Perfectly Innocent:

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.

Neither.

If I understand Richard P. Feynman correctly, photons are always
particles; the wave nature of light only reveals itself in terms of
probabilities.

Right.

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.

Yeah. That it doesn't make sense to think of quantum mechanics in the
same way one thinks of classical mechanics.

Are individual photons in these experiments moving
at velocities faster than light?

That doesn't really make much sense quantum mechanically.

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.

Whatever.

The alleged generation of superluminal velocities without violating
causality is intentionally misleading physicists' hoopla and all the
media hype is pure distortion.

Don't read the media hype.

The fact that the dramatic 60 ns advance is only one fiftieth of
the width of the pulse is a clear indication of this.

The fact that you're looking at a pulse means you aren't looking
at photons. However, I don't really feel like explaining it in
detail, as I'm sure it won't matter.

If you were hoping to conceptualize how Einstein's special theory of
relativity might be false, then don't let these facts disappoint you.

The "facts" you've mentioned don't really say much about it
one way or the other.

It is possible to modify Einstein's special theory to allow for motion
faster than light.

Sure, if you give light a mass. Then, a photon is just like any other
massive particle.

EL wrote:

Richard
wrote in message ...
wrote:

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

[EL]
Hi Richard and Paul.

Please help me on this because I really do not know what experiment
was being conducted when that discovery was made.

If it was not a discovery that was discovered during conducting
another experiment, then this is a fabricated setup with intentional
end results in mind and a complex rig to hide a glitch.

My very clear question is {What was the original research researching
when the alleged superluminal propagation was allegedly found out?}

Naturally, they never saw any results on any oscilloscope because a
scan line is constant time dependant and it is rather obscenely
ridiculous to assume an output showing before an input.
Therefore we expect them to tell us more numerical details on the
measurements without any hoopla of equations because until I see the
detailed circuit being used I doubt that they have measured and wave
propagation at all.

Those who know about electronics, know very well that a continuous
wave may be displayed by synchronising the sweep rate at an integer
multiple or part of the wave frequency otherwise the wave shape shall
slip on the screen.

However, they talk on something much more demanding because they talk
about a single pulse that demands a trigger to catch it.

Now if the input was not the trigger then they never caught anything
but if the input was the trigger then it is impossible to catch
anything before such an event.

This excludes all the negative time bull **** of course.

So we are left a sixty millimetre tube full of caesium gas and a LASER
pumped pulse as an input and a trigger that is supposed to traverse
the tube in 0.2 nanoseconds IN VACUUM.

If the signal was delayed by 62 ns in caesium then how can that be
faster than light?

To capture detailed data of a full pulse wave-shape within 0.2
nanoseconds is a formidable task and I demand the release of the
electronic parts that accomplished that feat if they dare, but I am
certain that it is all a fabrication.

They were not working on something else and made a discovery, but the
whole scam was planned ahead before any rig was constructed, right?


Regards.

EL

Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Let's apply again the
formula

(v+w)/(1 + vw/c^2)

Now let's take the FOR of some blue phase wave. From this FOR the red
phase wave is propagating at less than c, regardless of dispersion.

Now along the path there are nodes formed by the addition of these phase
waves, and these nodes can supposedly have a velocity greater than c wrt
lab frame. If however the node is propagating slower than one phase wave
wrt the other, then it is traveling at less than c wrt the phase waves
themselves, and thus by the above equation must also be traveling at
less than c wrt lab frame. Thus even a group velocity cannot exceed c
wrt lab frame.

Now as I see it, a group velocity was measured at greater than c, and
thus, in contrast to the Fizeau near fit, the relativistic velocity
addition equation fails in this current experiment. Not only that, but
the whole of special relativity has been proved false.

Moreover I have considered again the problem of a flashlight beam from a
rotating flashlight, regardless of the observed speed of the 'spot' on
surrounding reflectors, it too is constrained to less than c within SR.

If for instance the spot is moving at less than c wrt some point in
motion wrt the background, then it must, by the equation above, also be
moving at less than c wrt the background. Thus the disproof of SR is as
old as the rotating flashlight gedanken.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(which is indirectly, another disproof of SR)

see
http://gregegan.customer.netspace.ne...ETS/20/20.html

Richard wrote in message ...

[snip]


Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing.

Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter,
energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference
patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts.

Paul Cardinale

Richard wrote in message ...
EL wrote:

Richard
wrote in message ...
wrote:

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

[EL]
Hi Richard and Paul.

Please help me on this because I really do not know what experiment
was being conducted when that discovery was made.

If it was not a discovery that was discovered during conducting
another experiment, then this is a fabricated setup with intentional
end results in mind and a complex rig to hide a glitch.

My very clear question is {What was the original research researching
when the alleged superluminal propagation was allegedly found out?}

Naturally, they never saw any results on any oscilloscope because a
scan line is constant time dependant and it is rather obscenely
ridiculous to assume an output showing before an input.
Therefore we expect them to tell us more numerical details on the
measurements without any hoopla of equations because until I see the
detailed circuit being used I doubt that they have measured and wave
propagation at all.

Those who know about electronics, know very well that a continuous
wave may be displayed by synchronising the sweep rate at an integer
multiple or part of the wave frequency otherwise the wave shape shall
slip on the screen.

However, they talk on something much more demanding because they talk
about a single pulse that demands a trigger to catch it.

Now if the input was not the trigger then they never caught anything
but if the input was the trigger then it is impossible to catch
anything before such an event.

This excludes all the negative time bull **** of course.

So we are left a sixty millimetre tube full of caesium gas and a LASER
pumped pulse as an input and a trigger that is supposed to traverse
the tube in 0.2 nanoseconds IN VACUUM.

If the signal was delayed by 62 ns in caesium then how can that be
faster than light?

To capture detailed data of a full pulse wave-shape within 0.2
nanoseconds is a formidable task and I demand the release of the
electronic parts that accomplished that feat if they dare, but I am
certain that it is all a fabrication.

They were not working on something else and made a discovery, but the
whole scam was planned ahead before any rig was constructed, right?


Regards.

EL

Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing. Let's apply again the
formula

(v+w)/(1 + vw/c^2)

Now let's take the FOR of some blue phase wave. From this FOR the red
phase wave is propagating at less than c, regardless of dispersion.

Now along the path there are nodes formed by the addition of these phase
waves, and these nodes can supposedly have a velocity greater than c wrt
lab frame. If however the node is propagating slower than one phase wave
wrt the other, then it is traveling at less than c wrt the phase waves
themselves, and thus by the above equation must also be traveling at
less than c wrt lab frame. Thus even a group velocity cannot exceed c
wrt lab frame.

Now as I see it, a group velocity was measured at greater than c, and
thus, in contrast to the Fizeau near fit, the relativistic velocity
addition equation fails in this current experiment. Not only that, but
the whole of special relativity has been proved false.

Moreover I have considered again the problem of a flashlight beam from a
rotating flashlight, regardless of the observed speed of the 'spot' on
surrounding reflectors, it too is constrained to less than c within SR.

If for instance the spot is moving at less than c wrt some point in
motion wrt the background, then it must, by the equation above, also be
moving at less than c wrt the background. Thus the disproof of SR is as
old as the rotating flashlight gedanken.

Richard Perry

http://www.cswnet.com/~rper
Electromagnetism: First Principles
(which is indirectly, another disproof of SR)

[EL]
Hahaha

Dear Richard, I was not concerned about SR at this moment as I am
aware of Prf. Lorentz efforts to create a concept of a varying time
dimension, which I strongly rebuke.

I was very specific in my inquiry concerning the activity of that
research team before announcing superluminal measurements. You just
confirmed to me that there was no other research going on while an
anomaly popped up.
The whole hardware setup was constructed to make believe that there is
a superluminal propagation of electromagnetic waves at any cost.
I am aware of equipment from Fairchild and others, which electronic IC
manufacturers use to determine the slew rate and signal delay between
input pins and output pins.

In fact Integrated Circuits are much slower than high power discrete
transistors, and the fastest of all are switches and choppers. To give
you an example on NPN type switching transistors,
a 10 mA to 1 A range current (collector) has

20 ns = t_on = 70 ns,

which is the turn-on time, and

32 ns = t_off = 285 ns,

This means an obvious meaning, which is the fact that a trigger signal
MUST TAKE TIME to reach the circuit that captures the output of the
pulse for comparison.

Therefore, a 0.2 ns time window is too narrow for any real time
measurement, so what they must have done is to tune the circuit to
resonance such that they catch an Nth pulse in a train of pulses and
not THE pulse that caused the trigger.

This means that fractional delays may accumulate slipping the output
backwards until it seems as if it was ahead of the input.

A serious and professional wave plumber knows that for this type of
measurement a trigger technique is inapplicable.
What is applicable is a matched pair of lines that have perfectly
matched components on each side and that carry the signals to a
comparator of internally matched components as well. That comparator
can measure the difference in the gained potential difference as a
function of phase shifting. This technique admits a delay but which is
matched as a pair and cancels out. However, the phase shift in that
case could be due to any number of cycles in between and does not
measure the number of cycles in between to account for the total delay
between the incident wave at the starting of the caesium tube and the
ending of the caesium tube.

This restricts experiments to law frequency waves to guarantee that a
phase shift is that of a single wave, which is based on our empirical
knowledge that the wave must travel at less than [c] in caesium or any
medium other than vacuum.

So I was not surprised to read that they obtained a delay of 62 ns
inside the tube.

I tried to follow the equations but I stopped at being disgusted from
the relentless attempts to fit the results to a hypothesis.

Any way, thank you for your response Richard.

sigh

EL

"Paul Cardinale" wrote in message
om...
Richard wrote in message
...

[snip]


Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing.

Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter,
energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference
patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts.

Paul Cardinale

Very true. That would be like denying the existence of space-like
geodesics, which obviously do exist. We just can't have real "things"
moving along them.

SR has no problem with, for example, someone spinning a flashlight around in
the center of a cyllindrical room with a radius of 1 light year at one
revolution per second.

Paul Cardinale wrote:

Richard wrote in message ...

[snip]


Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing.


Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter,
energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference
patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts.

Paul Cardinale

I think the trick here is the barrier they use it to alter the wave form
so the peak of the wave is advanced. Then the detector detects it sooner
than if it was not manipulated. i.e. chart an x any y graph and run a
sine wave through so a new wave starts at zero, continue the wave in the
negative direction also. Now make a sine wave with a longer wavelength,
but only on the right side. A detector would detect the longer wave first.

holog

I know what goes faster than the speed of light.

The stars really really far from me all go faster than the speed of
light when I spin around in circles because my spinning reference
frame is just as good as anybody else's.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

(Paul Cardinale) wrote in message . com...
Richard wrote in message ...

[snip]


Who knows? What I do know is that upon reflection, SR is incompatible
with any superluminal speed, even of a non-thing.

Wrong. As always. The speed limit of c in SR applies to matter,
energy, and information. The limit does not apply to interference
patterns, shadows, projections, and cuts.

Paul Cardinale

BTW, SR alone doesn't limit things to light speed. However, if we add
the restriction that there are no causal loops, IE, instances in which
a proceeds b, b proceeds c, and c proceeds a, then it does. However,
if Lorentz Symmetry was broken, like a spontaneously broken symmetry,
then this wouldn't necessarily be true.

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

EL wrote:

This restricts experiments to law frequency waves to guarantee that a
phase shift is that of a single wave, which is based on our empirical
knowledge that the wave must travel at less than [c] in caesium or any
medium other than vacuum.

So I was not surprised to read that they obtained a delay of 62 ns
inside the tube.

I tried to follow the equations but I stopped at being disgusted from
the relentless attempts to fit the results to a hypothesis.

Any way, thank you for your response Richard.

sigh

EL

You are probably correct EL, but I don't believe that it's that
complicated. All you need to measure is the dispersion, from there you
can calculate the group velocity, as demonstrated nicely by this applet

http://gregegan.customer.netspace.ne...ETS/20/20.html

According to the link on that page, the group velocity is given by

v_g = c / (n(v) + vdn(v)/dv)

and can be greater than c.

OTOH, I have a problem with their explanation of why this doesn't
contradict SR. Let's suppose that wrt some given wave the speed of the
group wave is less than c. Thus wrt that wave a massive particle may be
moving in tandem with that group wave. According to SR velocity
addition, that particle is thus traveling at less than c wrt lab frame
as well, and thus the group wave is also moving at less than c wrt lab
frame because it is perpetually adjacent to the particle, which is
simply an invariant condition. Thus, according to SR and simple logic, a
group wave cannot move at greater than c wrt lab frame, 'unless' it is
also moving at greater than c wrt any single phase wave involved in the
group wave propagation. Thus the equation above cannot be
relativistically correct. OTOH, there is no doubt that the group wave
can indeed empirically surpass c, so that if SR is valid, then there is
a speed of the group wave that cannot be accompanied by the moving
particle. Once again this can only result in the group wave propagating
at greater than c wrt 'all' frames at the very instant that it exceeds c
wrt any one frame.

OTOH, even if the measurement in this case was improperly obtained,
there is no ambiguity in the similarity of group wave propagation and
the rotating flashlight beam-spot velocity, which latter has been
directly measured at greater than c. IOW, the same argument applies to
both experiments.

Let's look at it like this:
If the spot is moving at c + 1 m/s wrt lab frame, then what speed will
the spot appear to be moving wrt an observer that is moving at 1m/s wrt
lab frame in the same direction as the spot. Now in order to allow both
observers to actually measure the speed of the spot, we need only allow
for an omnidirectional reflection of the photons from the target. The
moving observer will measure a definite speed of the spot wrt himself,
do you doubt that? According to SR, what will that speed be? Who
knows, huh? SR can't even deal with the problem, and thus has zero
chance of providing a true description of relative motions, eh?

BTW, this is a very doable experiment. In fact I'm surprised, even
shocked, that it hasn't been done.

It is easy to say, "Well, the SR speed limit applies only to massive
particles and information", it is quite another to prove that statement,
and to be quite honest, in retrospect, I've not only never seen such a
proof, I've never even seen a citation of such a proof. This seems to be
one of those, "well it sounds reasonable so it must be correct" laws.
Never once questioned as it is being questioned now. And it would seem
that it was very easy to discredit it all this time. Hmmm...Sometimes I
wonder if man will ever actually be even half of what believes himself
to be

Deal with that EL, and leave your condescending tone out of it, I didn't
buy. Superiority isn't a matter of one's technobabble cache'.

'sigh'

Richard Perry