# Scientists Discover Fundamental Property of Light – 150 Years After Maxwell



## CaptSwan (Mar 31, 2013)

"In the new study, researchers bring together one of physics' most venerable set of equations – those of James Clerk’s Maxwell’s famous theory of light – with one of the hot topics in modern solid-state physics: the quantum spin Hall effect and topological insulators."


Full Article Here


----------



## flummoxed (Jun 29, 2015)

I don't know anything about this specific topic, but even back when I was in school it was known that the Maxwell Equations were incomplete. That said, they are probably the most important equations ever discovered and fully unify electricity and magnetism.


----------



## VinnieBob (Mar 24, 2014)

i guess the finaly see the light:laughing:
this is awesome
i look forward to reading about it once it's published


----------



## fuliajulia (Jun 29, 2013)

Coolio! Now we can truly see that waves of all forms act similarly and harness this technology to rule the universe!!! :glee:


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@therandomsciencegirl

Sadly, there are probably many who actually think that


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @therandomsciencegirl
> 
> Sadly, there are probably many who actually think that


And what's wrong with that thought?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

Why should people be playing the role of a deity?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> Why should people be playing the role of a deity?


Why should they not?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@The Incandescent Abyss

Would you trust anybody other than yourself to play God?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @The Incandescent Abyss
> 
> Would you trust anybody other than yourself to play God?


I wouldn't but I wouldn't have the choice if that person beat me to it, and if they did beat me to it then they were more worthy of the position in that present time.


----------



## AK2 (Jun 3, 2014)

interesting. My physics is a bit rusty to really follow the arguments made in the paper. However the world is very complex. I don't think we will all really understand everything about nature, but I believe we should all try to grasp what is out there in the world around us.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@The Incandescent Abyss



> I wouldn't


That should answer your question...



> but I wouldn't have the choice if that person beat me to it, and if they did beat me to it then they were more worthy of the position in that present time.


You realize that position, though completely rational, is ultimately totally amoral right?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @The Incandescent Abyss
> 
> That should answer your question...


Many people dont trust a lot of things, but that doesnt mean that those things should never happen or be accomplished.



> You realize that position, though completely rational, is ultimately totally amoral right?


I'm not a moralist, I'm a realist and a partial objectivist. It doesnt matter whether I have morals or not though, the fact still stands that if someone has the power to play God, or if the power exists at all, then someone somewhere will utilize that power at sometime. Those who dont fight for that power will lose out on their chance to utilize it to their liking and will inevitably have given that potential of power up to the one who was more worthy of achieving it. 

If you think morals are going to prevent people from acheiving such a power, or abusing it, then you are wrong. If you dont trust others to have such a power, then you should fight to own that power yourself to keep it out of the hands of others, if not then you have no say in what that power should or shouldnt be used for because you forfeited it by not fighting for it.


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

@The Incandescent Abyss



> Many people dont trust a lot of things, but that doesnt mean that those things should never happen or be accomplished.


Why are you so passionate in your arguing against what I said: You do realize that what I said was merely an opinion in response to a member who was probably being being sarcastic and cracking a flippant remark? Right... :dry:

Still, in response to what you said _(As for some things that should never happen or be developed)_: There are lots of things that fit that description. Would you want to create nano-technology that could consume materials that exist in nature and reproduce? I wouldn't...



> I'm not a moralist


I already figured that out...



> I'm a realist and a partial objectivist. It doesnt matter whether I have morals or not though


Yes it does...



> the fact still stands that if someone has the power to play God, or if the power exists at all, then someone somewhere will utilize that power at sometime


I'm going to probably deviate from topic for a couple of seconds to make a point: Why do people view science and technology like it's some kind of sacrosanct thing that must be never given a moral dimension, or regulated in anyway?

I don't know when this mentality first surfaced, but it's frankly wrong-headed as we regulate technology all the time: I'd like to ask you some questions

1. Is your house built to a fire-code?
2. Are you required to have seat-belts in your car?
3. If your house was built after 1978, can it have lead paint?

I'd like to point out that technology is merely the application of scientific, and engineering principles to achieve a result. It doesn't matter whether it's making a door or a house, to building an android (a human shaped robot).



> Those who dont fight for that power will lose out on their chance to utilize it to their liking


Why should anybody have that power? And second of all, who's to say such power wouldn't end up destroying them too?



> will inevitably have given that potential of power up to the one who was more worthy of achieving it.


Who decides who is worthy of it?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

RobynC said:


> @The Incandescent Abyss
> 
> Why are you so passionate in your arguing against what I said: You do realize that what I said was merely an opinion in response to a member who was probably being being sarcastic and cracking a flippant remark? Right... :dry:


Passionate? I don't think I am, Im just merely asking what is the problem with someone wanting to utilize that power if it was possible, because it seemed like you perceive there to be a problem with people wanting to acquire that power. I could be coming off as passionate though, but Im not as passionate about it as it may seem. 



> Still, in response to what you said _(As for some things that should never happen or be developed)_: There are lots of things that fit that description. Would you want to create nano-technology that could consume materials that exist in nature and reproduce? I wouldn't...


If it has a purpose that could benefit humanity in a way that wouldnt be possible without it, then I wouldnt mind.



> I already figured that out...


Good on you


> Yes it does...


Why?



> I'm going to probably deviate from topic for a couple of seconds to make a point: Why do people view science and technology like it's some kind of sacrosanct thing that must be never given a moral dimension, or regulated in anyway?
> 
> I don't know when this mentality first surfaced, but it's frankly wrong-headed as we regulate technology all the time: I'd like to ask you some questions
> 
> ...


I was more focused on the morals, or lack thereof surrounding the acquisition and utilization of power, rather than scientific and technological means. To answer your question though, morals will tend to hold back scientific and technological advancements if given a moral sphere that has too much power in how its regulated, which depending on who you ask could be a problem or not for humanity. Ending the nazi regime was a solution to a problem that humanity was facing, but the continuation of some of the nazi scientists research helped benefit us, even though how they were conducted were amoral. Second, morals havent been objectively proven and most "morals" that are brought to the table are just subjective concerns rather than being objectively beneficial for humanity as a whole. This issue of subjectivity within the sphere of morals creates a disconnect between human opinions on how things should or shouldnt be conducted, and these opinions may or may not be beneficial for humanity as a whole nore so than it is for the individual demanding that things be regulsted based on their personal morality. Science Science, and technology being impersonal pursuits shouldnt be tainted with personal perceptions because that harms the potential that science and technology could reach.

Your examples are societies ways of preventing the lose of its citizens that help maintain its existence. Lowering the death rate of humans increases the productivity of society as a whole, which in turn increases societies chances of survival. Most laws that are built off of moral codes tend to exist not because of what is right or what is wrong but because they benefit society as a whole. 



> Why should anybody have that power? And second of all, who's to say such power wouldn't end up destroying them too?


If the power destroyed them then they obviously werent worthy of having it in their possession, or were to weak to handle it. If a person could benefit humanity as a whole with that power, more than any group of people could ever do working as a collective, then that is reason enough for that one individual to have that power. If an individual doesnt control it then a collective group will, and they are no better than an individual, if anything they are worst because of the groups higher probabiloty of being corrupted due to the difference in minds minds between the individuals that make up the group. 

Also its not about why people should or shouldnt have that power, because no matter the answer the reality will still consist of individuals who will work towards acquiring that power by any means possible if such a power exists. If you wwnt to stop them, then your only option is to acquire that power for yourself to keep others away from having it.



> Who decides who is worthy of it?


Existence, Nature, Fate, and/or Reality. The one who can acquire, utilize, and handle such a power is worthy of it by the rules of nature. Humans can try to limit nature, but itll always be a futile attempt because nature is much more powerful than the collective attempts of humans.

Also back to why should anyone hqve that power? Have you ever wondered why some humans search for power their whole lives, or are so pulled towards power? And why those on top usually are the same people who are attracted to power?


----------



## RobynC (Jun 10, 2011)

The Incandescent Abyss said:


> Passionate?


Yup...



> Im just merely asking what is the problem with someone wanting to utilize that power if it was possible


It's dangerous to play god, and such an individual would probably be more like a devil than a god.



> it seemed like you perceive there to be a problem with people wanting to acquire that power.


To acquire godlike power? Yeah, there is...



> Why?


Morality is necessary to a functional society



> To answer your question though, morals will tend to hold back scientific and technological advancements


That's not always a bad thing.



> Ending the nazi regime was a solution to a problem that humanity was facing


Yes



> the continuation of some of the nazi scientists research helped benefit us, even though how they were conducted were amoral.


Of course, though I believe we should not have recruited some of them, and regardless: Most we could have just gunned into a ditch somewhere once we got what we needed -- despite all the stuff you've heard about how smart they are, most of them would have outlived their usefulness by 1955-1960 tops.



> If the power destroyed them then they obviously werent worthy of having it in their possession or were to weak to handle it.


What if it was inevitable that anybody with it, any intelligence for that matter, would destroy itself with it it?

then that is reason enough for that one individual to have that power. If an individual doesnt control it then a collective group will, and they are no better than an individual, if anything they are worst because of the groups higher probabiloty of being corrupted due to the difference in minds minds between the individuals that make up the group. 



> Also back to why should anyone hqve that power? Have you ever wondered why some humans search for power their whole lives, or are so pulled towards power?


There are various reasons...



> And why those on top usually are the same people who are attracted to power?


Because they are egocentric, have little to no empathy, and possess the unfortunate combination of the above and the necessary intellect to achieve the goal.


----------

