Re: Nimtz double prism experiment - the mathematics - answer to eric gisse
- From: Jerry <Cephalobus_alienus@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 08:48:12 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 13, 8:35 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Josef Matz" <josefm...@xxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitragnews:47d92c94$0$6603$9b4e6d93@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:c403bec6-17b0-4459-90a1-1a1608217c8b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On Mar 9, 4:21 am, "Josef Matz" <josefm...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Eric Gisse" <jowr...@xxxxxxxxx> schrieb im
Newsbeitragnews:024af722-1660-4964-ae19-f6c985d77de2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
s.com...
On Mar 8, 11:15 am, Albertito <albertito1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip idiocy]
Stop citing papers whose refutations you are unable to understand.
Eric Gisse you do not understand them too.
I know the difference between phase velocity and group velocity - it
looks like Nimitz is mistaking the two. Plus Nimitz never _once_
actually measured something traveling faster than light. If you think
he did, point out the part of either of the papers cited in which he
did.
Again no. evanescent waves are different from c - waves. This link bringsare
you to Nimtz book which is now (2008) alslso available in english. There
some chapters you can read for test.
http://www.wiley-vch.de/publish/dt/books/ISBN3-527-40735-9/authorinfo...
/?sID=8989b28255fcd853a306995ebcd3aaaa
A couple of years ago i was on Nimtz homepage and there was offered an
optics article
for payment. So Nimtz may have a optics theory or may not i dont know.
Now i am a physicist. I can calculate what happens if you take thefollowing
optics problem:
A makroscopic light wave falls from a medium with n>1 onto a vaccum gapoccur
within that dielectric medium.
The incident angle is bigger than the Brewster angle (i hope this is the
same name in english as in german).
This Brewster angle is the angle for which total reflection begins to
if the vacuum gap is big.
Under this conditions you have no regular c - waves but inhomogene resp.
evanescent waves.
The propagation vector of the two waves in the gap has a imaginary part.
Thats the difference to regular c - waves in vacuum which you have only if
the infall angle is less than the brewster angle.
You have three energy fluxes in this vacuum gap. Two of them are waves
parallel to the surfaces,
the outrunning infall waves and the reflected wave. So you have just this
two fields in the vacuum gap.
This two fields form a third energy flux which is made out of a mix of the
two inhomogene fieldds in the gap.
The Formula for this energy flux is:
S = ( E x H´* + E´x H* + E*x H´ + E´*xH) / 4
This Mix - Flux between the two fields in the vacuum gap (´is standing forthis,
the reflectred wave)
is zero in the regular case ( for infall angles less than the Brewster
angles).
In the case of Nimtz double prism experiments this energy flux isn`t zero.
In order to do the calculus right, you must do the calculation for the
perpendicular polarized resp E - waves
seperately from the parallel polarized resp. H waves. If you do not do
you would get unphysical
additional energy fluxes arising from an overlap of these. These are
unphysical because they have components pointing out of the impluse plane.
Similar accounts for the energy density due to the overlap.
The energy density is
w = 1/8 ( E D´* + E´D* + E*D´ + E´*D + B H´* + B´H* + B*H´ + B´*H )
The above energy flux through the gap is non zero. The energy density is
zero.
Since the relation
S = w v(Group)
is valid too here coming out from inhomogene dispersion theory for vacua,
you get out from classical optics, that v(Group) is infinite. v(group) is
the normal velocity through the gap.
This is the essential part of the Nimtz experiment for tunneling prisms
explained by optical theory.
If you try calculate your own and have problems, ask me.
So you see: You have a nonzero tunneling flux through the vacuum gap, a
vanishing energy density
and therefore a infinite velocity.
Now the photons going through the gap do not hop through instantly but hoppart
into the two sideways fluxes
for the duration of about one inverse frequency time. This is the other
of the story which is
correctly interpreted by nimtz. This time delay can be calculated too. And
this sideways movement is superluminal but not instant.
So thats Nimtz experiment in short.
Classical Optics can explain all details of his measurement. Classical
Optics is the theory for superluminal
effects too.
All that guys that claimed that they measured superluminal effects in
optical experiments with dispersion
are probably right too at least some of them.
Do you gisse really believe that theres nothing behind this all ?
Wang too got superluminal results but he avoided the fight with theidiotic
relativists.
Read Nimtz statements about Wang. Wang is the lier resp. the worser
experimenter.
Nimtz is fully right Eric Gisse !!!!!!!
Nimtz' experimental setup allows manipulation of the results to be
exactly what he wants. The setup allows innocent self-deception; it
also allows outright fraud.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/864dcae6b58b34ca
Jerry
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Mach's principle and aether
- Next by Date: Circular motion in SR
- Previous by thread: Nimtz double prism experiment - the mathematics - answer to eric gisse
- Next by thread: Re: Nimtz double prism experiment - the mathematics - answer to eric gisse
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
