Did this woman just OWN Albert Einstein?
 

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/...08/99-hau.html

Albert Einstein and just about every other physicist insisted that light travels 186,000 miles a second in free space, and that it can't be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of rush-hour traffic.

In a way ... YES.

science is fucked up... just like life...

motherfuckers

There's tons of hurdles left but one possibly HUGE implication of this technology is COMMUNICATIONS. Fiber optics using "sculpted" light.

the point is, my penis is huge... & my sperm explodes at 187,000 mph. WAY faster than light, IMHO

I love her Hitler salute, so sexy.

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/1646/99haulk2.jpg

http://img139.imageshack.us/img139/7...rsalutevr9.jpg

Sieg Heil indeed.

no no no e= mc2 always

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup Right you are

Einstein was and still is right. Light travels at a constant 186,000 miles per second in vacuum.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Yep - and unfiltered as well as unfettered by an atmosphere :thumbsup Unfortunately the author just uses that stupid shit as hype - she did it with clouds of artificially cooled atoms which, while a noble pursuit has nothing to do with Einsteins use of the speed of light in space in his calculations - and it was Roemer in the 1600s that actually came up with the first real measurement of the speed

It has everything to do with it. Einstein used light as the universal constant. If the speed of light varies then e=mc2 is wrong.

Einstein never claimed to be perfect. He put forward theories, some proven right over time, some a little off, etc. Theory isn't THE WAY THINGS ARE, it's just a theory.

I think you need to brush up on your physics. You're not getting it. This crazy bitches shit doen't effect e=mc2. I do suppose though if you built a chamber 5 miles X 5 miles X 5 miles and had the interrrior cooled down to 460 below zero and set of nuclear fission reaction you see what a nuclear explosion would look like in slow motion. Just a theory though.

He used the speed of light in space - not the speed of light in a lab with atoms cooled to slow down the light - so the constant still works - not that it really matters because the E=mc2 isnt all together a correct statement anyway - but based on replies here I better not go into why - suffice it to say that the equation works with the matter known at the nuclear level - there have been many discoveries of smaller particles since then which while obeying the law of conservation - have other losses that weren't accounted for in that equation - if youre real interested - search for "binding energy"

Why is that Einstien? Lt's see because c stands for "speed of light in a vaccuum" but even space is not a TRUE vaccuum. There are still atoms scattered about even in the most desolate areas of space even if they are spread very far apart. Is that why it's not completely correct?

I wish Einstein was still around... :( I LOVE HIM!!!!!

wow... i guess is missed where the constant speed of light is in a vacum according to Einstein theory ....

sounds like someone paid attention in school :thumbsup

these people will believe anything they hear

No - actually the reason its not correct is that since Einstein first deveoped his theories, other little discoveries have been made leading to quantum physics which delves a little deeper into the energy equation - showing that there are some losses at the sub-particle level that cannot be explained away as energy or mass. The other explanation that might "weigh" in here is that the photon (which is what light is made up of) is assumed to be 0 mass - which is probably not correct - it probably has a very small mass approaching 0 but we cannot say for sure that it is perfectly 0

The second reason its not correct is that the speed of light does actually change - year to year - by a fraction due to the slowing down of the speed of rotation of the earth by 1/10E5 of a second - which changes the actual duration of a second in time - and since C is a measurement of speed which is in M/sec the changing of the duration of a second changes the constants' value

Third - lay-people usually make the same mistake when looking at this C constant - the primary way it is used is just the opposite measurement - it is used to measure the standard length for a meter by measuring the distance light travels in a particular time interval in a vacuum - Einsteins original theory just stated that the speed of light constant was in "space" - not a vacuum

fuck communications... we can now have postage stamp sized chips in our phones that contain entire countries of organized data, and can beam the answers to a implanted chip in our heads, so we remove the "learning curve"
and actually become correct "know it alls" in mere split second

doesn't that just mean that the speed doesn't change. just our perception of it changes?

time wouldn't be changing anywhere else in the universe. just our measurement of it.

That's retarded. WTF does the rotation of the earth have to do with the speed of light everywhere else in the universe? Or time for that matter.

Who in the fuck are you? What you some super genius and we are all retards? I'm not getting into a "who has a bigger IQ" contest, but not everyone here is stupid. My IQ is at least 130. I was invited to take the SAT in the 6th grade and I could be in Mensa if really wanted to be. And I'm sure there are several others here that are equally or even more intelligent. So quit coming off as you know every fucking thing. You probably got that crap off of wikpedia or something anyways.

[QUOTE=$5 submissions;12251215]Did this woman just OWN Albert Einstein?[QUOTE]
hell, I did that over icecream a few years back

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...light=debunked

I have yet to read it but you think with the cost to go to harvard they could do up a better website!

Thats correct - but then that is exactly what the whole theory of relativity hinges on - our perception


Gator - see above - and sorry if you took "layperson" to mean something derogatory - wasnt meant that way - I used to teach nuclear physics and worked as a physicist for 20 years so I always used that term to differentiate between two ways of teaching

So how much datta can we send on the internet in the future.. That's all I want to know 8)

True but it's a complete waste of time having that feature. I mean who the fuck vacuums at night anyway? :mad: :2 cents:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay.htm

A good read for anyone whether you're a fan of Einstein or not.

You are woefully ignorant about science madam. A theory in science is not a "hunch" or a "guess" it is an explanation of the data. Unlike religion, science is not dogmatic. This is called falsifiability.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

In science and the philosophy of science, falsifiability is the logical property of empirical statements, related to contingency and defeasibility, that they must admit of logical counterexamples. In essence, for an assertion to be falsifiable, it must be logically possible to make an observation or do a physical experiment that would show the assertion to be false. This is in contrast to tautologies, formal and mathematical statements that are universally true as a logical consequence of the definitions and axioms they are based on..

Speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. :(

Typical newspaper science.

Einstein said that this was the light of speed in VACUUM it can't be speeded-up or slowed down in VACUUM.

When light travels through materials, it slows down. If it wouldn't lenses would not work.

This lady made light pass through a "cloud of ultracold atoms" which is not vacuum.

The lady did a great job, but Einstein was still right!

More importantly, it would appear that she has discovered a method to turn gold into lead. There are very few reasons to make light more move slowly, few good applications, it really isn't something everyone goes "wow, I wish the light moved more slowly" (Except maybe after a few too many tabs of E... but that is a different type of science).

The real trick is to find a way to make something (anything) move faster than light. That is the lead to gold conversion we all dream of.

RawAlex - funny thing was that even Einstein said in his general relativity paper that the speed of light could be changed - had to do with the bending of light for the curvature of space - but he still tried for the gold :)

albert was one cool mofo

co-muthafuckin-sign :eek7

The author has apparently never been in rush hour traffic in LA. :upsidedow

Definitely. 405 and the 10 are HORRIBLE. Well, at least the cars MOVE. I thought that was the worst until I moved to the Philippines... Nothing can compare to Manila (SLEX) traffic between 6PM and 9PM.... damn.

So this is WAY beyond me but I had a thought a couple of months ago and maybe you could explain this to me.

Our perception of things is affected by our speed. So what is the ralative net affect of the idea that people on earth are all moving at the same speed (or close enough). But we are on a rotating planet, going around a sun, that is moving around a galaxy, that is moving through a universe that has several galaxies.

As too what exactly do I mean? I already said this was WAY beyond me!

David.

Only if women had the right to vote..