Youngs double slit experiment?
360055
For blue light'\nd Sin th = 2W        W is wave length\nFor a minimum \nd Sin th = (2n+1)W'/2\nSo,  2W=(2n+1)W'/2\nW'=4W/(2n+1)\n  =1440/(2n+1)\nBy putting various values for n , I find that only for the valu n=1, W' is within the vivible range,\nW'=480 nm
452909
Believe it or not, we already have it and use it everyday. I want to answer this in detail, but I cant disclose the true nature of how light travels until I publish.\nI will say that light that is propagated within a closed system can and does move at superluminal speeds relative to a location outside the closed system.\n\nI know-Everybody has a theory, but I can also explain why light bends at every instance without once referring to the fabric of space/time.\n\nWhat if Einstein was WRONG...errr...ok... (just so I dont offend anyone) not completely correct? What if light actually didnt travel by propelling itself into the electromagnetic field created by....itself? What if there was no such thing as a pure vacuum with zero atomic content? (by the way, there is no such vacuum.)\nResearch it, its true, there are always atoms left over to fill the space left by the vacated ones.\nDon't you find that at least a little interesting?  No such thing as a pure vacuum?
951128
according to enistin yes\nthats how he came up with the equation e = mc^2 because he asked him self how would light look if you traveled at the speed of light
927598
The only way to really find out is by experiment. I mean, this is the science section, not the philosophy section. Go out and fight something.
988641
Awesome question.  I have no idea.  The first thing you would have to know is what the properites of glass are that could, if at all, slow the speed of light.  As well as at what thickness of glass, which, in a backwards loop hole sortof way, directly relates to my last sentance.  (if a piece of glass were doubly thick as a single piece of glass, would it cut the speed of light in half?--depends on how thick the original piece was and if the original piece did anything to slow light's speed at all--see where i'm goin?).  Please tell me what you find, I'm very curious, I love questions that make me think deep.  Peace out dude, rioedgebravo@yahoo.com
576638
La detectacion de luz ,como photon o como onda, depende del typo o metodo de experimento para explorar la naturaleza de la luz. La luz exhibe la characteristica de honda en experimentos de diffraccion e interferencia y exhibe characteristicas de particula en experimentos de ionizacion de atomos con radiacion de varias energias. La luz se mueve en linea recta a menos que es reflejada o desviada por el medio atraves cual viaja. La luz que proviene de estrellas y galaxias distantes provee informacion soble la velocidad de esas estrellas y galaxias porque la luz como onda es cambiada como es cambiado el sonido de un tren qhe primero se aproxima y despues se aleja. ( vea terminos como "red-shift" and "doppler effect") El sonido aumenta cuando el tren viene y despues mengua cuando el tren se va.
1039444
No, there would be no interference pattern if light were behaving strictly as a particle.  If light acted only as a particle, the pattern seen behind two slits would be the superposition of the patterns seen behind two single slits.  That is, if light acted only as a particle, then you should see the same pattern whether you let light pass through two slits for five minutes, or whether you opened only one slit for five minutes, then closed that slit and opened the other for five minutes.\n\nOpening one slit at a time produces no interference pattern, leaving both slits open produces an interference pattern.  This cannot be explained by assuming a strictly particle interpretation of light.\n\n==============\n\nComment on "Additional Details #1"\n\nParticles of light have never been observed to bounce from one another.  Quantum electrodynamics predicts that they should, but the effect is so slight, and the probability so low, that there has never to my knowledge been a successful measurement of photon-photon scattering in the laboratory.  If the interference patterns in a Young's two-slit apparatus were to be explained by particles of light bouncing off one another, it would imply that light scatters from light very, very easily.  Crossing two flashlight beams would produce a diffuse glow from the area of intersection, and the beams would not continue onward to the places they were pointed.  We don't see that happening.  Another example:  if somebody is driving toward you with their headlights on, you cannot reduce the amount of light hitting your eyes by shining your headlights at them and deflecting their beam.
66479
No Way Man!  Photon-photon scattering?  Highly dubious.  Photons don't have charge. They don't self-interact, that's why the electro-weak theory works so well... right?\n\nResponse to Dr. Bob's response:\n\nI agree that this process occurs (although a photon that decays into a e+e- pair has to be close to another mass so momentum can be transfered; isolated photons cant decay into e+e-).  But in such a case, would you really say that "one light ray has bounced off another?" I'd say that it was "bouncing" off the electron/positron pairs.  Just semantics I suppose.
170874
Most physicists (like Feynman) will tell you it's definitely a particle.  I think they're full of crap, and it's a wave.  The fact that it can only be absorbed and emited in discrete packets doesn't necessarily mean that it really travels as a particle, and the notion of a particle flies in the face of the double-slit one-photon experiment.
1079162
Taking it simply, yes, this experiment would work.\n\nIt would need to travel much faster than the speed of light, or travel for a long time to get out beyond the light you are hoping to turn around and capture.  In that case, it would need to be a VERY powerfull telescope to pick out and see distinct images from the earths surface.  (even telescopes in orbit have a tough time making out small objects.)\n\nBut the experiment would work.  It takes time for light to travel.  We see the stars as they existed thousands of years ago.
305772
Seems to me that if you can manipulate 2 particles into entanglement (let's say one in New York, one in LA), then you can also manipulate a third particle (in Chicago) to the qualities measured in the first.  Sorry mathematician, but your two/three particle wave function theory although fascinating doesn't apply
801633
Hi, \n\nThat's too much like real work, but think about it like breaking pool balls in classical, and wave interference with quantum. \n\nHope that helps, \nMatt
768835
Didn't answerer 1 and I just answer this question? Deja vu...\nAnyway, see the ref. Basically de Broglie suggested that it was not only light that had wave-particle "duality" but that "ordinary 'particles' such as electrons, protons, or bowling balls could also exhibit wave characteristics in certain circumstances."
75582
Tehnically, yes. Scientists succeeded in sending light through a light accelerator. Light beams are already going the speed of light so any acceleration would cause them to jump past the speed of light. The resuly was that the light actually came out the other end before it went in. This was actually measured. I heard this on NPR radio a couple of years ago.
126283
In some experiments light behaves as a wave as in the single slit diffraction experiment, Youngs Double Slit experiment etc.\n\nHowever when it transfers energy to matter, it behaves as if it consists of particles that physicists have named photons. Such particle like behaviour can be seen in the photoelectric effect.\n\nSo it is both a particle and a wave, but what character is dominant depends on what situation you are talking about.
65749
well with single, you'd just get a single bar of light*thicker than the slit), because the beam of light won't be interfering with anything so it will just shine right through and expand a little(for the same reason a flashlight beam is larger when you shine it on a wall than the actual opening where light comes out)\n\nthe photons going through the double slits interfere with each other and produce an interference pattern.  that is, there will be a single bar of light in the center, surrounded by bars of darkness, surrounded by bars of light, and so forth. each set of bars of light get dimmer and dimmer as you go out. so you basically see pretty clearly about 5 bars of light, all lined up, more faded as you go out, and by the 6th and 7th bars on the outer edges, it's so dim you can barely see them. the reason this happens is due to constructive and destructive interference. the places where constructive interference occurs(crest of the wave lines up with crest or trough lines up with trough) show bars of light, and where destructive interference occurs(crest lines up with trough, cancelling each other out), there is no bar of light.
597088
at the atomic level, there is indeed randomness. you can predict the probabillity that things will occur, but cannot know for sure unless you make a measurement, which messes up the experiment because you "contaminated" the experiment with whatever you used to measure it. for instance, if you shine a flashlight at a double slit, half the light will go through 1 slit and half will go through another. however, if you turn down the output of the flashlight to 1 photon at a time, then the same thing happens. you cannot predict which one it will go through, it is completely random.\n\noh, and quantum theorry has been proven correct, better than any other theory out there - like newtonian physics, which have been shown to be approximations of the more accurate quantum theory.