Solid light?

[swansont]

 

So you're telling me you actually read this http://www.rle.mit.edu/eap/documents/Nature_attractive_photons.pdf

and if I use ctrl + f and search for entanglement, or entangled, I will not find those words anywhere in the document?

 

No, what I'm saying is that the original link you gave doesn't mention entanglement. I missed that you actually got around to linking to the paper.

[SamBridge]

Ok, so, how is the paper attempting to use entanglement when they acknowledge coupling with atoms? Do the atomic interactions only destroy entangled pairs if the photons are absorbed, allowing photons to remain entangled while atoms were excited due to their lower absorption rate of the surrounding photons while they are excited? Because if they are using lasers to excite atoms, wouldn't that account for the electromagnetically induced transparency that allows the other, I guess, optical photons to so weakly interact with the atoms?

 

I mean the paper almost sounds like its trying to equate entanglement to the photons being attracted to each other, even though the photons have no charge and they're just slowed down through that medium, and they're trying to show it by slowing down light in an electromagnetically induced transparency to minimize atomic absorption in the medium they are using to slow down the light's propagation, and if simple decoherence doesn't destroy entanglement and only absorption does, it seems a lot like entanglement explains the attractive "interaction" between photons that those scientists think they've found.

Edited April 4, 2014 by SamBridge

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

 

SamBridge - your last post was hidden; it was specifically explained above that posts which went off topic were not acceptable. You do not get a free pass to have a last say.

 

Discussion on the merit of different publication sites should only continue in a new thread.

 

The topic is solid light - posts that go off-topic will be hidden from view. Do not respond to this moderation.