburgerEddie
Crimson Tide Fan Club
Member since Oct 2012
15574 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:20 pm to
Haha no I could, I did a bunch of shite that involved upper level physics in my courses. But feel free to help me out.

Before this did they not view c as a constant? Or what was the implication of it being a natural constant as I believe you put it.
Posted by CatFan81
Decatur, GA
Member since May 2009
47188 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:25 pm to
What the frick is this thread about?
Posted by CheeseburgerEddie
Crimson Tide Fan Club
Member since Oct 2012
15574 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:31 pm to
So is light is no longer a constant, it varies depending on the shape of the photons?
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:35 pm to
Special Relativity depends on the speed of light always being the speed of light. The "constant" suggests to us that the law is the law - that the mass-energy equivalence is something we can hang our natural law hat on. If the constant becomes not-so-consistent, then there are some things to rethink. I'm still wrapping my head around it.
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:36 pm to
quote:

So is light is no longer a constant, it varies depending on the shape of the photons?



I'm really not sure. In air, something like "shape" can change surface area which alters friction and, thus, velocity ... but in a vacuum. Again, getting my head around it.
Posted by PepaSpray
Adamantium Membership
Member since Aug 2012
11080 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:38 pm to
Well weve known that light can be bent by gravity, but we haven't known how to bend light to our will, until now. Interesting...
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:41 pm to
quote:

Well weve known that light can be bent by gravity, but we haven't known how to bend light to our will, until now. Interesting..


Bent, yes. Slowed, no.

(but, you are getting into my physics wheelhouse - gravitational lensing is an interest of mine)
Posted by CatFan81
Decatur, GA
Member since May 2009
47188 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:42 pm to
Yep. I give up.

Go Jackets. frick trying to understand science.
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:51 pm to
Thanks for the link. I seem to remember reading about this experiment somewhere else. IIRC the two photons would be only 5 seconds apart if they raced across the entirety of the Universe.

While that's an incredibly small difference, it does indicate that the speed of light can be altered and the implications are profound.

One aspect of the photons was not clear. Were they entangled in the experiment? If so, I would think both would be slower than the constant when projected back into free space.
Posted by JacketFan77
Tiger, GA
Member since Nov 2012
2554 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 9:54 pm to
The "race" is just a simulation. The photons were fired in separately - one in a simple vacuum and one in a vacuum through the "filter".
Posted by Kentucker
Cincinnati, KY
Member since Apr 2013
19351 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:14 pm to
Here's a link to Science Express, the magazine that first published the paper about the experiment. Is this where you read the article?

I'm going to purchase the PDF and read it tomorrow. It's fascinating.

Here's the abstract:

That the speed of light in free space is constant is a cornerstone of modern physics. However, light beams have finite transverse size, which leads to a modification of their wavevectors resulting in a change to their phase and group velocities. We study the group velocity of single photons by measuring a change in their arrival time that results from changing the beam’s transverse spatial structure. Using time-correlated photon pairs we show a reduction of the group velocity of photons in both a Bessel beam and photons in a focused Gaussian beam. In both cases, the delay is several micrometers over a propagation distance of the order of 1 m. Our work highlights that, even in free space, the invariance of the speed of light only applies to plane waves.
Posted by StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Member since Sep 2013
21146 posts
Posted on 1/24/15 at 10:19 pm to
You sonsabitches need to save this kind of crap for Monday.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow SECRant for SEC Football News
Follow us on Twitter and Facebook to get the latest updates on SEC Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitter