October 19th 03
posted to sci.physics.relativity,alt.sci.physics,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,sci.physics
|
|
|
Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities?
wrote:
On Sun, 19 Oct 2003 15:53:38 -0400, holog wrote:
Perfectly Innocent wrote:
There are plenty of scientific papers and news reports touting
superluminal velocities and even negative transit times for pulses of
light propagating through atomic caesium vapor.
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lw...er/paper39.pdf
http://www.neci.nec.com/homepages/lw...er/paper49.pdf
I wonder if this is all nonsensical hoopla based on the antiquated
wave theory of light or if there is a real, measurable
faster-than-light particle view of quantum mechanical tunneling going
on. If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities. All quantum mechanists know the rules of adding
amplitudes but I would like to know if something new about quantum
mechanical tunneling has been revealed. Are individual photons in
these experiments moving at velocities faster than light?
Answer:
The sheer mention of this result together with Einstein's theory of
special relativity and the principle of causality is a scam. Not a
single photon is moving faster than light.
The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion. The fact that the dramatic 60 ns
advance is only one fiftieth of the width of the pulse is a clear
indication of this.
If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.
It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.
http://www.everythingimportant.org/viewtopic.php?t=605
http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...multaneity.htm
Is there a real empirically confirmed theory of superluminal
velocities? No, not yet. But there is no evil in being able to
conceptualize such things.
Eugene Shubert
Why do people think if you go faster than light you can immediately go
back in time? i.e. if you could travel at twice the speed of light it
would still take two years to get to alpha centuri, right?
Yup...
The problem is definitions of SR as to 'event sequencing'. LRT does
not have this problem since it does NOT have a defined
synchronization process that sets time as a pseudo-distance...
Paul Stowe
Exactly.
Richard Perry
|