http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz
der neueste pdf -download:
http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz/pa...res_of_Tunnell
ing.pdf ist aus dem Jahre 2001

josefmatz wrote:
http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz
der neueste pdf -download:
http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz/pa...res_of_Tunnell
ing.pdf ist aus dem Jahre 2001

Dear Josef,
the technical side of these experiments may be ok, and I believe
that a distant observer indeed notices a superluminal velocity.
Unfortunately, these really nice experiments suffer from a faulty
interpretation. Have you (or your professor ever heard that
the *local* c is constant ? Because it is nothing else than a
conversion factor that only decides scales.
If the distant observer notices something else, then it has to
do with the structure of the space-time, particularly at the
tunnel effect.

Ulrich

Thank you, Ulrich for your comment.

I think there might exist different types of tunneling, there could be types
(e.g. in a nucleus) where your view is right. But the Nimtz experiments are
optical experiments and there i can not see any relativistic influence.

If the nimtz experiment is true it is something fundamental. Lets say nimtz
found einsteins tachions which now can be identified as tunneling photons.

It seems that the double prism experiment of nimtz has its explanation in
the macroscopic maxwell equations.
There can be found a simple formula for the tunneling flux density, which
make the nimtz experiment to a local
theory with energy conservation everywhere. Lets say it is the completion
for the Fresnel Formulas in the case
of tunneling (total reflection). But the difficulty is: Nobody trusts such
formulas as long the experiment is not verified by enough other
experimentators.

The theory is very simple and the velocities are superluminous, as nimtz
measures it.

"ueb" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
...
josefmatz wrote:
http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz
der neueste pdf -download:

http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz/pa...res_of_Tunnell
ing.pdf ist aus dem Jahre 2001

Dear Josef,
the technical side of these experiments may be ok, and I believe
that a distant observer indeed notices a superluminal velocity.
Unfortunately, these really nice experiments suffer from a faulty
interpretation. Have you (or your professor ever heard that
the *local* c is constant ? Because it is nothing else than a
conversion factor that only decides scales.
If the distant observer notices something else, then it has to
do with the structure of the space-time, particularly at the
tunnel effect.

Ulrich

josefmatz wrote:
Thank you, Ulrich for your comment.

I think there might exist different types of tunneling, there could be types
(e.g. in a nucleus) where your view is right. But the Nimtz experiments are
optical experiments

Is that with the hollow conductor optical too ?
I think that the macroscopic tunnel effects well support the "relativistic"
interpretation.

and there i can not see any relativistic influence.

The very different experiments having the same result demonstrate that
nature makes no difference between different dimensions in the length.

If the nimtz experiment is true it is something fundamental.

Indeed. Because it demonstrates that nature obeys uniform rules, despite
of common opposite assumptions and claims. You can see in
http://home.t-online.de/home/Ulrich.Bruchholz/
what rules that are. (Also particles obey these rules.)

Lets say nimtz
found einsteins tachions which now can be identified as tunneling photons.

It might be careless to define particles moving with a fundamentally
impossible velocity. There are huge lots of experimental evidence
for SR and its most important conclusion. GR supplies a reasonable
explanation for this *seeming* contradiction from the tunnel effects.

It seems that the double prism experiment of nimtz has its explanation in
the macroscopic maxwell equations.
There can be found a simple formula for the tunneling flux density, which
make the nimtz experiment to a local
theory with energy conservation everywhere. Lets say it is the completion
for the Fresnel Formulas in the case
of tunneling (total reflection). But the difficulty is: Nobody trusts such
formulas as long the experiment is not verified by enough other
experimentators.

The theory is very simple and the velocities are superluminous, as nimtz
measures it.

As you could read above, one does not _need_ special theories in order
to explain the *seeming* superluminal velocity at tunnel effects. :-)
Nimtz measures it of course, and who has a clue of GR can understand why.

Ulrich