|
Water burns!
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message t... Tom Ring wrote: No violation Cecil, space bends, not light. Is a straight line through bent space still a straight line? :-) -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com Cecil It was Richard Feynman who 'proved' that light always travels by the most direct route (i.e. a straight line) between two objects. In doing that, he also managed to 'prove' that light took every other possible route too and by mutual interference between all the possible paths, arrived at the shortest route. Light travels by the most direct route even through curved space. Our perception that the light has been bent is apparently due to deficiencies in the way we see the universe. At least that's what I think the theory says. His proof is ingenious and somewhat counter intuitive. As he won a Nobel prize for this sort of stuff, I'm not inclined to argue. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
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 |
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 Indeed Cecil, Even as a youngster, I was never happy with the concept of space vacuum being completely devoid of anything. I first started studying radio and electronics because I couldn't see how signals could propagate through absolute nothingness. With the benefit of age and experience, I can accept the concept that electromagnetic radiation is self sustaining, oscillating between magnetic and electric field incarnations and complete in itself. But there was always that nagging doubt that this was not the whole picture. I don't really expect most of our current laws of physics will be overturned in the next 1000 years. I think new phenomena that exist outside of our normal everyday experience will be discovered and whole new areas of research will open up operating in parallel to our current understanding. Current quantum research seems to suggest that we are all ultimately made up of a series of coherent waves, with no solidity whatsoever. It's just a kind of electrostatic repulsion that stops us falling through the floor. Whatever the truth of the matter, it has very little impact on our daily lives and it still hurts like hell when I stub my toe on the table leg. Cheers Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
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. Except that isn't true. Any new physics must encompass and explain everything already proven. As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset, a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the effects of velocity can be ignored. If some new discovery allows for travel faster than c, relativistic physics as we now know it becomes a special case for velocity less than c as it is already experimentally validated and must become a subset of the new physics. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: As a simplistic example, relativistic physics doesn't make Newtonian physics "wrong", discard it or revise it, Newton just becomes a subset, a special case where if velocity is much, much smaller than c, the effects of velocity can be ignored. As an earlier simplistic example, the four elements of fire, earth, air, and water are not all the elements that exist although one might rationalize that those four elements are a subset of the periodic table of the elements. Except no one ever did experiments to prove the hypothesis that fire, earth, air, and water were elements, so it remained a hypothesis until experiments were conducted to define elements, at which time the hypothesis was discarded. Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't. You do know the difference between a scientific theory and a scientific hypothesis, don't you? Forcing boundary conditions on existing "laws of physics" doesn't make things like Newtonian physics any more accurate. It just makes some of us human beings feel better about our sacred cows. :-) Nonsense, it is just reality. Everything has boundary conditions, except maybe your proclivity to try and stir the pot. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't. Quoted from: ************************************************** ******** Ask A Scientist - General Science Archive ---------------------------------------------------------- Theories Proven Wrong Question - Where can I find information on theories that were proven wrong? --------------------------------------- Answer: Rumor has it that "Fads & Fallacies in the Name of Science" by Martin Gardner is just what your looking for. Every scientific theory is wrong in some respect. There is no scientific theory of "everything". ************************************************** ******** Apples and oranges. A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble thrown around by the clueless. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence. In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable. In physics, the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework - derived from a small set of basic principles (usually symmetries - like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc) - which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. Note the words "a given category of physical systems". As for the "aether", no observations that are predictive, logical or testable except in the negative. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: A "scientific theory of everything" is meaningless babble thrown around by the clueless. Is that your theory? :-) Such "meaningless babble" was quoted from an "Ask a Scientist" web page. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted from Webster's). That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it. Why do you insist on playing these silly games? snip remaining word games -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted from Webster's). That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it. No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion: Hypotheses are discarded all the time, theories aren't. I have personally discarded the "Devine Creation Theory" and most of the JFK assassination theories. I have also discarded the "Red-Shift Theory" of the expansion of the universe as will most astronomers in the near future. -- 73, Cecil, w5dxp.com I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding? 73, ac6xg |
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
|
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Cecil Moore wrote: Or a theory is "a reasonable guess or conjecture", (quoted from Webster's). That isn't the scientific definition of "theory" and you know it. No mention of "scientific definition" before your assertion: Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again. snip remaining word games -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
Jim Kelley wrote:
I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding? I'm asserting that most of the red shift is not a Doppler effect. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote: Jim Kelley wrote: I'm not sure what you're asserting here, Cecil. Is that the light isn't red shifted, or that the universe isn't expanding? 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? 73, Jim AC6XG |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote: Since the discussion was always about science and not about TV cop dramas, it would be obvious to just about everyone which definition was meant, but you know that and are just playing word games again. Why is it OK to beat me about the head and shoulders for accidentally omitting an adjective and not OK to point out your omission of same? I doubt that you've ever accidentally omitted an adjective in your life. All your posts are rather cleverly crafted to produce maximum consternation, I will give you that. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |
Water burns!
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. 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? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
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. 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). -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
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 |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
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. A few centuries ago, the jury was out on whether any practical use could be made of RF waves. The people who seem to know what it is possible to know remind me of the patent office employee who asserted (100+ years ago) that all possible inventions had already been invented. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
snip
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" ... snip 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 Tom, The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light in a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum. It is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not necessarily mean that any laws have been broken. One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually fired into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material and a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed and in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is restored and energy is conserved. But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of light and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is emitted. The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the absorbed photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to have been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no laws have been broken. A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen. Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Tom Ring wrote:
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. What will happen when the very concept of time is discredited as merely a human illusion? -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
Tom, The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light in a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum. It is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not necessarily mean that any laws have been broken. One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually fired into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material and a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed and in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is restored and energy is conserved. But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of light and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is emitted. The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the absorbed photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to have been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no laws have been broken. A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen. Mike G0ULI Mike, You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something. But that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter. 73, Gene W4SZ |
Water burns!
Mike Kaliski wrote:
snip 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" ... snip 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 Tom, The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light in a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum. It is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not necessarily mean that any laws have been broken. One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually fired into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material and a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed and in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is restored and energy is conserved. But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of light and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is emitted. The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the absorbed photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to have been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no laws have been broken. A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen. Mike G0ULI Keep smoking, it must be good stuff. tom K0TAR |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
Jimmie D wrote: the problem isnt with believing space can be empty but believing that space is nothing.. Empty and nothing are synonyms. And yet say very different things. The difference is important in some (most?) cases. Which means they really are not synonyms. tom K0TAR |
Water burns!
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message ... Mike Kaliski wrote: Tom, The speed of light in air is not vastly different from the speed of light in a vacuum. If photons were apparently travelling at 1.7 times the speed of light in air, they clearly must have been exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum. This result was observed using visible light. Current theory is usually quoted as nothing can travel faster than the speed of light in a vaccum. It is probably more correct to state that objects with mass cannot exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. Photons, having no mass, are not necessarily subject to this rule and seem to be observed travelling at superluminal velocity under certain very specific conditions. If the photons are tunnelling and travelling faster than light in a vacuum, it does not necessarily mean that any laws have been broken. One way of imagining a way in which this could happen is if a block of material is energised to a high energy state. Photons are continually fired into the material and are absorbed one by one with atoms within the structure absorbing each new photon. At some point, the material becomes completely saturated and cannot absorb any more photons. When the next photon hits and is absorbed, a shockwave propogates through the material and a photon is emitted from the opposite side travelling at the same speed and in the same direction as the original absorbed photon. Stability is restored and energy is conserved. But, it is the shockwave that has propogated faster than the speed of light and it is not the original photon that entered the material that is emitted. The emitted photon will contain exactly the same properties as the absorbed photon and the two would be indistinguishable. So the photon appears to have been transmitted through the material at faster than light speed, but no laws have been broken. A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen. Mike G0ULI Mike, You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something. But that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter. 73, Gene W4SZ Gene I don't claim that this is what does happen, merely propose it as an aid to visualising how the observed results could possibly arise without necessarily violating any of the currently accepted laws of physics. Clearly the experimental results demonstrate something odd is happening in the laboratory and photons are apparently exceeding light speed, which they shouldn't be able to do in light of current knowledge. I think it must have been a mention of Newton together with quantum phenomena that upsets people :-) Regards Mike G0ULI |
Water burns!
Tom Ring wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote: Empty and nothing are synonyms. And yet say very different things. The difference is important in some (most?) cases. Which means they really are not synonyms. From Webster's: "empty - containing nothing" I guess it depends upon the definition of nothing. Seems to me, absolute-nothing cannot exist within our universe. -- 73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com |
Water burns!
Cecil Moore wrote:
... After all, it took ~250,000 years for us to figure out how to modulate EM waves. John Smith imagines a caveman shading a fire (newly developed technology) with a palm frond, jumping in glee, pointing, and declaring, "Look, I am modulating light! I just wonder what I can do with a campfire and a blanket?" And then, I return to work ... and thoughts of cavemen leave ... Regards, JS |
Water burns!
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:34:10 GMT, Gene Fuller
wrote: A Newtons cradle can help with visualising how this can happen. Mike G0ULI Mike, You had me fooled. It appeared that you might actually know something. But that response bent the needle on my bull**** meter. 73, Gene W4SZ FWIW: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/cradle.htm John Ferrell W8CCW "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com