Message Forum: Re: IIRC

Re: IIRC

Posted By: wintermute, on host 24.209.9.85
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 19:16:30
In Reply To: Re: IIRC posted by Dave on Wednesday, May 10, 2006, at 18:49:01:

> Also, nowhere in that article you linked to do I see anything about speeding UP light.

You missed the last sentence, then:
"In July, physicists in Princeton, New Jersey apparently pushed a laser pulse through a vapor of cesium atoms so it traveled faster than the conventional speed of light."

It doesn't say if they mean "the conventional speed of light in a vacuum" (serious news) or "the conventional speed of light in caesium vapour of density X" (ho hum) and, of course, there's that "apparently" that suggests that no-one's too sure if this is a real effect, or just the result of a poorly calibrated sensor.

Replies To This Message

Re: IIRC - Dave - Thu, 5/11/2006, 12:03:33
Re: IIRC - gremlinn - Wed, 5/10/2006, 19:51:00

Post a Reply

RinkChat Username:
Password:
Email:		(optional)
Subject:
Message:	> > Also, nowhere in that article you linked to do I see anything about speeding UP light. > > You missed the last sentence, then: > "In July, physicists in Princeton, New Jersey apparently pushed a laser pulse through a vapor of cesium atoms so it traveled faster than the conventional speed of light." > > It doesn't say if they mean "the conventional speed of light in a vacuum" (serious news) or "the conventional speed of light in caesium vapour of density X" (ho hum) and, of course, there's that "apparently" that suggests that no-one's too sure if this is a real effect, or just the result of a poorly calibrated sensor.
Link URL:		(optional)
Link Title:		(optional)

Make sure you read our message forum policy before posting.