Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- From: "Josef Matz" <josefmatz@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2005 12:57:36 +0200
"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:slrnd5dmtp.kqb.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Josef Matz:
> >
> >"Bilge" <dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:slrnd4pf1u.btn.dubious@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Josef Matz:
> >> >This is a collection on discussions on superluminal effects, spin
> >effects
> >> >and metall optics discussions. Some notes are in german and others
> >written
> >> >in english.
> >> >The references to Nimtz home page and another link to rotating blood
> >cells
> >> >in a light field are given.
> >>
> >> Nimtz is incorrect. What is his actual _data_ rate? He doesn't
> >> say, so he can't possibly claim to be transmitting anything at
> >> any particular speed. He certainly doesn't receive data at the
> >> rate the data is transmitted.
> >>
> >
> >Yes he does, Music signals 16 kHz Bandwidth - nothing high tech.
>
> The data rate is the rate at which _data_ propagate through
> the channel, not the bandwidth specs on the equipment. From
> what I've been able to determine, he doesn't claim that he
> received a bit-identical copy of the transmited signal. What defines
> the data rate is the number of _correct_ bits _decoded_.
>
I think in the prisms the signal is slightly modified due to normal
disperion effects. And indeed for attenuated signals,
(and this we have here), we have a limit. This has to do with the fact that
one the one hand you have an exponential
decrease of the field on the other hand the fact that a signal consits of
photons. So if you measure too far you just have noise.
For a hifi signal for example the noise level is defined someting below 2%.
So the quality of transmission can be expressed
in terms of a gap distance where the noise lets say is below 2% related to
the input. But this radius also depends on the input energy
of your signal and therefore is not a sharp thing. If he repeats the music
you may be shure that his measurements are done with
quite moderate gap distances. And concluding from that we find that no
signal transfer in huge makrodimensions is possible.
Some may have problems in understanding how the inhomogeneous wave forms, it
is not just an instantaneous pass through the gap.
In order to understand whats going on i have got the following picture:
The photons hop instantaneous from the surface into the forbidden region and
stand there for a while and then hop back or, if the second prism surface
is there, to there. In the time period they stay in the gap (I think this
has the name Wigner time ans can be measured) they move parallel to the
surface with the velocity of the regular wave which in vacuum is greater
than c but not infinite. This leads to the sideshift (Goos Hänschen Shift).
Thats the process what occurs.
Maybe there is more than one hopping but the net effect is as if there would
be only one of this processes.
The difficulty i have is to understand the mechanism also for a gap filled
with a gas. As soon as you have something absorbing this simple picture
does not work anymore. But i have good hope to find the mechanism sometimes,
which is behind. It seems that there you need a huge number of such hops.
The net effekt is not known and therefore here you have to find the correct
question and the answer at the same time. This makes it difficult, indeed.
> [...]
> >
> >So test him. Try to disprove or approve him by tests.We can measure
> >velocities and have sensitive instruments. There can be polarisation
>
> I think you've misundesrstood what I claim is incorrect. I made
> no claim either way regarding faster-than-light propagation. When
> I said that nimtz is incorrect, what I mean by incorrect is that
> he has no basis for concluding anything about the propagation
> velocity. His data analysis doesn't include the data required to
> draw a conclusion either way.
>
I see it a little otherwise but i must say that i could not approve his
methods. But the fact that others have got the same results makes me
confident.
>
> >measurements done and the accordance with my theory be tested. Enough
> >stuff for others to make a name or at least nice diploma or promotion
> >works.
>
> You're making this more complicated than it is. The simplest way to
> demonstrate ironclad proof of faster-than-light propagation is to exceed
> the channel capacity of a channel with a propagation velocity of `c' and a
> given bandwidth. In order to do that, he needs to compare the information
> conent of the source with the information content of the signal received.
> He regards the information content as irrelevant and therefore his
> analysis contains a tacit assumption that the signal he recorded was
> exactly the signal transmitted. But that isn't true and he also never
> claims that it's true. He just never considers the fact that it isn't true
> in his analysis of the data.
>
I disagree after the gap the signal is essentially the same as at the
entrance of the gap, except of some noise produced by the field itself. This
signal then is transmitted to the second prism (here a normal signal) and to
the analyzer where nothing uexpected occurs. I see it as Nimtz: The
information content is
a secondary question and dependent on global parameters. Therefore only the
fact counts that information can be transferred. So f you transfer just
noise
with overlightvelocity at large distances, this also is energy and you still
have a superluminal noise and energy transfer. It is not so important that
there are
limits for signaling. Important is the fact that energy is transportet above
c, while all books and theories say that this is impossible.
An from that point of view nimtz has right: Its a nice side aspect, that a
signal can also take velocities faster than the speed of light.
The theory as i told you is not easy. And it is not the task of an
experimentator to deliver both unknown effects and unknown theories. At
least some
help should be expected in order to verify it clearly an then accept the
facts. The closure of eyes because there is no theory which explains it is
horrible.
And i think it does not minder his work if the proposed theoretical
explanations only reach an unperfect grade of prescription. His problem
simply is:
The physical theories are at least partly wrong but we have nothing else. I
would say if we have mistaken views, we should be open to correct them.
And what i want to say: Not everything in the old theories is wrong if his
experiments are approved and accepted.
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- From: Josef Matz
- Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- From: Bilge
- Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- From: Josef Matz
- Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- From: Bilge
- metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- Prev by Date: Re: Why
- Next by Date: Re: New ideas for the cell-structured space and the ether
- Previous by thread: Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- Next by thread: Re: metal optics, superluminal tunneling effects, spin formula in electrodynamics
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
