Seasons

First off, there's a bit of misconception about "traveling faster than the speed of light" just in the forward direction. What they usually don't tack onto that sentence is "faster than the speed of light in a vacuum". In any other substance, light moves at a different velocity than that "reference" speed. This is actually how lenses work. We say they "bend" the light, but the light bends because it moves at a different speed in the lens than it does in air, and light always travels along the shortest path.

I'm not sure about this "backwards" light, but it seems to act something like an echo. That is, the leading edge of the initial pulse hits the far end and "bounces off", the way sounds can bounce off of cliffs and walls. Since the echo doesn't come until the leading edge hits the far end, there's no "spooky" action-at-a-distance.

That's what I got out of the article, anyway. Other thoughts?

http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544

The same article as Bev's, but this one has a flash-demo of the effect.

I have to say, it looks like a frenetic and confused 3rd hand report of the experiment. And as Ulrike so rightly points out, the constant C is a measure of light speed in a vacuum. Yes, you can slow light down (in the right medium almost to a standstill with a great deal of effort,) but you can't speed it up to any faster than 186,282 miles/sec. Period.

I have to take particular issue with "As if to defy common sense, the backward-moving pulse of light travels faster than light" - it does not under any circumstances whatsoever exceed C! (add extra emphasis, punctuation and expletives to taste) Not ever!
"or speed it [light] up faster than its breakneck pace" - not under any circumstances faster than C!
And this was written (presumably) by someone who considers himself a scientist, or at least qualified to write on scientific matters? And publication of this half-baked witlessness is tolerated, nay promulgated on The University of Rochester's own website! Shame on them - sometimes I almost forget why I despair of what too often passes for science these days. And then something like this comes along to remind me.

It does seem to be a curious relativistic effect, overwhelmed in this report by the most irritatingly hyperbolic presentation and downright (I would almost say "deliberately") misleading semantics. shagghie's comment at the bottom sums it up best, I think: "Einstein is still right".

If you asked the scientists involved, I am sure they would disclaim much of the nonsense here - unfortunately this is what you get when press officers and media contacts take over!

Sadly there isn't enough accurate data that can be discerned from the report to do more than speculate on the implications of the effects observed - I'd love to see the actual results. I guess a proper paper is bound to surface sometime soon (can't find anything on google yet.) But even without such data, I can confidently say - there is nothing in this experiment moving faster than light. And to claim it is is just [insert expletive of your choice].

*cough*

well, i've gone through with my plan and built "the punctuator" - an "expert system" relying on statistics to learn by example how to end punctuate sentences.

<+2>WELL SAID BEV!

<+1>I wonder is there a special reason why Orchid has been chatting with Sonora for the last 4 days and only with Sonora? No other chatters. I wonder, why Sonora wants to chat all the time with Orchid.

Sorry, Lady O. I'm trying to test a new seek sequence, and Orchid is one of the bots who has a response that will trigger it. Unfortunately, she hasn't used it since I got it working!

Bev,

I understand and agree with all of your points. Any notice of the sort that you mentioned in the other thread should be very visible however, and not hidden in the forums. One thing which was not at all clear to me was the actual damage that could be done to the bots.

I probably have been one of the worse transgressors yet, due to a combination of being a very screwed up person as well as a strong intrest in the natural language processing side of AI, and have some idea of things which helped facilitate my behavior; I would be willing to share these thoughts, if they are helpful. On the other hand, my mere presence on the boards may well seem offensive to some.

yes,when i first came here, i only talked to the bots first and yes i didn't quite understand people were behind them or whatever. now i don't like it when people insult my bot and the same guest keeps coming on and insulting hello earthlings. you would think he/she would have something better to do really.

I have an essay on my site about the "rights" of virtual people. It was written in regard to 3D meshes, but the same points apply to bots.

What you do to a virtual person is an expression of who you are. You are naked, not the bot. I judge people by their behavior, not by who they do it to. The least of your victims is still a victim, and creatures that prey on their own species are pretty poorly evolved.

My generation used whores the way men use bots and meshes, and their grandfathers used slaves and captives. It is not the victim that is dehumanized but the perpetrator. You are what you do, and who you do it to does not matter.

Mick