Light stopped in its tracks.
S D Rodrian
jke...@world.std.com (Jeff Kenton) wrote:
> I heard an interview with the experimenters.
> They were much clearer
> about their experiment than the article.
>
> What they did was to stop the beam
>(absorb it in ultra cold atoms) and
> capture the state of the beam (somehow)
> in the atomic spins. A laser
> pulse would then trigger the
> regeneration of an identical beam.
I believe that's what the article said.
> They did not (cannot) slow down
> the photons to zero speed.
No one can do that! The laws of conservation
of energy (and Newton's laws of motions)
could have told you that centuries ago!
What they did, in effect, was to "conserve"
the "motions" of the photon (its energy) IN
your atoms' "spin." (This degrades quickly
but not quickly enough to prevent them from
"reconstituting" the photon (take the photon's
energy/motion(s) from the atoms and
"conserve" it back into the photon again).
In effect, what they proved is that the universe
is made up of a relativistic jumble of motions,
some speeding up while others are slowing down
... and that no motion speeds up without some
other motion/s slowing down & vice versa.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
re:
> = Jeff Kenton
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> S D Rodrian wrote:
> >
> > In effect, what they proved is that the universe
> > is made up of a relativistic jumble of motions,
> > some speeding up while others are slowing down
> > ... and that no motion speeds up without some
> > other motion/s slowing down & vice versa.
>
> up his spin by drawing in his arms?
> Angular momentum is conserved.
Not quite. Have you ever seen a kid rolling
a hoop down the street by hand-slapping it?
Note that the kid is forced to give the hoop
more than just one single slap (as the hoop's
slap-acquired energy is quickly lost to
friction(s)... and has to be continually re-
energized). Have you noticed that your skater
spins faster for ONLY a very brief time? Well,
there are no perpetual motion systems anywhere
IN the universe... and the reason is that the
only way for one motion to speed up is for
some other motion(s) to slow down as the latter
slowing motion(s) "conserve" their energy in
the former speeding up motion. And the crucial
point here is that the conserved energy/motion
is in eternal commute between those discrete
and individual gravitational systems we know
as "the forms of matter" ... NEVER to make a
permanent home in any single one of them. [See:
The usual Laws of Thermodynamics AND Newton's
gravitational/laws of motion.] If it were otherwise
this wouldn't be a relativistic reality/universe.
S D Rodrian
web.sdrodrian.com
sdrodrian.com
>
> Bob Kolker
S D Rodrian
> > some other motion(s) to slow down <bigger snip>
>
> Excuse the severe editing (because it does
> not reflect the overall point
> you were making) but this is not
> accurate... perhaps it's just a 'slip
> of the mind' and perfectly understandable
> but if in a closed system
> something speeds up it could be that
> something sped up in the opposite
> direction by the same amount. Just
> like the skater pulling in his arms,
> one side of his body goes faster in one
> direction and the other goes
> faster in the opposite. That's
> what the conservation of angular
> momentum is all about.
When the skater pulls her arms in
she goes from a slow/large motion to
a smaller/tighter BUT faster motion
(all frictions aside). This, I'm afraid,
is an unbreakable law (of physics) here
IN our universe: All friction(s) aside,
a rolling wheel will NEVER speed up
unless/until some force/person rubs up
(pushes it) against it. And, likewise,
it will NEVER slow down unless/until it
rubs up (it pushes) against something else
... be "that" the ground it's rolling over,
or the atmosphere it's rolling through, or
but only the naked force of gravity. --Newton
"the only way for one motion to speed up is for
some other motion(s) to slow down" (and the
exact opposite truth is just as true). --SDR
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
S D Rodrian
"Ool" <ulrich.sc...@t-online.de> wrote:
> "S D Rodrian" <SDRo...@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:9505g9$upv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > In article <94t2ni$dsn$00$1...@news.t-online.com>,
> > "Ool" <ulrich.sc...@t-online.de> wrote:
> > > "S D Rodent" <the...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> > news:9487a4$bu8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> > > > To quote S D Rodrian:
> > > > http://web.sdrodrian.com
>
> > > > "... In reality what they did
> > > > was to "pressure" the photon
> > > > into such proximity with the
> > > > gas atoms that they were
> > > > captured gravitationally:
>
> > > Erm...
>
> > > Wouldn't that make the atom a black hole?
>
> > Dear Erm... NOR will the collapsing Sun
> > become a black hole some 4.8 billion years from now:
> > It just doesn't have enough of what it takes.
>
> No, what I meant was: Wouldn't
> something have to be a black hole in
> order to be able to stop
> light dead *gravitationally?*
Again: Nor do you need white bread to spread
peanut butter: The reason "light" cannot escape
from a black hole is because it is "pulled" by
gravity--So, therefore, ANY gravity that "pulls"
hard enough on "light" will stop it. [You don't
need a black hole to "stop light" ... all you need
is "its" same-strength force of gravity: If you're
familiar with Newton's laws of gravitation, well
then you might've heard that as the distance
between two bodies increases, the strength of
gravity between them is inversely proportional
to the square of the distance (e.g. the surface
area of a sphere is directly proportional to the
square of its radius... so that if a sphere has 3
times the radius of another sphere, it has nine
times the surface area). Basically, what all this
solid geometry-speak boils down to, gravitationally-
speaking, is that, in proportion to their sizes, two
larger spheres are "closer" to each other than two
smaller spheres when they're standing an absolutely
fixed distance from each other (such as "one inch")
because gravity is much more "interested in" the
proximity of their surface areas than in their size.]
This neatly resolves the matter of what folk have
traditionally defined as "forces other than gravity."
And explains why the "theoretical" microscopic
black hole (one infinitesimally tiny or so) might
in all probability pass right through the entire length
of our otherwise very solid planet and emerge without
ever having so much as "sucked in" a single one of
our planet's atoms: It just could never get close
enough to ANY of them to interact gravitationally
with it (especially if it's passing by REALLY fast).
> The other explanation elsewhere in
> the thread--that the energy state
> is merely captured in the electrons' spin
> and then re-released at ex-
> actly the same wavelength in
> the same direction it would have taken
> before (in relation to the material
> that it was captured in if I got
> that right)--made more sense.
Kudos to you then, if you managed to understand
"the correct explanation" without my elucidation
(as Jesse Jackson might say): I am merely giving
THE fundamental reason behind the superficial
descriptions offered by the researchers who
accomplished the marvelous feat... more often than
not there is yet a much profounder truth behind the
truths that glitter.