A question about light speed.

If you slow light down from light speed to walking speed, you'll see its really just a guy in a gorilla suit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Midnight Walker

Does that answer your question?

(Citation; My A-Levels in Physics, and AQP (Advancing Quantum Physics), respectively)

---

If you'd actually read through the thread, then you'd realize that we've been down this path about five seperate times. Every time we've come across this same problem:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rota

But, the example I gave earlier about the route between two cities... Does refraction truly slow down the light? or just detour it? Is light still moving at the same speed, but taking a longer route to get to it's destination (thus it only "appears" to go slower)?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

If you'd actually read through the thread, then you'd realize that we've been down this path about five seperate times. Every time we've come across this same problem:

---

And if you'd care to drop the high and mighty persona, we'll continue.

Light travelling through a medium is not 'detoured' but slowed down.

If you subscribe to the quantum theory of light, you'd know that light does not travel a single path, but all possible paths imaginable, and selects its' path based on a determinable probability. So if this theory of a detour was the case, then it would be a result of a probability. However due to experimentation it is shown that, despite the predicted anomalies, the prior is true.

Also explained in this theory is the law of refraction, which although is a change in direction, does not fulfil the theory that the light has taken longer because it has gone a different way, but the inverse. Refraction occurs as a part of the light wave hits the incidence of medium before another, therefore part of a beam is slowing down before another, giving the effect of an altered angle. Meaning, that light has taken a different route because it has been slowed down.

You can try and argue the opposite if you'd like, but to remind you; Much smarter men than you, the world over, throughout hundreds of years have come to this conclusion through experimentation, calculation and observation. If I were you, I'd believe them, they seem to know a thing or two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Midnight Walker

And if you'd care to drop the high and mighty persona, we'll continue.

Light travelling through a medium is not 'detoured' but slowed down.

If you subscribe to the quantum theory of light, you'd know that light does not travel a single path, but all possible paths imaginable, and selects its' path based on a determinable probability. So if this theory of a detour was the case, then it would be a result of a probability. However due to experimentation it is shown that, despite the predicted anomalies, the prior is true.

Also explained in this theory is the law of refraction, which although is a change in direction, does not fulfil the theory that the light has taken longer because it has gone a different way, but the inverse. Refraction occurs as a part of the light wave hits the incidence of medium before another, therefore part of a beam is slowing down before another, giving the effect of an altered angle. Meaning, that light has taken a different route because it has been slowed down.

You can try and argue the opposite if you'd like, but to remind you; Much smarter men than you, the world over, throughout hundreds of years have come to this conclusion through experimentation, calculation and observation. If I were you, I'd believe them, they seem to know a thing or two.

---

Now see, this explanation could have served earlier, so that your first post wouldn't have been a repeat of what has been said...

Now, not to be rude or stubborn, but I honestly haven't read anything about what you are saying. Sounds like there is something, though, so I'd much like to see it if you could find it for me. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

Now see, this explanation could have served earlier, so that your first post wouldn't have been a repeat of what has been said...

Now, not to be rude or stubborn, but I honestly haven't read anything about what you are saying. Sounds like there is something, though, so I'd much like to see it if you could find it for me. :D

---

Here is a diagram illustrating my point;

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...es/img1319.png

Found on a page detailing Snell's Law (The Law of Refraction)

Does this help?

EDIT: Thinking about it, the whole page may explain more than just the image, so here you go :)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node128.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Midnight Walker

Here is a diagram illustrating my point;



Found on a page detailing Snell's Law (The Law of Refraction)

Does this help?

EDIT: Thinking about it, the whole page may explain more than just the image, so here you go :)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teachin...s/node128.html

---

Well, I already knew how refraction worked as a general principle, but my problem was always how every explanation I've found says it slows, but then fails to explain why. What did help on that website, however, is where it said the light's wavelength decreases. If that's true, then I suppose there's no other conclusion then to say that the speed of light decreased.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bree Fletcher

Well, I already knew how refraction worked as a general principle, but my problem was always how every explanation I've found says it slows, but then fails to explain why. What did help on that website, however, is where it said the light's wavelength decreases. If that's true, then I suppose there's no other conclusion then to say that the speed of light decreased.

---

Correct. I completely forgot to mention that in my first post. Would have saved a lot of hassle. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rota

I accept the speed of light is approximately 300 million meters per second. I am willing to hear the argument that the speed of light is the "speed limit" of the universe. But, that's not what this thread is about. My question is...

Can light move slower than the speed of light?

Does a little electron of light-energy ALWAYS travel at the speed of light? Can a beam of light-energy travel at a paltry 100 million meters per second? If energy is moving slower than the speed of light, then is it no longer considered to be "light?" Is it now some other kind of radiated energy?

The speed of light is a constant (c) in many physics and math equations. But, is the speed of light constant? Or is (c) really just the maximum speed of light?

---

yes, yes you can.. it has to do with refraction or something if i remember correctly...
also light speed is a fixed speed... time is relative... so you can slow down light by slowing down time... yeah, i know.. thats cheating

This might help :)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sooria

This might help :)

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99111&page=1

---

Good find! I heard a rumour that something like this had been done, yet I found no evidence of it when I searched. Thanks, and +rep