What if it’s only 100% refractive?
Aro, looking at it would change the outcome…
Of course, if the interior was 100% reflective, it could not be one-way glass, by definition. It would have to be 100% reflective, of course. I’m surprised no one has mentioned this. 
My mistake, she’s already done it!
The heck with fancy-schmany 100% reflective mirrors, or tri-pole mirrors tuned to the Turing frequency (Alan Turing’s deBroglie wavelength at age 30). Just take a piece of aluminum foil, mould it around you fist, extract your hand, hold the opening it up to a light and crimp closed fast as a flash. Now, since you can’t see inside the ball of foil, you don’t know if the photons have been absorbed or not, so they “exist” in a quantum-mechanical superposition of states (remember Schroedinger’s weiner dog?) Although the probability of the photon not being absorbed is vanishingly small, there’s no way to measure it so it just might be. So put that ball-o-foil on you shelf and proudly tell any callers that that’s you pet photon that you’ve captured.
When people refer to the speed of light they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum. This was c = 3x10[sup]8[/sup] m/s, is 3x10[sup]8[/sup] m/s and always will be 3x10[sup]8[/sup] m/s (probably).
BTW, with regard to the “light in box” question, does anyone know what the reflectivity of the mirrors would have to be? Would it have to be real high or just kinda high?
I built a mirror box using the leftover mirror from my bathroom renovation. The reflective value of the mirror was (approximately 99.99641%. It did not work. Could it have been because the mirror needed to be just a little bit more reflective?
The question is whether 99.99999. . . % is the same as 100%
Speed of light slowed to 1 mile per hour!
Wow…
I am duly impressed.
(Now I can honestly say I can sometimes run faster than the speed of light!)
Would this mean black holes could simply be cold spots that slows, or stops light from passing through?
Does this also mean it is theoretically possible to increase the speed of light as we currently define it? In which case, does this mean we have to re-define distance in space (from light years to something like PentiumMiles)?
(And are you 100% sure?)
Not sure, but I believe it was that eminent physicist Wilson Pickett who said that Ninety-Nine and a Half Won’t Do.
In the experiments with slowing down light, there is a medium. This is not anything fundamentally new: Any medium will slow down light to some degree. What’s remarkable is just how much they’ve been able to slow it down, not just the mere fact that they’re slowing it down at all.
To give an idea of how reflective you need your box to be: Light travels at about a foot per nanosecond. That means that if your box is a foot on a side, the light will be reflecting about a billion times a second. Now, suppose we have some of Pessor’s mirrors at 99.99641% efficiency. 0.9999641[sup]1000000000[/sup] = 3.5*10[sup]-15592[/sup] . In other words, even with really good mirrors, for a relattively short period of time, you get down to the point where there is no chance in a universe of universes of even a single photon being left unabsorbed. This is why everyone’s stressing the 100%… It has to be completely, absolutely, exactly 100% to work. Any slight inefficiency at all will quickly reduce your light to nothing.
How about 100% refurbished? My dad’s really into antiques, and I think he worked on a mirror a few years ago.
Happy
No matter how much a mirror is, it’s always 100% mirror.
If you didn’t check this out the first time around, Dr. Hau at Harvard has already stopped, captured, held and released light in the lab. She’s now working on a “transporter”.
Yeah, you heard me right…Star Trek kinda-shit. Look out folks, high-tech is here. They are talking about faster than light travel in Physics at Harvard, no bullshit.
After you get your 100% reflectivity, how do you make the box corners the correct angle?
Does it have to be 100% of 100%?