Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How do creationists explain stars?
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 211 of 297 (328261)
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Q&A
Did god speed up the speed of light for a few days? If most creationists believe the world was created relatvively recently ~6000 years ago, how did the light from stars reach earth?
This argument has probably been the most detrimental to YEC thought. Its one that I've considered many times over and have sought the instruction of qualified astronomers in understanding how they determine stellar distance. The first line of questioning included how we know the distance of stars at all. I thought of it in the same vein as if you were looking at a photo of a bird. Lets say the bird is pictured with nothing else other than the sky as its background. Supposing that you didn't know what type of bird it was, could you determine that it was a picture of a small bird, close up, or the picture of a large bird, far away? Its kind of like in evidence photos when the police use a coin or a pencil placed next to evidence to give the viewer a sense of size by comparing relationally next to the piece of said evidence.
What about stars? Is it like looking off in the horizon and trying to determine if a large island is 100 miles away or a small island 20 miles away? So I began to investigate. What I'd discovered was that lightyears are not a measurement of time, but of distance. I was informed that our sun is estimated to be 24 trillion miles away and that it takes 8 minutes for the suns' heat to reach the surface of the earth. So if the closest star is 24 trillion miles away and it takes 8 minutes for its light/heat to reach us, how far away are these other stars that it should take, say, 100,000,000 lightyears to reach us? I mean, lets think about that for a minute. That's astronomical. If something was that far away, wouldn't space at some point envelope the light that it would't reach us at all? To me that's like supposing if a submarine was several hundred fathoms below us, that if we shown a light from the surface of the water, that they would eventually see that light. But doesn't the darkness of the deep water envelope the light? Obviously it does because the sun never shines in the Marianna's Trench.
Maybe it does take light millions of years to reach us and perhaps light travelled faster in the distant past. It was Barry Setterfield and Halton Arp that produced a model to support the theory that light did in fact travel faster in the past. It was believed that such great speed would affect radiometric dating and even have caused the red-shift of light from distant galaxies proposed by Hubble.
Is such a thing as light travelling faster even possible? What are the implications if it is true? Such a question is radical because it brings into question the theory of Relativity. Nonetheless, there is now ample evidence to question the paradigm that we all know. Challenging and accomplishing such a feat was the NEC Institute at Princeton University who were able to greatly exceed the standard of 186,171 mps.
Home – Physics World
As well, a team at the Rowland Institute at Harvard yielded impressive results when they were able to bring light to a crawl. Imagine seeing a beam of light in midair that has yet to illuminate the other side of the room.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
Does any of this mean tht light did in fact travel in the past? Certainly not, however, we at leaset know that it is possible, proven undeniably by two separate teams. These studies lead a legitimate inquiry into how we percieve the parallax of starlight.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2006 12:00 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 213 by cavediver, posted 07-02-2006 12:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 07-02-2006 12:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 07-02-2006 1:21 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 212 of 297 (328265)
07-02-2006 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Q&A
I very much doubt that Arp ever worked with Setterfield.
And the articles don't really offer any hope for YEC. Slowing light is easy (refraction is the result of slowing light). But you can only get an apparent speed increase under very special conditions. So where is the evidence that those conditions applied to any significant fraction of the universe in anythign like the last 6000 years ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2006 11:05 AM PaulK has replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 213 of 297 (328268)
07-02-2006 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Q&A
was informed that our sun is estimated to be 24 trillion miles away
No, the Sun is 93 million miles away (averaged over the year, as our elliptic orbit continually changes the distance).
and that it takes 8 minutes for the suns' heat to reach the surface of the earth
I'd say light, not heat, as it is the light that carries the heat (in a real bastardisation of the terminology) but yes, 8 minutes.
So if the closest star is 24 trillion miles away
Ok, the Sun is 93 million light years away. The next closest star, Proxima Centauri, is 4.3 light years away. Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second (don't you just love these Imperial units!). So 4.3 x 365 x 24 x 60 x 60 x 186,000 = number of miles = 25 trillion miles. But this is 4.3 light YEARS away, not 8 light MINUTES !!
how far away are these other stars that it should take, say, 100,000,000 lightyears to reach us?
A light year is a distance remember, so you mean "100,000,000 years to reach us". 100 million light years is a long long way outside our Galaxy. Our sister galaxy, Andromeda, is only 2.2 million light years away. The stars we see at night are typically from 10s to 1000s of light years away, all contained within our own Galaxy. The Galaxy is rougly 100,000 light years across, but we can't see too far through it becasue of dust, although we can use infrared, radio and x-rays to see further.
Does any of this mean tht light did in fact travel in the past? Certainly not, however, we at leaset know that it is possible, proven undeniably by two separate teams.
No. Despite the popularisations of these experiments, they have NOTHING to do with "c" the true speed of light. The experiments are certainly interesting, and in the latter case extremely useful, but they have nothing to do with the speed of light. They deal with the speed of phases of light, which is a wholly different thing.
These studies lead a legitimate inquiry into how we percieve the parallax of starlight.
Not in the slightest, for the reasons mentioned above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 214 of 297 (328270)
07-02-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Q&A
What about stars? Is it like looking off in the horizon and trying to determine if a large island is 100 miles away or a small island 20 miles away?
You can measure the distance of an island by triangulation. You use surveyer's instruments to find the angle to a point on the island from two different locations on the shore. That gives you a triangle, with apex on the island, and the baseline as the straight line between the two observation points. Solve this triangle using the methods of high school trigonometry, and you have the distance to the island.
What I'd discovered was that lightyears are not a measurement of time, but of distance.
I already knew that when I was in elementary school.
The distance to the sun is also measured by triangulation. You do need a larger baseline, so the measurements are made from points on earth that are a large distance from one another.
The nearer stars are measured by triangulation, using the axis of the earth as a baseline. You can measure the angle to that star at two different times, 6 months apart. For more distant stars other methods are needed, but I'll omit the details for now. You can find them described in other threads in this forum.
The long and short of this, is that the great distances to stars are real. Astronomers are not making this up, and are not merely guessing.
Challenging and accomplishing such a feat was the NEC Institute at Princeton University who were able to greatly exceed the standard of 186,171 mps.
Home – Physics World
That report is about group velocity. It is well known that group velocity can exceed the velocity of light, and this does not challenge any of our physics. Nor does it challenge the theory of relativity.
As well, a team at the Rowland Institute at Harvard yielded impressive results when they were able to bring light to a crawl. Imagine seeing a beam of light in midair that has yet to illuminate the other side of the room.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
There is nothing new in the idea that light can travel more slowly, although the particular research did show how to slow it down far more than had previously been achieved. The way a camera lens works already depends on light slowing down as it passes through the lens, and this has been known since well before the theory of relativity was formulated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 07-03-2006 2:36 AM nwr has not replied
 Message 225 by johnfolton, posted 07-05-2006 2:09 AM nwr has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 215 of 297 (328279)
07-02-2006 1:21 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Hyroglyphx
07-02-2006 11:45 AM


Re: Q&A
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
So I began to investigate. What I'd discovered was that lightyears are not a measurement of time, but of distance.
Because light travels at a constant speed in a vacuum, a light year is a measure of both time and distance.
I was informed that our sun is estimated to be 24 trillion miles away and that it takes 8 minutes for the suns' heat to reach the surface of the earth.
Our sun is 93 million, not 24 trillion, miles away. It takes light from our sun about 8 minutes to reach us, and so it is about 8 light minutes away.
You must be thinking of the next nearest star, Alpha Centauri, which is about that distance. It's takes light from Alpha Centauri a little over 4 years to reach us, and so it is a little over 4 light years away.
If something was that far away, wouldn't space at some point envelope the light that it would't reach us at all?
In the near perfect vacuum of space there are few obstructions to block the passage of light. A light photon will travel forever until it strikes matter. For example, if you gaze up at Alpha Centauri, the light photons striking your retina are just completing a 4 year long journey.
But doesn't the darkness of the deep water envelope the light? Obviously it does because the sun never shines in the Marianna's Trench.
Unlike the vacuum of space, water is not perfectly transparent. A small percentage of light is absorbed by every meter of depth. If a half percent of the light is absorbed by each meter, guess how dark it is when you get below 200 meters. Only about 1% of sunlight reaches below 200 meters. Below 1000 meters no perceptible light penetrates. The Marianna Trench is about 11,000 meters deep - no light discernible light penetrates that deeply.
It was Barry Setterfield and Halton Arp that produced a model to support the theory that light did in fact travel faster in the past.
This information is probably incorrect. Arp's ideas about the distance of interstellar objects and about the source of the red shift are outside the scientific mainstream, but he understands physics and the importance of evidence. He would be an unlikely ally for Setterfield.
Is such a thing as light travelling faster even possible? What are the implications if it is true? Such a question is radical because it brings into question the theory of Relativity. Nonetheless, there is now ample evidence to question the paradigm that we all know. Challenging and accomplishing such a feat was the NEC Institute at Princeton University who were able to greatly exceed the standard of 186,171 mps.
Home – Physics World
You have misunderstood the article. It states in the conclusion:
"Although relativity emerges unscathed from these experiments, our understanding of exactly which velocities are limited (or not) by c continues to evolve. And even though neither energy nor information is transmitted faster than light in experiments like the one at the NEC, it has already been proposed that the effects may one day be useful in compensating propagation delays in electronic systems."
In other words, the very article you referenced contradicts your claim that "it brings into question the theory of Relativity."
As well, a team at the Rowland Institute at Harvard yielded impressive results when they were able to bring light to a crawl. Imagine seeing a beam of light in midair that has yet to illuminate the other side of the room.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000084.html
This article does not make clear that the speed of light is not actually slower in a refractive material. For example, photons in glass do not travel more slowly. The speed of light remains precisely the same, it is just that it takes time for photons to be absorbed and retransmitted, and that extra time is what makes the light appear to travel more slowly. But with few exceptions, the light emerging from the other side of glass consists of different photons from the ones that entered.
Does any of this mean tht light did in fact travel [at different speeds] in the past? Certainly not, however, we at leaset know that it is possible, proven undeniably by two separate teams.
You are correct that these studies don't indicate that light speeds used to be different than today, but for the wrong reasons. You misunderstood the first study, and since there's no evidence that the vacuum of space is actually a Bose-Einstein condensate, the second study isn't relevant. Additionally, there's no convincing evidence that light ever traveled at significantly different speeds in the past.
These studies lead a legitimate inquiry into how we percieve the parallax of starlight.
Parallax is how we measure the distance to nearby interstellar objects like Alpha Centauri. It's a geometric measurement that has nothing to do with the speed of light.
When you think you've found articles claiming that relativity has been overturned or that long established constants like the speed of light have been found to be highly variable, you can usually assume the articles are incorrect or misunderstood.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-02-2006 11:45 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-02-2006 2:52 PM Percy has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 216 of 297 (328289)
07-02-2006 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Percy
07-02-2006 1:21 PM


Light absorbtion and retransmission
Percy writes:
This article does not make clear that the speed of light is not actually slower in a refractive material. For example, photons in glass do not travel more slowly. The speed of light remains precisely the same, it is just that it takes time for photons to be absorbed and retransmitted, and that extra time is what makes the light appear to travel more slowly. But with few exceptions, the light emerging from the other side of glass consists of different photons from the ones that entered.
Wow - Some heavy enlightenment (no pun intended).
You have a reference for futher reading on that?
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Percy, posted 07-02-2006 1:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Percy, posted 07-02-2006 4:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 217 of 297 (328308)
07-02-2006 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Minnemooseus
07-02-2006 2:52 PM


Re: Light absorbtion and retransmission
Moose writes:
You have a reference for futher reading on that?
This is from Wikipedia's article on the speed of light, the subsection titled Interaction with transparent materials:
Note that the speed of light referred to is the observed or measured speed in some medium and not the true speed of light (as observed in vacuum). On the microscopic scale, considering electromagnetic radiation to be like a particle, refraction is caused by continual absorption and re-emission (not necessarily in quite the same direction) of the photons that compose the light by the atoms or molecules through which it is passing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Minnemooseus, posted 07-02-2006 2:52 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 218 of 297 (328397)
07-03-2006 2:36 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by nwr
07-02-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Q&A
Is the Bell phenomenom an example of faster than light communication? If the photon travels at the speed of light then is quantum entanglement communication happening at faster than light? If not why?
They make a barrier to photons (called a wave quide) yet information is recieved through the barrier. Has photons actually crossed over the barrier or is this another example suggestive of quantum entanglement (ftl) communication? Like the Bell slits allowing only a photon to pass through yet by all appearances suggestive of photons communicating with photons on the other side though faster than light communication.
*** response source
This subtle but crucial distinction makes all the difference between a faster-than-light or "FTL" transmitter--what author Ursula K. LeGuin called an "ansible"--and a laboratory curiosity. Still, this experiment--a real shocker in its day, and still cutting-edge these 40 years later--proved for the first time that quantum entanglement was a physical phenomenon with bona fide FTL implications.
The same trick works for photons; with a device called a waveguide, it's rather easy to create barriers across which microwave photons are incapable of traveling. But some small fraction of the photons can tunnel across it, appearing suddenly on the other side as if by magic.
voidspace.org.uk
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 07-02-2006 12:12 PM nwr has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2006 3:26 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 07-03-2006 7:29 AM johnfolton has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 219 of 297 (328401)
07-03-2006 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by johnfolton
07-03-2006 2:36 AM


Re: Q&A
Is the Bell phenomenom an example of faster than light communication
No, absolutely not
If the photon travels at the speed of light then is quantum entanglement communication happening at faster than light?
There is no communication in quantum entanglement. It is a phenomenon based purely upon the non-local nature of wavefunctions.
They make a barrier to photons (called a wave quide) yet information is recieved through the barrier. Has photons actually crossed over the barrier or is this another example suggestive of quantum entanglement (ftl) communication?
It is a phenomenon based purely upon the non-local nature of wavefunctions.
proved for the first time that quantum entanglement was a physical phenomenon with bona fide FTL implications.
Only in the minds of those not familiar with quantum mechanics.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 07-03-2006 2:36 AM johnfolton has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 220 of 297 (328459)
07-03-2006 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by johnfolton
07-03-2006 2:36 AM


Re: Q&A
Cavediver's response provided the correct answers but little explanations, but unless this inquiry can be tied directly into the topic (creationist explanations for the light from distant stars) it probably should be taken up in a different thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by johnfolton, posted 07-03-2006 2:36 AM johnfolton has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by cavediver, posted 07-03-2006 7:54 AM Percy has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 221 of 297 (328464)
07-03-2006 7:54 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Percy
07-03-2006 7:29 AM


Re: Q&A
Cavediver's response provided the correct answers but little explanations
because...
it probably should be taken up in a different thread

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Percy, posted 07-03-2006 7:29 AM Percy has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 297 (328725)
07-04-2006 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by PaulK
07-02-2006 12:00 PM


Re: Q&A
I very much doubt that Arp ever worked with Setterfield.
I named two fairly mainstream dissenters of the Big Bang theory. My reasoning for mentioning it had to do with this one small aspect and not a collaborative effort on their parts. Others include a theory that light travelled faster because of the Big Bang, such as John Moffat and Joao Magueijo.
And the articles don't really offer any hope for YEC. Slowing light is easy (refraction is the result of slowing light).
Slowing a beam of light to a crawl is easy? We aren't talking about refracting light waves, we are talking about a beam of light. Imagine someone turning on a flashlight and the beam of light has not hit the opposing wall. I think that is a significant experiment that yielded some impressive results.
But you can only get an apparent speed increase under very special conditions. So where is the evidence that those conditions applied to any significant fraction of the universe in anythign like the last 6000 years?
There is no direct evidence that it ever happened. It is still very much alive only in the annals of theoretical physics. What is no longer theoretical is that light can travel faster or slower than what was previously believed as impossible. I'm merely showing that it is possible to speed and slow light. If it was an impossible task, then there would be no naturalistic reason to believe that it was even an entertainable notion. But the two experiments have succesfully been able to defy upheld paradigms of the past.
Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : No reason given.

“Always be ready to give a defense to
everyone who asks you a reason for the
hope that is in you.”
-1st Peter 3:15

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 07-02-2006 12:00 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2006 11:39 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 224 by Percy, posted 07-04-2006 11:44 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 223 of 297 (328732)
07-04-2006 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Q&A
Arp isn't mainstream. But at least he's got claims to be a scientific dissenter from he mainstream view (even if the evidence is against him) - Setterfield doesn't even have that - he's a YEC apologist.
As to the rest, I stated only that slowing light down is easy - not slowing light to a crawl. Not that that would help you. You need light to be speeded up by several orders of magnitude.
quote:
There is no direct evidence that it ever happened. It is still very much alive only in the annals of theoretical physics
I am not sure that even Maguejiro's work is "still alive" as you put it. However it is no help for you since it postulates a relatively small increase far too long ago to help YEC views. And nothing closer to what you want could be considered "alive".
quote:
I'm merely showing that it is possible to speed and slow light.
But those experiments do not show that either is possible under the conditions we observe. And they are in accord with mainstream theory which says that it is not possible to speed up light in the conditions we observe. So you really don't have a case here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2006 11:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 224 of 297 (328733)
07-04-2006 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2006 11:05 AM


Re: Q&A
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
What is no longer theoretical is that light can travel faster or slower than what was previously believed as impossible. I'm merely showing that it is possible to speed and slow light.
As I already explained in Message 215, this is about the speeding up of light:
Percy writes:
You have misunderstood the article. It states in the conclusion:
"Although relativity emerges unscathed from these experiments, our understanding of exactly which velocities are limited (or not) by c continues to evolve. And even though neither energy nor information is transmitted faster than light in experiments like the one at the NEC, it has already been proposed that the effects may one day be useful in compensating propagation delays in electronic systems."
And about the slowing of light:
Percy writes:
This article does not make clear that the speed of light is not actually slower in a refractive material. For example, photons in glass do not travel more slowly. The speed of light remains precisely the same, it is just that it takes time for photons to be absorbed and retransmitted, and that extra time is what makes the light appear to travel more slowly. But with few exceptions, the light emerging from the other side of glass consists of different photons from the ones that entered.
There are probably very few scientific theories which are accepted by 100% of the members of the scientific community. Relativity continues to be challenged. The big bang continues to be challenged. Particle physics theory (usually called the standard model) in particular is being challenged every which way. There are always scientists or groups of scientists challenging significant aspects of accepted theory, but to conclude that this indicates that accepted theory has already been invalidated would be a profound error.
No one here who understands science would claim that today's scientific theories will forever stand the test of time. Scientific theories are tentative, and it would be unscientific to claim that some theory will never be overturned. But we can only argue from the position of what we know today based upon experiment, observation, evidence and thinking, and what we know today is that the speed of light is inviolate as far as the transmission of information, and that no observer will ever observe light as traveling at anything other than c.
So if you want to argue that someday we'll find out different, all we can say is that perhaps you're right. But if you want to argue that we've already found out different then you're dead wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2006 11:05 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

johnfolton 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5591 days)
Posts: 2024
Joined: 12-04-2005


Message 225 of 297 (328869)
07-05-2006 2:09 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by nwr
07-02-2006 12:12 PM


Re: Q&A
If the pulse width increased 1 fiftieth yet the returning edge was slower, why can it not be interpreted as light increasing 300 times its speed. All they seem to be saying is that within group velocities its speed increased due to the width of the leading pulse then they say its not increasing its speed beyond light speed.
How are they measuring the pulse returning in respect to speed? It just seems to me that light pulse speed has increased due to the returning pulse speed and that its is just a matter of interpretation?
Like in the group velocities if light is slowing upon its return then the starlight entering our solar system could be slowing dramatically as it runs into resistance of the solar winds of the sun energies rushing outward. We might actually be seeing a young not old universe based on just the width of the light waves increasing not decreasing in space.
Meaning: Upon leaving our solar system "if" our suns pulse width increases 80% then 40 times 300 = 12,000 times the speed of light. Just based off interpretations based off the pulse width increase of 1 fifteeth increased 80%. If the photons are not actually particles but a part of the wavefunction would they too be able to unwind once outside the solar system?
****resource article:
The faster-than-light propagation occurs because the pump beams preferentially amplify the leading edge of the incident pulse, lending power to the signal and being repaid by absorbing some of the energy in its trailing edge. (It is important to note that even the dramatic 60 ns advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse.) This is exactly analogous to the intuitive explanation of normal dispersion, except that in this case the atoms temporarily amplify the light pulse rather than absorb it.
What is shocking is that such an effect has been observed for the first time without a great deal of attenuation, amplification or distortion of the pulse. It appears as though energy has, in fact, travelled faster than light.
Home – Physics World
Edited by johnfolton, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by nwr, posted 07-02-2006 12:12 PM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by nwr, posted 07-05-2006 2:24 AM johnfolton has not replied
 Message 227 by Percy, posted 07-05-2006 8:17 AM johnfolton has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024