# Why is blue light slowed more than red? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 27, 2009, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-blue-light-slowed-more-than-red/483211 "2009-01-27T11:47:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 3\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Ring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Ring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ring)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-blue-light-slowed-more-than-red/483211/21 "2009-01-29T04:58:53Z")
> [@](#): > > I’m not sure to whom Ring could possibly be directing his “explanation”, as anyone who could understand what he is saying already knows the answer to the question at hand. (Ring presumably realizes this, so his post is a bit confusing to me in the present context.) **Pasta** , I think you’re selling a lot of the posters at the SDMB short. There’s a lot of folks here who do understand a lot a about QM physics, and I would bet a lot of them understood what I was saying, On the other hand I’m not so sure that: > [@](#): > > ……… Recall that the observable wave is the sum of the incoming wave plus the zillions of EM waves created by the perturbed charges in the material. If you treat the charges as a collection of damped oscillators (like car shocks, only less damped), and you perturb the system with your……….. Would be any clearer. ---
**Author:** ![Pasta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@Pasta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pasta)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-blue-light-slowed-more-than-red/483211/22 "2009-01-29T06:47:31Z")
> [@Ring](#): > > **Pasta** , I think you’re selling a lot of the posters at the SDMB short. There’s a lot of folks here who do understand a lot a about QM physics, and I would bet a lot of them understood what I was saying Indeed! I agree with this completely. I just noted that those same people would also already know the answer to the OP’s question, eliminating them as the intended recipient of your post. > [@](#): > > On the other hand I’m not so sure that (Pasta’a line) would be any clearer. The word “recall” in the line you quote is not “recall from your previous schooling”. It’s “recall from what I explained in my first post.” That line should be clear to someone who comprehended my first post, which the OP suggested he or she has done. If you read that post, you’ll see that the concept of superposition was explained (without the word “superposition”, though.) ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [January 29, 2009, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-blue-light-slowed-more-than-red/483211/23 "2009-01-29T13:42:58Z")
Thank you I understand the point about the absorption now, much appreciated everyone. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-is-blue-light-slowed-more-than-red/483211.md?page=1)