|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not a Doppler effect. It is your assertion that there is an effect with dominates Doppler shifting on any scale? No, primarily on a macro (non-local) scale. So then, red shifts greater than 1, or 2, or 3, or....? Which? Let's say you had a cable stretching from our galaxy to a distant red-shifted galaxy. What would be your conclusion if the red-shift continued without the cable breaking? It must be one of those Bungee cables. :-) 73, Jim AC6XG |
Water burns!
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have
"communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and rich. John, N9JG "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... [snip] One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet the communications between entangled particles obviously travels faster than the speed of light. [snip] 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... Mike Kaliski wrote: It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects. The famous relativity experiment that allowed men to "see" a star "hidden" by the sun is a good example. My point was that man's imperfect "laws of physics" are often violated and have to be revised or discarded in favor of a new set of laws of physics. If the scientific progress over the next 1000 years equals that of the last 1000 years, most of what we think we know now will no doubt be revised or proved incorrect and discarded. For instance: The laws of physics based on non-empty space (ether) were discarded only to be revived in different form by the discovery that empty space is far from empty. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space is nothing.. |
Water burns!
"John, N9JG" wrote in message et... 1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and rich. John, N9JG "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... [snip] One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet the communications between entangled particles obviously travels faster than the speed of light. [snip] 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com John & Cecil Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin, Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in which they say: "... About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through an absorbing material ... In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides. The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ... Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden region ... In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the speed of light" ... Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a maximum value" ... In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal .... Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be regarded as a signal ... ". Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be made of the phenomenon. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your life. Of course, I don't consider myself to be omniscient. The difference between you and me is that you put your faith in science while I am skeptical of virtually everything. IMO, Newton's laws of physics were proved wrong and their application had to be limited as a result. If Newton had been informed about seconds getting longer and mass increasing as velocity is increased, he no doubt would have rejected such as complete nonsense. Is a ruler calibrated to 1/32 of an inch wrong compared to a micrometer calibrated to .0005 inch? Is the micrometer wrong compared to an optical inferometer? Must one use an optical inferometer to build a one hole outhouse? Again, how do you explain the fact that entangled particles violate the theory that nothing can happen faster than the speed of light? Oh yeah, I forgot - simply re-define the problem out of existence. Those particles are communicating faster than light but there is no information flow (yet). A nonsense question. There is a big difference between "something happening" and mass moving, but you know that, don't you? -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
John Smith I wrote:
... However, if I spun up the moon to revolve once ever 48 hours, that would NOT make use of the moons spin valid in equations ... even if I expressed it in equations like: moon-speed = (earth-speed * 2) Something, or some effect, unknown to us belongs in those equations! Sheer logic provides the proof ... JS Another thing, as I get older, NOTHING gets better ... Change the above: "moon_speed = (earth_speed * 2)" to: moon_speed = (earth_speed/2) I hate those dyslexic slips ... :-( JS |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
"John, N9JG" wrote in message et... 1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. If you can show that item 2 above is false, you will become both famous and rich. John, N9JG "Cecil Moore" wrote in message ... [snip] One more example: Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light yet the communications between entangled particles obviously travels faster than the speed of light. [snip] 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com John & Cecil Extract from http://www.valdostamuseum.org/hamsmith/newtech2.html The Chiao Group at Berkeley is investigating superluminality. Ryan Frewin, Renee George, Deborah Paulson have a web page about superluminality, in which they say: "... About ten years ago, Steven Chu and Stephen Wong at AT&T Bell Labs in New Jersey measured superluminal velocities for light pulses traveling through an absorbing material ... In 1991, Anedio Ranfagni et al at the National Institute for Research into Electromagnetic Waves in Florence, Italy measured the speed of propagation for microwaves through a "forbidden zone" inside square metal w aveguides. The reported values were initially less than the speed of light, until the experiment was repeated in 1992 with thicker barriers ... Also in 1992, Gunter Nimtz and colleagues at the University of Cologne reported superluminal speeds for microwaves traversing a similar forbidden region ... In 1993, the most solid experimental evidence came from Chiao and his colleagues Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat at the University of California at Berkeley. Using the Hong-Ou-Mandel interferometer ... they were able to measure the tunneling times of visible light. According to Brown, "the researchers found that the photons that tunneled their way through the optical filter arrived 1.5 femtoseconds sooner than the ones that traveled through air. The tunneling photons seemed to have traveled at 1.7 times the speed of light" ... Similar experiments by Ferenc Krauss et al at the Technical University in Vienna in October of 1994 "strongly suggest that as they progressively increased the thickness of the barrier the tunneling time saturated toward a maximum value" ... In March of 1995, at a colloquium in Snowbird, Utah, Nimtz announced that he had sent a signal across twelve centimeters of space at 4.7 times the speed of light . The signal was a modulation in the frequency of his microwave source matching Mozart's 40th Symphony ... Even Chiao and his colleagues were adamantly opposed to describing Nimtz' work as the sending of a signal ... Why was the bar of Mozart's symphony not a signal? ... If a wave packet's shape upon incidence is smooth and well- defined, it is a straightforward calculation to determine its shape after transmission. Because the final shape can be mathematically determined ... most scientists would not consider a smoothly varying function to be a signal. ... Chiao and Steinberg were quick to point out that Nimtz' symphony was not a signal, but simply a smoothly varying pulse. .. A sudden change in the shape would still travel at only light speed, and only a sudden change, according to Chiao, could be regarded as a signal ... ". Clearly some things do appear to travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum. The jury appears to be out as to whether any practical use can be made of the phenomenon. Mike G0ULI This was in "evanescent mode", in other words, waveguide or something similar. Not "free space". So very very very unlikely exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. As in it didn't. No laws were broken. tom K0TAR |
Water burns!
John, N9JG wrote:
1. What do you mean when you state that entangled particles have "communications"? 2. Entangled particles can not be used to send _information_ at a speed greater than the speed of light. Already answered from another posting: "Those particles are communicating faster than light but there is no information flow (yet)." IMO, it is only a matter of time and effort before we figure out how to modulate entangled particles. After all, it took ~250,000 years for us to figure out how to modulate EM waves. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Jimmie D wrote:
the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space is nothing.. Empty and nothing are synonyms. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:55 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com