Can some physicist here comment on this story from BBC?
Single photon gets messed with and when returned to “free space” is slower than other unfutzed-with photon.
I don’t understand it, let alone what to think about it.
So, what’s your actual question?
Even after reading the article, I’m not sure which of the following (if any) you’re asking:
[ul]
[li]Could somebody explain this in a way those of us outside that field of study can understand?[/li][li]What are the implications of this? / Why is this meaningful?[/li][li]How is this possible?[/li][/ul]
The speed of light depends on the medium.
Read the article before attempting to answer.
Here’s the original science article. I’m not a physicist, but it looks like it’s well-known physics that happens when you spatially confine a wave. It’s not really a new idea, sounds like it just hasn’t been measured in this regime before.
I read that article a couple of weeks ago and didn’t really understand it.
In one place they talk about changing the shape of a photon. In another place it says that the mask “patterns the light beam”. So which are they reshaping/patterning? Single photons or a light beam? I understand the dual nature of photons, that they can be described either in terms of a particle or a wave, and that “shaping” versus “patterning” is simply a matter of particle versus wave, but a beam is not a single photon.
It think this is a case of a science article meant for the general public dumbing things down to the point of gross inaccuracy; something that happens way too often.
If I’m not mistaken, each or any of these three questions are implied and discernable, as you’ve demonstrated, and are not mutually exclusive for a nice little GQ thread.
Yes, each of your asterisked points could be individual questions, or even threads; here I’m sure other posters will feel free to pick and choose how they intend to answer OP, without trouble, and with the confidence that if he adds something on any of those points, or others (usually an comment on lay journalism), it will be understood and appropriate.
/Reason for snark: I’m tired of being accused and admonished real mods or junior ones on “vague” OPs. In some cases, a “huh?” should be–and usually is–perfectly clear and acceptable. But really, a “huh?” is perfectly clear, I believe, with the (presumed) knowledge that a layman is reading the article and, as is asking, essentially–as in so many posts–saying “run that by me again?”
(In some other posts, I go out of my way to spell things out, to even label numbered queries with the word “query” for those who miss the question marks.)
/Important apology for snark directed at dstarfire, message #2: on most other occasions–such as this one, no doubt–a poster asks OP out of intellectual friendliness so that the discussion can be narrowed.
So, as I say, I’ve gotten touchy about this. Sooner or later I will take it up, in the general sense, in ATMB, where it can be continued.
Until our real photonics expert chimes it (CalMeacham, please pick up the white courtesy phone) , from my quick reading of the science abstract, this is just an experimental confirmation of something pretty uncontroversial and known-about. Basically, the wavelike nature of light means that the shape of a finite beam of light can make it travel slightly differently than a simple completely flat infinite plane of light moving along.
My guess is that it’s a kinda minorly cool technological accomplishment to get this apparatus working, but theoretically nothing that wouldn’t have been predicted half a century or more ago.
Here is the full article.