Wouldnt light accelerate in any fiberoptic that wasnt straight?

@mackita
Acceleration refers to a change in velocity (a vector) not simply in speed. An object under acceleration may then change in direction AND/OR speed. The Earth moving under the influence of the gravitational field of the Sun is a simple example of an accelerating object whose speed is (almost) constant.

Actually, RNP, if we really are trying to be particularly pedantic, and I only mention because the above article mentions geodesics, the Earth moving around the sun is actually the case of a non-accelerating object. Since it's in free-fall, the inertial path "forward" is actually a curved path around the sun. A better example to use of acceleration might be an electron beam being deflected by a charged ball.

I only mention because the article initially states that the inertial path for this light is already a curved path. The Geodesic it will follow is already something that, to an external observer, looks curved. What is remarkable is that the light curves *beyond* the geodesic one would expect, thus being 'accelerated.'

Was the accelerating light faster than normal light?

No.

@shavera

....the Earth moving around the sun is actually the case of a non-accelerating object

That is not right.

Quite simply, *by definition*, acceleration is a changing velocity. Velocity is a vector, which means it has both magnitude AND direction. Therefore any object whose velocity is changing in magnitude (speed) OR direction is being accelerated.

I'm not sure what your reference to geodesics means.

In General Relativity, the way in which one measures directions changes with relationship to where you are located near mass, say. Since the way one measures distance changes, it redefines what direction is "straight" ahead. The end result is that a "straight" line, for a massive particle near a massive body, is an orbit. But since that conflicts very heavily with our notion of what "straight" means, we call these "straight" lines 'geodesics.'

Put another way: When you are in a car going around a tight turn, you may feel as if there is a 'centrifugal' force pushing you toward one side of the car. But that force, that acceleration, only arises because you're choosing a reference frame where inertia is not conserved (one that is rotating). Similarly, we could chose a reference frame where we're looking down over our solar system like in a text book. And we can draw "straight lines" through that solar system. But in order for an object to travel along those lines, it must accelerate.

So I'll admit that I was maybe overzealous in saying that it's 'not' accelerating, just that it's not accelerating if you're looking from the perspective of inertial reference frames, which we usually are not (since we usually just absorb the non-inertial reference frame's force as "gravity" and treat the problem as if gravity was a real force between objects)

@Adam:

Wouldnt light accelerate in any fiberoptic that wasnt straight?

Light in fiberoptics relies on Total Internal Reflection (TIR) off the boundaries of the core to cladding. Any bounce will result in acceleration due to a change in direction, so even straight fibers have "accelerating" light traveling coaxially.

Space-time. Is illogical, it makes ZERO sense and not one of you damned fools have any idea what it means, nor can you explain it in any meaningful manner. You cannot "bend" a non physical entity called "space" and you cannot traverse "time" which DOES NOT EXIST. There is only the present and your stupid memory clinging onto memories confusing you into believing there is some "location" called the past or the future. Damn Einstein and his mythomatics for confounding physics and man for over 100 years.

If your reference is under a constant change.......is the reference really changing?

@shavy, isn't acceleration defined for light by the geodesic of an unmodulated laser? That would be analogous to defining acceleration in an inertial frame, which can always be done by performing a local experiment to show the acceleration, according to the equivalence principle, remembering of course that under this principle acceleration is equivalent to gravity under GRT.

Here's a question worthy of the site: why is it correct to state that SLMs "accelerate light?" I can see from an examination of SLMs that it's demonstrated experimentally, but what's the theory behind it?

But that force, that acceleration, only arises because you're choosing a reference frame

Regardless of which frame of reference I choose, I still feel the pull of the seatbelts in the car.

Einstein's fabric (textile) or a network of twisted and curved from time and space would come to the textile industry because it can sew up its pants, and when a mass there is lost gravitational attraction without any kind of love affair. And the poor light moves and behaves as the researchers say, which are some geodetic lines. I know what geodesic lines are on spherical surfaces, but how they look in a vacant space or in a mixture of substances that these examiners bully and subject to some "polygraph" test. It is again evidence that science does not know what photon is and how it moves through AETHER. If there is no respect for the existence of Aether, this would be the same situation as when the progeny of two sexes are expected (Einstein's married couple: space and time, only gently there are lesbians and two "warm brothers").

But that force, that acceleration, only arises because you're choosing a reference frame

Regardless of which frame of reference I choose, I still feel the pull of the seatbelts in the car.

And THAT is an effect of "acceleration"...

But that force, that acceleration, only arises because you're choosing a reference frame

Regardless of which frame of reference I choose, I still feel the pull of the seatbelts in the car.

Right, that's a local experiment. You can always find out if you're in an accelerated frame by a local experiment.

You cannot "bend" a non physical entity called "space"...

Err, space IS a physical entity. In what sense could space NOT be 'physical'?

There is nothing on arxiv, too bad as the details look interesting.

There is nothing on arxiv, too bad as the details look interesting.

@mackita:

It turns out that the evolution of electromagnetic waves in curved space according to Einstein's equations is equivalent to the propagation of electromagnetic waves in a material medium described by the electric and magnetic susceptibilities that are allowed to vary in space

The idea of general relativity is exactly the opposite: the speed of light remains constant everywhere in it. The Einstein's field equations just prohibit it. When the light is propagating inside curved space, it doesn't accelerate. Instead of it, it changes its wavelength (red/blue shift).

Good points, but the purpose of these model systems is not to be equivalent analogies (material systems cannot be completely analogous to empty, curved space) but to demonstrate some analogous property (here of gravity lenses) that can be studied in the lab.

My takeaway from this article i. Since these experiments are being performed on the Earth's surface? Perhaps the 'curve' of the light beam is being caused by this planet's gravity?

Maybe it's just my limited imagination but I cannot see any other way to 'bend' a beam of light external to an apparatus. Isn't that how gravitational lensing works?

I wonder how this experiment would turn out in a micro-to-zero G orbit?

@rrwillsj,
It should be known that gravity can not influence what is not matter. Here science has blinded and incomprehensible natural laws that rule in the universe.
Turning or curving a light beam can only cause magnetism, not gravity. Download this warning team that does not understand almost anything in the universe!

I just like how relativity theory - which considers the path of light straight and space-time curved - gets demonstrated by model, which is doing exactly the opposite - and nobody gets even trace of suspicion, because - you know - it's about Einstein! A science!

Actually, as I pointed out to @shavy, the path of an unmodulated laser is in fact a geodesic. Like most #physicscranks, you don't understand lasers, light propagation, or relativity. And your intent, as I have pointed out repeatedly, is to disrupt the conversation.

@mackita,All this is evidence that neither you nor science know what light is, waves of matter, energy, magnetism, gravity, and all that is related. Just inventing additional theories to explain what you do not know about.
I have to educate you again: photon is a pair of "condensate", specially formed, as a pair, we call it "electron-positron". This "positron moves through the AETHER (without the aether, there is no movement in general), and around it a" electron "on the sinusoidal radius, and therefore it is seen as an electromagnetic wave. That your model curved the grid space time, has disowned your awareness by turning into Einstein's Fatamorgana Circle.

For @Tobjorn who is looking for a link to the paper http://sci-hub.na...8.011001

This explains each complex movement and the body and particle in the universe.
Such is the situation with the Earth's spin. The center of mass of Earth and Moon moves along the ellipse (it is not Kepler's ellipse), and the Earth has two spins, its own, a rotation around its own axis, and the other one in the same magnitude, but the opposite direction, which occurs with the rotation of the Earth around this pericenter, on the sinusoidal radius . It forms the path of the Earth as a sinusoid wrapped around the Kepler ellipse. That is why the moon (and other months) have the same side facing the planet, always. This disassociates Einstein's "proof" of the cause of the precession of the perihelion of the planet (example Merkur)

You cannot "bend" a non physical entity called "space"...

Err, space IS a physical entity. In what sense could space NOT be 'physical'?

Tell me, what are the properties of "space". It most certainly is a mere abstraction at best. Hell, it doesn't even accurately denote location because there is no absolute reference point because it is for all intents and purposes without end. Space is not a physical entity. It might as well be 'turtles all the way down'.

I just like how relativity theory - which considers the path of light straight and space-time curved - gets demonstrated by model, which is doing exactly the opposite - and nobody gets even trace of suspicion, because - you know - it's about Einstein! A science!

This is the same like if Galieo would demonstrate heliocentric model by epicycles or like if spherical Earth would be demonstrated by Hollow Earth model. This example just illustrates the power of intersubjective religion and occupational blindness. BTW only schizophrenics https://www.wired...llusion/ by inverted mask illusion.

It is pointless arguing with them, they are well in the thrall of the Einstein delusion.

When matter was formed, the space was formed as the place where the substance was placed and for its movement in it according to the laws of nature, and the time is merely a measure of that movement. Einstein's fantasies are a pesticide for consciousness that leads us to finding out the true causes of the phenomenon.

m & m,
As for that Einstein 'delusion'?

I don't think it's very smart to argue with the guys who can build thermonuclear weapons.

No sirree. And my speculation of All Gravity, All the Time, Everywhere! Is even crazier than your pseudo-religious claptrap.

@mackita,
you are looking for evidence for each statement. Now, when you dream of something, you must prove it either as a film or a mathematical one. And secondly, Einstein is your God who told you what time and space are there. Do you feel any clutter when you fall into that network? Especially, what do you think who formed you, did you come up with a big bang? You do not believe in any Spiritual Power, because the science wants to impose itself on it that it is the one who knows everything and claims that everything was created out of nothing. Such people, who believe in this, are really derived from nothing and do not understand anything, important for the structure of the universe.