|
|
Post by philman on May 31, 2013 9:04:49 GMT
Actually, while the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, the speed of light in a medium varies with (among other things) frequency. Hence how prisms or raindrops decompose light: If all frequencies of light had the same speed in glass or water (and the surrounding air), they would all be refracted by the same angle, and the rainbow would be a single-coloured arc of light. Dull world, huh? Which colour is faster depends on the material, but in common materials such as rainwater and most glasses, red is indeed faster.  Ah, but if we PAINT our shoes red, the shoes will be absorbing all the fastest colours and rejecting/reflecting the slowest colour: red. Thus (according to video game logic) absorbing the faster powers of the faster colours. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on May 31, 2013 9:17:47 GMT
Actually, while the speed of light in vacuum is a constant, the speed of light in a medium varies with (among other things) frequency. Hence how prisms or raindrops decompose light: If all frequencies of light had the same speed in glass or water (and the surrounding air), they would all be refracted by the same angle, and the rainbow would be a single-coloured arc of light. Dull world, huh? Which colour is faster depends on the material, but in common materials such as rainwater and most glasses, red is indeed faster. Oh yeah, indeed. it can even be stopped in certain materials! |
|
|
|
Post by Toloc on May 31, 2013 10:20:54 GMT
Interesting statistic:
This is now the most viewed and most replied to single page discussion thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by TBeholder on May 31, 2013 11:23:31 GMT
Light itself moves at "the speed of light", c, which is a constant, under almost all circumstances. So the speed in which the energy is being propagated forwards is always constant, even though the wavelength (which is at 90 degrees) might vary. (haughtily) The notion that the refraction index does not exist may partially explain the recent loud resurgence of XIX century cook theories on physical optics in the American pop-science fandom. ;D Eww. Speaking on Human, rather than Wikibabble: any pigment-less colour photography process, almost by definition, relies on spatial structures. No hot news here. Most of these were invented also back in XIX century. The standing-wave process (aka Interference Heliochromy) - first proposed in 1868 (Zenker), first performed in 1891 (Lippmann). The diffraction process with gratings - 1899 (Wood). The prismatic dispersion process - 1869 (Cros), with chromatic aberration compensation - 1904 (Rheinberg). |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on May 31, 2013 12:09:32 GMT
I'll admit here to my only high school level physics ... and that obviously better explanations than mine have since been given here!
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Jun 17, 2013 6:16:30 GMT
I don't know, man, I stayed up until 3am for this. Being in Australia, the updates come through at the more civilised time of 5pm. >LAUGHING ON LINE If I stay up until midnight here (about 45 more minpage) I can catch the next page. Western America for the win. Speaking of western America I saw a coyote the other day. I chased it gleefully for a moment before I realized that there was a goddamn wild animal in my neighborhood. Just thought I'd share. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Jun 17, 2013 6:19:53 GMT
I only noticed that recently. I just took it to be a normal reaction for something like that |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Jun 17, 2013 13:13:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Marnath on Jun 17, 2013 23:47:00 GMT
I suggested that already on page 6, with 4 other examples.  |
|
|
|
Post by csj on Jun 18, 2013 15:58:25 GMT
bluh bluh, oh well
|
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Jun 23, 2013 6:43:27 GMT
Well, not stopped: A photon's mass comes from energy, so a photon with a speed of 0 would dissolve. Slowed down and trapped is a little more accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Jun 23, 2013 16:43:21 GMT
Well, not stopped: A photon's mass comes from energy, so a photon with a speed of 0 would dissolve. Slowed down and trapped is a little more accurate. I thought it was absorbed by molecules that later release it? |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 23, 2013 20:14:27 GMT
Well, not stopped: A photon's mass comes from energy, so a photon with a speed of 0 would dissolve. Slowed down and trapped is a little more accurate. I thought it was absorbed by molecules that later release it? Electrons can absorb photons, but the one released is not the one absorbed. Once it makes contact, the electron later can emit another photon, the direction of emission being random and only sometimes opposite the direction of the first photon. Reflection of photons by a lattice of atoms (an aluminized mirror, for example) is emission of new photons by electrons which have previously absorbed photons. One displacing the other, so to speak. Without either of those two things, a photon at rest would quickly dissipate into Zero-Point energy. I encourage everyone to watch Ramesh Raskar's TED talk on femto-photography, it is nothing short of breathtaking. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Jun 24, 2013 2:08:53 GMT
Okay, wait, how fir we go from lesbians to optical physics? I'm not complaining or anything, just confused.
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 24, 2013 2:29:49 GMT
Okay, wait, how fir we go from lesbians to optical physics? I'm not complaining or anything, just confused. It happens. Gives us something to gnosh on while we wait for more magic teenage schoolgirl drama. |
|
|
|
Post by Señor Goose on Jun 24, 2013 5:21:32 GMT
Should we talk about physics some more? Or lesbians? Or the physics of lesbians?
|
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 24, 2013 6:18:24 GMT
Should we talk about physics some more? Or lesbians? Or the physics of lesbians? Whatever takes your fancy, although I'd say that last item is pretty well settled territory. |
|
|
|
Post by philman on Jun 24, 2013 7:37:10 GMT
Should we talk about physics some more? Or lesbians? Or the physics of lesbians? Whatever takes your fancy, although I'd say that last item is pretty well settled territory. I dunno, stick two of them in the LHC and see what comes out the other end. I'd hypothesize just a pile of goo, but of course we'd have to do two gay man and some heterosexual couples too to make it a fully controlled experiment. |
|
|
|
Post by GK Sierra on Jun 24, 2013 15:28:35 GMT
Whatever takes your fancy, although I'd say that last item is pretty well settled territory. I dunno, stick two of them in the LHC and see what comes out the other end. I'd hypothesize just a pile of goo, but of course we'd have to do two gay man and some heterosexual couples too to make it a fully controlled experiment. And out of the collider steps this summer's blockbuster hit... SUPER-POWERED TRANS-DIMENSIONAL LESBIANS A HUNDRED BILLIONS EARTHS, JUST THE THICKNESS OF A THOUGHT AWAY SO MUCH LESBIAN JUSTICE TO DEAL OUT, SO LITTLE TIME |
|
|
|
Post by snipertom on Jun 25, 2013 15:53:18 GMT
I dunno, stick two of them in the LHC and see what comes out the other end. I'd hypothesize just a pile of goo, but of course we'd have to do two gay man and some heterosexual couples too to make it a fully controlled experiment. And out of the collider steps this summer's blockbuster hit... SUPER-POWERED TRANS-DIMENSIONAL LESBIANS A HUNDRED BILLIONS EARTHS, JUST THE THICKNESS OF A THOUGHT AWAY SO MUCH LESBIAN JUSTICE TO DEAL OUT, SO LITTLE TIME I estimate that the mass-energy of the SUPER-POWERED TRANS-DIMENSIONAL LESBIANS creates LESBIAN JUSTICE, a gay man, an anti-gay man, a disgustingly sappy heterosexual couple that is entangled with a disgustingly fighting but "please get a room guys" heterosexual couple to be and a whole lot of energy in the form of a sexually confusing karaoke night sometime in the 2nd act THAT CHANGES EVERYTHING. |
|
