Talk:Light stopped for over a second

wow, that's amazing. what does it all mean? is there some sort of vacuum if they stop light? i'm baffled. good story! ClareWhite 17:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If a scince "story" leaves you baffled, it's not a GOOD science story 195.92.40.49 16:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

not first-hand journalism

I don't think this story meets the wiki standard for first-hand journalism; I see nothing here that was not printed elsewhere.

Where?

Also, I'm very annoyed by thw "wiki-centric" linking done in this article. In reading this article, you search in vain for links to corroborating websites - the link to the journal site is useless, since it doesn't even lead to an abstract about the material.

I think that this article was cobbled together from various other sources (which I googled); how else was the article written? What kind of reporter fails to cite even one honest source?

It was written by a reporter who read the paper, which was just published in Physical Review Letters.

You did check Stopped Light with Storage Times Greater than One Second Using Electromagnetically Induced Transparency in a Solid and notice the PDF report which can be purchased. I googled it too, I see nothing in this article that is available elsewhere in print. Could the anonymous post above please provide other source information? -Edbrown05 04:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Where's the beef? Or is it all gripe? -Edbrown05 04:43, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Aiyee.

I don't have the time to clean up this article at the moment, but there are two grievous errors that necessitate pointing out:

• The speed of light is never stopped, it's a constant. It doesn't stop or change it's value at the whim of scientists.

Actually scientists can change the speed of light, and have brought it to a stop before, just not this long. Light speed is constant, and equal to 186,000 miles per second, only in a vacuum.

• The previous test lasted in terms of milliseconds, i.e.: between .0009 to .0099 seconds, one second is not "over a thousand times" longer. It's more likely between 10 (nobody uses centiseconds) and 1000 times longer.

If the previous test was measured in milliseconds, and this one is measured in seconds, it is indeed a factor of a thousand longer.

Try to avoid sensationalizing scientific articles, and keep to facts that can be demonstrated by simply fact-checking the article against it's own contents and a reasonable amount of scientific knowledge. If ever c changes, I'm sure it'll make headline news.Usurper 12:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

"C" is the speed of light in a vacuum. The speed of light is less than c in water, air, glass, and the experiment reported in this article.

For crying out loud, put down the coffee cup and get human.

Take a look at this paper. I don't claim to understand this thing except for a few sentences but the paper does describe the very same method that the researchers mentioned in the article use and suggests that things like those described in the article are very well possible. That paper was written by Lene Hau and if you take a look at her Wikipedia entry you'll notice that they too talk about stopping light. --Deprifry 17:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

And I don't understand it either, but from Deprifry source above, it sounds like light is only captured. Upon its release, does it again travel at light speed?

Yep

I'm in it now, so here goes, if you stop the travel of light, what did you do to it. Change or destroy it? If it is changed or destroyed, then what is it then?

it is stopped and stored for a second or more, then released.

If the stopped light remains still fundamentally unchanged, then you can release it, possibly redirect it someplace else, maybe even add something to it.

Yep, all-optical RAM.

I think it travels at all times at "light speed" (c) since c decreases with increasing optical density. For example c has 299.792.458 m/s in vacuum but only about 225.000.000 m/s in water. From what I understand they exposed light to a media with extreme optical density thus reducing the speed of light there to near zero. --Deprifry 18:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

No matter the science, you don't "stop speed". That's semantically incorrect, and it grates on my ears. Edit: looks like it got moved - good title -- Phyzome is Tim McCormack 21:08, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Breaking the speed limit?

Didn't scientists actually accelerate light past 186,000 Miles/Second a few years back? I seem remember reading something about firing a laser through a gas made of cesium ions and the light actually arrived faster then it should have. If I can find the article I'll post a link here, but I remember the headline being something like:

"Is nothing sacred?" and "Einstien was wrong"

This article might interested you --Deprifry 14:53, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It would be kickin rad to have light capacitors that build a charge for later release.

"Slow Glass"

This is exaclty the sort of thing that Bob Shaw anticipated in one of his books (can't remember the title) where you could buy "slow glass" (the slower it was, the more expensive to buy). So you would look out of your living room window and see what was out there 5 minutes or 1 year ago. Then "glass farms" developed which sat "slow glass" window panes in picturesque ir interesting locations for extended periods, so you could buy a "live" view of the grand canyon or times square from a year ago.

Of course, with better and better lcd and plasms screens, you could almost do that now, except that the view wouldn't be 3D ! 195.92.40.49 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)