Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Ben Rudiak-Gould on 19 Aug 2007 07:26 Jerry wrote: > Nevertheless, I believe tht I have discerned a feature of > his setup that points beyond mere stupidity. Rather, this > feature points to actual -fraud-. That's an interesting observation, but I'm strongly inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, in the sense of Hanlon's razor. -- Ben
From: Jerry on 19 Aug 2007 09:54 On Aug 19, 6:26 am, Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276delet...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: > Jerry wrote: > > Nevertheless, I believe tht I have discerned a feature of > > his setup that points beyond mere stupidity. Rather, this > > feature points to actual -fraud-. > > That's an interesting observation, but I'm strongly inclined > to give him the benefit of the doubt, in the sense of > Hanlon's razor. Timo and I have been engaged in an interesting conversation on this point on another thread: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8d3e75b1b8adf1e4 Jerry
From: Dono on 19 Aug 2007 11:46 On Aug 19, 6:54 am, Jerry <Cephalobus_alie...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > On Aug 19, 6:26 am, Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276delet...(a)cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > Jerry wrote: > > > Nevertheless, I believe tht I have discerned a feature of > > > his setup that points beyond mere stupidity. Rather, this > > > feature points to actual -fraud-. > > > That's an interesting observation, but I'm strongly inclined > > to give him the benefit of the doubt, in the sense of > > Hanlon's razor. > > Timo and I have been engaged in an interesting conversation > on this point on another thread:http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/8d3e75b1b8a... > > Jerry Yes, vey good exchange. Would be good to "bring" Timo over here, this thread is dedicated specifically to debunking Nimtz's claims.
From: Robert Clark on 19 Aug 2007 18:56 On Aug 17, 12:09 pm, Dono <sa...(a)comcast.net> wrote: > Here is a very good analysis of his latest paper uploaded on arxiv: > > http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070816-faster-than-the-speed-o... > > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claims for years and he has been > countered in numerous venues. In spite of all the criticisms, he keeps > at it , just like Cahill, Hartwig Thim, Munera, Tom van Flandern etc, > etc. :-) In that arstechnica.com critique the author says: "Suffice it to say that, for the evanescent wave, the speed of light is zero, and therefore any measurable speed is faster than the speed of light." Perhaps he meant to say the *time* of transmission is zero, and therefore the speed is greater than c? This would be consistent with the argument Nimtz is making that evanescent modes are analogous to "tunneling photons" and the fact that quantum theory seems to imply that tunneling photons appear to take the same length of time to cross a barrier regardless of its length. See this article by the physicist John Cramer on this curious prediction of quantum theory in relation to the Nimtz team's (older) work: Tunneling through the Lightspeed Barrier. by John G. Cramer http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw75.html BTW, this online collection of science fact articles by Cramer provides an excellent intro to the interface of science and science fiction. Bob Clark
From: Robert Clark on 19 Aug 2007 18:58
On Aug 17, 10:22 pm, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Josef Matz wrote > > > [to those claiming Nimtz is wrong about superluminal signals] > > Nimtz is right and you are wrong ! > > This is probably a case of both being right, but saying different things. > > Yes, Nimtz probably did observe a superluminal group velocity of his > signals. But yes, this does not violate SR because it cannot be used to > send INFORMATION faster than light. Here's a simple demonstration of why > this can be so: > http://gregegan.customer.netspace.net.au/APPLETS/20/20.html > > Nimtz carefully did not give enough information so his claims could be > examined in detail by experts. > > Tom Roberts Tom, it seems to me to prove information could be sent all the experimenters would have to is instead of reflecting back the same pulse, send back something different such as two pulses. This might be difficult to do over a short distance of 1 meter, because the transmission times are so short. But if they could extend their distance to say 100 meters, it should be possible. Bob Clark |