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 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

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"

"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

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie

Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[snip]


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

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie


Jimmie,

No particular argument about electrons in a wire. However, the stuff
proposed by Mike bears little resemblance to the wire.

How about:

Atoms absorbing photons one by one, i.e. one per atom in a solid?
Doesn't match anything I have ever learned.

Material becomes saturated with photons? What is this, a bag of marbles?

Shockwave propagates faster than speed of light? (Yes, I am familiar
with Cerenkov radiation. Not interesting in this context.)

Emitted photons contains exactly the same properties as the absorbed
photon? How do they get absorbed yet remember everything? How do they
know when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ

"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
...
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
Mike Kaliski wrote:

[snip]


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

Actually that response is very credable, It is analogous to what happens
when electrons travel in a wire. Put an electron in one end of a wire and
one pops out the other end almost instantaneously even though the actual
speed of electrons flowing ththrough the wire is very, very slow.

Jimmie

Jimmie,

No particular argument about electrons in a wire. However, the stuff
proposed by Mike bears little resemblance to the wire.

How about:

Atoms absorbing photons one by one, i.e. one per atom in a solid? Doesn't
match anything I have ever learned.

Material becomes saturated with photons? What is this, a bag of marbles?

Shockwave propagates faster than speed of light? (Yes, I am familiar with
Cerenkov radiation. Not interesting in this context.)

Emitted photons contains exactly the same properties as the absorbed
photon? How do they get absorbed yet remember everything? How do they know
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie

Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie



Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of time.

tom
K0TAR

Tom Ring wrote:
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in
physics have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth
is a sphere, the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all
considered nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp
on reality while still being able to ponder the things that make for
truly great break throughs in science.

Jimmie


Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of time.

tom
K0TAR

My apologies for typos, as I am using a new news client and it does
replies in an absurdly small typeface. When I make a mistake, I can't
see it.

tom
K0TAR

"Tom Ring" wrote in message
. ..
Jimmie D wrote:
"Gene Fuller" wrote in message
snip
when and where they should pop out the other side?

Every part of that proposed explanation was nonsense.

73,
Gene
W4SZ


Yes, nonsense as we now understand it, most great breakthroughs in
physics
have at one time or other appeared to be nonsense, The Earth is a
sphere,
the sun is 93,000,000 miles away, pepole can fly were all considered
nonsense at time. It is sometime difficult to keep a grasp on reality
while
still being able to ponder the things that make for truly great break
throughs in science.

Jimmie



Which require one really important thing, proof, in the form of
documented facts that are reproducible by others. They are missing
here. If it was done in 93 or 95 or whatever (I found more than I date
for the claim on the net), there has certainly been plenty of time for
someone else to confirm the results. Especially considering how much
research is done in precisely this area.

"This area" being making EM waves go faster or slower that normal in a
given physical situation, and even stopping them for short periods of
time.

tom
K0TAR

Tom,

These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI

"Mike Kaliski" wrote
These experiments are time consuming, tricky (very sensitive to external
influences) and expensive to conduct, yielding results close to the
limits
of what is measurable. Unfortunately this isn't the sort of research that
can be conducted by an amateur in a shed in the back yard. Unless
commercial
applications for experimental findings are found, funds are rapidly
switched
to other areas of research looking for a new discovery that might make a
profit.

It's just the way that capitalism works.

Mike G0ULI

This is EXACTLY why it Art is having such a difficult time with his Gaussian
antenna project. I think it highly unlikely that aluminium foil on tapered
fish-poles
will offer the repeatability that Gaussian equilibrium demands, since the
skin depth
is so large in ALL units. Perhaps if he made better models available, those
of us
who have a true desire to see his work progress would be able to contribute
something to advancement of antenna history.

Mike W5CHR