3 ms·
> While photons normally have no mass and travel at 300,000 kilometers per second (the speed of light), the researchers found that the bound photons actually ac
by a3n 9y ago
> While photons normally have no mass and travel at 300,000 kilometers per second (the speed of light), the researchers found that the bound photons actually acquired a fraction of an electron’s mass. These newly weighed-down light particles were also relatively sluggish, traveling about 100,000 times slower than normal noninteracting photons.
300,000 / 100,000 = 3
"Relatively sluggish?" That seems more like profoundly sluggish, for light.
- ghusbands 9y ago3km/s is not sluggish and certainly not profoundly so. But it is relatively sluggish, compared to light. The choice of wording is fine.
- gutnor 9y agoIs "relatively sluggish" the proper wording for "5 order of magnitude slower" ? The overnight backup was relatively sluggish last night, instead of 1 minute we expect it to take a little over 2 months.
- mort96 9y agoI mean, in relation to all everyday objects, 3 kilometers per second is stupidly fast and not at all sluggish. The overnight backup was relatively sluggish last night, instead of 1 microsecond it took a little over 100 milliseconds.
- ghusbands 9y agoRelatively is a modifier that here means "compared to something else". When someone says "relatively X", they are saying it is not actually "X" but it seems so in comparison. So they are saying that the combined particle isn't sluggish (because 3km/s is very much faster than a slug), but in comparison to light it _is_ sluggish. Hence, relatively sluggish.
- TomMarius 9y agoWhy is this downvoted?
- kurthr 9y agoAn index of refraction of 3 is relatively high (like silicon carbide). Glass and a lot of optically transparent materials are only ~1.5. But, if you look at IR transparent materials like silicon, gallium arsenide, or germanium, you can get up to and over 4. More to the point, diode pumped solid state lasers are a common thing these days so photons interacting just isn't news... (edit) however if (and I can't tell without reading the original paper) it is actually the effect of photon mass (eg due to light density) on the photons itself, then it's a significant technical achievement! Just not how I'd have phrased it to a technical audience.
- kgwgk 9y agoThis is more like an index of refraction of 100000, isn't it?