Debunking Nimtz
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: GETTING RID OF EINSTEIN RELATIVITY
Next: USM
From: Traveler on 19 Aug 2007 19:05 On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 15:56:35 -0700, Robert Clark <rgregoryclark(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >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. Being a time travel crackpot, it does not surprise me that Cramer would try to inject a time travel interpretation into the works. John Cramer: "If this is done properly, the signal will arrive earlier than it leaves, and back-in-time signal transmission will have been achieved.' This is pure hogwash. Quantum tunneling does not prove faster than light travel. It only proves the non-existence of space. IOW, distance is an illusion. Nasty Little Truth About Space: http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space Louis Savain
From: Tom Roberts on 19 Aug 2007 23:07 Robert Clark wrote: > 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. I think what is required is to actually send some information, and demonstrate it arrived at the receiver faster than c. To be convincing, the distance should be varied and the time delay as a function of distance should be plotted, along with a comprehensive error analysis. > This might be difficult to do over a short distance of 1 meter, 3 ns is a long time for some current methods of measuring the delay of a light beam. In at least one case, a resolution of a few attoseconds (10^-18 sec) has been achieved (they used this to stabilize the fiber optic links of ALMA, a multi-antenna radio telescope). Stability becomes a big issue, as the light path must remain constant to better than an Angstrom.... Tom Roberts
From: Pentcho Valev on 20 Aug 2007 02:13 On 20 Aug, 06:07, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in sci.physics.relativity: > Robert Clark wrote: > > 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. > > I think what is required is to actually send some information, and > demonstrate it arrived at the receiver faster than c. Roberts Roberts your zombies still do not know why you replace Einstein's light postulate http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/ "...light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body." with this sending-information idiocy. It seems you are a secret disciple of Dr. Chiao: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31704765.cms "Does fasterthan-light speeding up of photons violate Einstein's theory of relativity? "I don't think so," Dr Chiao said. While individual particles may travel faster than the conventional speed of light, he maintained that it was not possible to transmit a message at superluminal speeds." Are you a secret disciple of Dr. Chiao Roberts Roberts? If you are, then are you a secret disciple of the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson as well? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/31704765.cms "The Nobel laureate Brian Josephson put it a little differently: "The new speeds given for photons are in excess of the current value for the speed of light in air, but they are still light photons. So clearly, we are dealing with the speed of light - only faster light." I think Roberts Roberts you ARE a secret disciple of the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson. In fact you Roberts Roberts, the Albert Einstein of our generation (Hawking is no longer the Albert Einstein of our generation), you have been a secret disciple of the Nobel laureate Brian Josephson for years: http://groups.google.ca/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/8034dc146100e32c Tom Roberts: "If it is ultimately discovered that the photon has a nonzero mass (i.e. light in vacuum does not travel at the invariant speed of the Lorentz transform), SR would be unaffected but both Maxwell's equations and QED would be refuted (or rather, their domains of applicability would be reduced)." Pentcho Valev
From: Androcles on 20 Aug 2007 06:46 "Tom Roberts" <tjroberts137(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:Gz7yi.459$YQ.46(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com... : Robert Clark wrote: : > 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. : : I think Liar. -- 'we establish by definition that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO and you have to agree because I'm the great genius, STOOOPID, don't you dare question it. -- Albert Einstein. Androcles Dumbledore
From: Tom Van Flandern on 21 Aug 2007 23:31
"Dono" writes: > Nimtz has been making this ridiculous claim [about faster-than-light > propagation] 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. The Nimtz claim may or may not be correct, but it certainly is not ridiculous. It has now been solidly established that Lorentzian relativity (with no speed limit) is just as viable a physical model as special relativity (with speed limit c) because both theories agree with all 11 independent experiments testing the relativity of motion. That much is uncontested. It is also the prevailing opinion at present that gravitational force propagates faster than light in forward time because all six experiments sensitive to that speed agree that it propagates faster than c. Several early challenges to that conclusion between 1998 and 2001 were answered to the satisfaction of neutral parties, and no further challenges have appeared since the 2002 comprehensive review paper on this subject. Here are the citations: ** "Possible new properties of gravity", Astrophys.&SpaceSci. 244:249-261, 1996; http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/possiblenewpropertiesofgravity.asp ** "The speed of gravity - What the experiments say", Phys.Lett.A 250:1-11, 1998; http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp ** "Experimental Repeal of the Speed Limit for Gravitational, Electrodynamic, and Quantum Field Interactions", T. Van Flandern & J.P. Vigier, Found.Phys. 32:1031-1068, 2002; preprint under title "The speed of gravity - Repeal of the speed limit": http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/speed_limit.asp These are peer-reviewed, published in major physics journals, and the last of them is unchallenged and therefore stands as the last word on the subject to date. This means that propagation and communication at unlimited speeds in forward time (no causality violations) is not just possible, but an inevitable development in our future. It also means SETI is a waste of time because no technologically advanced civilization would communicate over interstellar distances using electromagnetic waves when they could use classical gravitons instead and communicate in seconds instead of centuries. -|Tom|- Tom Van Flandern - Sequim, WA - see our web site on frontier astronomy research at http://metaresearch.org |