• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Slowing Light Equals Slowing Time?

Squid

Thinker
Joined
Feb 4, 2009
Messages
143
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26992/

I am really confused by the above article. From a brief read through, they're saying that by slowing down light and then speeding it back up, we can effectively hide something in time for about 110 nanoseconds. Is this correct? Does that mean that time=light?

Squid
 
Quarky, I don't care about J Lo. I am trying to find out, in layman terms, what the heck the above article is talking about. The science is over my head... or the base assumption is wrong. They seem to be saying that by slowing down light they can hide something in time and that doesn't make sense to me. Can someone explain what they're talking about?
 
I don't quite get it either.

I'm guessing that they are talking about bending the light around a particular event, so that it won't interact with it. Changing the light's speed alters it's path through space-time, so to me it just sounds like refraction, but clearly I'm missing something.

Looking forward to someone who actually understands what's going on to enlighten us. :)
 
Not sure, but I think this comment gets it right:

I think this works in masking the visual sense when the observer is suddenly seeing something that is occurring because the light--which is the event--has not been released by the cloak. The light has been trapped for a brief period of time. It's like a delay but in the visual sense. So you can't really be out of the time dimension. You can only fool the visual observer.

It's kind of like watching a video clip where a few of the frames have been removed...

So a few nanoseconds of the light is trapped, so if something happens during that time, the observer wouldn't see it.
 
I don't quite get it either. It seems to me like stretching time around an event, the lens slows it down and then speeds it up. The "hole" occurs when you speed it up faster to catch up where it would have been.
The only problem is the figure shows -D and D+ being the same length, shouldn't D+ be longer?
 
I don't quite get it either. It seems to me like stretching time around an event, the lens slows it down and then speeds it up. The "hole" occurs when you speed it up faster to catch up where it would have been.
The only problem is the figure shows -D and D+ being the same length, shouldn't D+ be longer?
You're almost right, but you're thinking more of lenses. I'm guessing that's what the -D and +D refer to negative and positive dispersion; they must be the same to reconstruct the original signal.

It makes sense. A laser signal of some frequency, and is shifted to different frequencies depending on when it arrives (the time lens), such the output is starts near the input frequency and decreases it time goes on (green->yellow, then green->red in the diagram). The signal then is passed through some dispersive medium so that the higher frequencies go faster (negative dispersion), so the signal at later times has an opportunity to catch up to those of earlier times. Suppose the medium is such that they all exit the medium at the same time, or at least within some very short timeframe (much shorter than the duration of the time lens).

Mid-operation, the time lens switches to shift the incoming frequency to a high one and decreases it as time goes on (green->purple, then green->blue in the diagram), so again after the switch a signal from later times starts catching up to those of earlier times. Suppose again they're timed to exit the medium within a very short time-frame. All the frequencies after the switch are strictly higher than all the frequencies before the switch, so it's actually possible for the signal after the switch overtake the signal before the switch. But the point is that because of the switched time lens operation, at the exit of the negative-dispersion medium, the signal looks like this:
(1) The CW laser of some fixed frequency. The time lens turns on.
(2) Two very short bursts of lots of frequencies due to dispersion and the switch in how the time lens works. Then the time lens turns off.
(3) More CW laser.
Between those two shorts bursts, there is nothing exiting the negative-dispersion medium. A positive-dispersion medium and a complementary time lens reassembles the laser light, so as far as the final output is concerned, nothing untoward happened.
 
Last edited:
You're almost right, but you're thinking more of lenses. I'm guessing that's what the -D and +D refer to negative and positive dispersion; they must be the same to reconstruct the original signal.

Ahh, I always assume D is for distance. And yes, I had focal point on my mind when I was looking at the graphic :)
 
They kept referring to it as a time alteration, but from their description, it basically makes something briefly invisible. But we can already do this... so what's the big deal? Just another method?
 
They kept referring to it as a time alteration, but from their description, it basically makes something briefly invisible. But we can already do this... so what's the big deal? Just another method?
It's both very analogous and very different.

A normal 'cloak' hides a region of space. That means as you look in a particular direction, the light is bent around that region in such a way as to not give you any information about it. Say that region of space contains some object. At every point in time, as you look in a particular direction, you get an image of everything except that object. It's cloaked. There are no holes in the image itself; the object is simply not part of the image because of the way the light is manipulated.

A temporal 'cloak' hides a region of time. Once again, say that region contains some object--to keep things simple, imagine a little mechanical counter that counts out the seconds seconds: 1,2,3,... The temporal cloak manipulates the light in such a way as to always give you an image of clock, but hides a certain time interval. For example, as you look at the image of the counter, you may see:
... 97, 98, 99, 100, 221, 222, 223, ...
There's no discontinuity the image you see; you always see the clock. The image doesn't hang at 120 seconds until the counter gets from 100 and 221. That time interval simply isn't part of the image anymore--to you, it looks like the counter went directly from 100 to 221 in one second, despite the fact that it was physically there, counting all the intermediate steps.

(That's a far exaggeration of the scale of their temporal cloak, but it is the same kind of thing in principle.)
 
Vorpal... so, it basically severs a light beam, manipulates part of it, then stitches the two ends back together into one continuous stream? Interesting... not true temporal manipulation, but changing the light.
 
'Temporal cloak' is to time as the earlier 'invisibility cloak' is to space. Both manipulate light as to hide events from being visible; the difference is in which events are hidden--time intervals or regions of space, respectively. ETA: Pretty neat analogy of stitching a light beam, btw.

I'm not sure what your criteria for 'temporal manipulation' are, but if you were expecting something on a more fundamental level (e.g., gravitational time dilation), you're right in that this isn't that at all. It's still very cool, imho.
 
Last edited:
Yea, I was originally getting confused, thinking they were talking about manipulating time itself. Still, very neat... imagine combining the two techniques.
 

Back
Top Bottom