Prism Clue and Recent Article on Speed of Light

[RyanX]

I saw this on SOTT today:

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/195421-German-scientists-We-have-broken-speed-of-light

A pair of German physicists claim to have broken the speed of light - an achievement that would undermine our entire understanding of space and time.

According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, it would require an infinite amount of energy to propel an object at more than 186,000 miles per second.

However, Dr Gunter Nimtz and Dr Alfons Stahlhofen, of the University of Koblenz, say they may have breached a key tenet of that theory.

The pair say they have conducted an experiment in which microwave photons - energetic packets of light - travelled "instantaneously" between a pair of prisms that had been moved up to 3ft apart.

Being able to travel faster than the speed of light would lead to a wide variety of bizarre consequences.

For instance, an astronaut moving faster than it would theoretically arrive at a destination before leaving.

The scientists were investigating a phenomenon called quantum tunnelling, which allows sub-atomic particles to break apparently unbreakable laws.

Dr Nimtz told New Scientist magazine: "For the time being, this is the only violation of special relativity that I know of."

From the C's

[quote author=session 9811114]Q: (A) I have another question. In a session from April, you
made the following comment: 'four dimensional, fourth density,
see?' So you related four dimensions to fourth density. I don't
know a mathematical representation of density. I know how
to represent four dimensions. This was the first time that you
related dimension to density. Is there really a relation?
A: Yes, because 4th density is experienced in 4th dimensional
reality.
Q: (A) Speaking now about 4 dimensional reality, is it four
dimensional reality of the Kaluza-Klein type?
A: Visual spectrum.
Q: (A) Does that mean that the fourth dimension is NOT
related to the fifth dimension of the Kaluza-Klein theory?
A: Yes.
Q: (A) Yes it is related?
A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw in these theories, relating
to prism. What does this tell you?
Q: (A) To prism?! Visual spectrum? I don't know what it tells
me. I never came across any relation to prism. But, what is
this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three
space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference.
The term "dimension" is used simply to access the popular
reference, relating to three dimensions. The added
"dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly
simultaneously.
[/quote]

Maybe this is all really nothing, but the reference to prism in the recent article stood out to me from this session. Now, I don't know if this reference to a "prism" from the C's has ever been pinpointed to anything. Doing a search on the forum, I found this post by ark from awhile back:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php?topic=3446.msg21853#msg21853

[quote author=ark]

Another question the C's threw out: "A: No, yes it is not. There is a flaw
in these theories, relating to prism. What does this tell you?"

Was this one looked into? Perhaps the theory describing how white light is
broken down it's specific colors is flawed or is it something else?

I do not know. I did not follow this track.
[/quote]

Maybe the work that this German group would be worth investigating further. By somebody with more of a background in theoretical physics than myself, of course! :P

 

[Buddy]

[quote author=session 9811114]
...what is this 4th dimension? Is it an extra dimension beyond the three
space dimensions, or is it a time dimension?
A: Not "time," re: Einstein. It is an added spatial reference.
...
The added "dimension" allows one to visualize outwardly and inwardly simultaneously.[/quote]


Hi Ryan. I've always found this issue and that session interesting too.

With the different frequencies of light in the visible spectrum traveling or vibrating at different rates and refracting at different angles, and considering there are different types of prisms, it's been a real exercise in my imagination!

I've been trying to imagine an 'extra' plane or reflector that somehow bounces some portion of light in such a way that you can see 360 degrees, however, observing the way I'm doing the imagining points to a possible explanation of the difficulty in understanding this for me. It's like I want to be able to understand the concept of seeing in 360 degrees by looking 'straight' at it.

I don't know if I'm ever going to 'get it' until I 'get there'...assuming I ever do.

Thanks for posting this. It gave me the opportunity to think about this stuff again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some possibly interesting information:

When light is refracted, its course is bent due to an obstacle in its pathway. You can see an example of refracted light by placing a pencil in a clear glass of water and observing how it appears to split where the water begins. This happens because water has a higher refractive index than air, so light moves more slowly through water. An optical prism also has a higher refractive index than air, so light passing through it is refracted.

Light of different frequencies or wavelengths travels at different speeds and refracts at different angles as a result. In the visible spectrum, the portion of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum visible to the human eye, different frequencies of light appear as different colors. Pure white light is a combination of light of many frequencies, so when pure white light shines through a prism, it breaks up into its constituent wavelengths, creating a rainbow effect.

Red, the lowest frequency visible to the human eye, refracts less than violet, the highest frequency visible to the human eye, so red bends at a less severe angle than violet. All the colors in between bend at different degrees, so the prism makes a rainbow out of white light. This is also how rainbows arise in nature, as they occur when the air is full of water vapor that refracts light in a similar way to a prism.


Prism:
A crystal form consisting of three or more similar faces parallel to a single axis.
A medium that misrepresents [or represents differently] whatever is seen through it. With two or more planes through which light can be reflected or refracted. The shape of a prism may vary from wedge shaped to parallel sides with connecting verticals. The objective of a prism if to disperse light into a spectrum.

Other types of prisms have different effects on light. In addition to the refractive prism, a prism may be reflective or polarizing. Reflective prisms reflect light, like a mirror, and are used in binoculars, among other applications. A polarizing prism breaks light up into different polarizations, or electromagnetic charges, rather than different frequencies.

Prisms are thus named according to the shape of its base which are always parallelograms, ie a hexagonal prism is so named since its base is a hexagon.
_http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_prism
_http://www.opticsplanet.net/how-to-buy-binoculars.html

 

[John G]

Nimtz has had this view for a while. He doesn't claim it violates causality just special relativity. Most think it doesn't violate special relativity. I tend to take Feynman paths literally so I think that means I would think this violates special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

 

[RyanX]

Nimtz has had this view for a while. He doesn't claim it violates causality just special relativity. Most think it doesn't violate special relativity. I tend to take Feynman paths literally so I think that means I would think this violates special relativity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Nimtz

Not that this is a surprise, given what Wikipedia is... but something about this page doesn't jive.

[quote author=Wikipedia]1994 Nimtz and Horst Aichmann shown an experiment at the laboratories of Hewlett-Packard using microwaves through a straitened passage of a waveguide. Nimtz says that the Frequency modulated (FM) signals transports the 40th symphony of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart 4.7 times faster than light due to the effect of quantum tunnelling.[/quote]

The later on they go on to say:

[quote author=Wikipedia]Aephraim M. Steinberg [1] of the University of Toronto has also stated that Nimtz has not demonstrated causality violation (which would be implied by transmitting information faster than light). Steinberg also uses a classical argument.[1][/quote]

Is not the 40th symphony of Mozart "information"? Maybe this last quote is just referencing a particular paper he had submitted while negating his overall work and other experiments as a whole. Kind of deceptive the way it's written though, but again, not surprised considering it's Wikipedia.

I agree, that it probably violates Special Relativity, as do a lot of other experiments I'm sure. The Sagnac Effect being one such experiment, OSIT.

I have a lot of respect for Einstein, but I don't think even he would appreciate the cult-like status some physicists today assign to his theories, especially his older and incomplete theory of Special Relativity. It really has become somewhat absurd.

[quote author=Buddy]I don't know if I'm ever going to 'get it' until I 'get there'...assuming I ever do.

Thanks for posting this. It gave me the opportunity to think about this stuff again.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some possibly interesting information:[/quote]

You're welcome, Actually thank you for posting the info about prisms. It was a good refresher. I don't know if I'm ever going to "get it" either, but it can be fun to ponder such things. :)

 

[dant]

Ah! Thanks for bring this topic back!

I pondered about this topic for awhile and basically
gave up. I admit that I am out of my depth and
could not proceed. Tough nut to crack, this one!

Perhaps we won't "get it" until we get there... (to 4D?) :)

 

[Sol Logos]

Being a complete layman, I've always been a little confused by the speed of light. Interesting that it's mentioned that light is slowed down when going through water (above post). So if light can slow down through the conditions of a material influence (water / prisms etc.), would not the actual speed of light be relative (as there's nowhere in the universe that light can travel that is not in some way influenced by something else). So then the concept of an absolute speed (i.e. E=mc[squared]) is inaccurate as light and everything else on that equation is relative. Whereas Einstein postulated his theory based on everything being relative to the absolute speed of light (which is an abstract concept because light slows down and speeds up). So as far as I know that's how time became relative rather than an absolute in Newtonian world?

Another interesting thing is I believe it was Telsa that thought Einstein was wrong about the notion that space bends - because for him (not modern day Physics as far as I understand), space is not a substance - so I suppose he's questioning the notion of bending a non-substance. Perhaps I'm mistaken there.

BTW this is not my area of expertise, just an interest.

Anyway, I'm not sure if anyone here has come across W.David Barclay's "Unity". From what I understand from this is that he sees light an effect of the overriding field in which we operate. So light, like space is not a substance but a condition of the universe. Anyway in this respect the overriding field for us is earth. So light is said not to travel, as it's not a thing but an effect and in this case the effect of the sun's energy-field on that of the earth's.

One funny thing he mentions (on his forum) is that we supposively take photos of the galaxy as it was billions of years ago (photos of stars from earth) but as yet no one has taken a photo of yesterday today.

Worth reading, it's relatively short and mind boggling (I put together in a Google shared doc):

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B87SBVH2xJrvN2VkOGUwZDAtNzRlYS00MDE5LTk3M2YtMzRlYjBjMWY5YzUw

If you have a read, let me know what you think? I'm interested as I'm a total layman, and much of what he writes about is for me convincing (to the point of my limited knowledge on the area), so I wouldn't mind knowing what others think who may have more depth of understanding than myself in this area or just thoughts in general about this material.

Thanks, David

 

[SoCurious]

I'm not a scientist either and also have a layman's list of questions.

1. Why is time related to the speed of light? Scientists always connect something traveling faster than the speed of light with time travel, more specifically with going back in time. So if we do a thought experiment similar to Einstein and imagine ourselves standing on an exploding star and blasting off into space a little faster than the speed of light we will be able to look backwards at the event happening in the past. In other words, even though we are moving faster than light, time has still passed by and we are still in the future in relation to the event (yes, time is an illusion but let's not go there for now). To my way of thinking speed has very little or no relation to time travel. It is just a rate of movement in time. Yes, if we traveled 1980 times faster than than the speed of light, after one year we could theoretically look back over our shoulder and see Christ on the Cross. We would be looking at an event occurring in the past but we would not ourselves be in the past.

2. When white light strikes a prism it breaks down into its constituent frequencies as if each frequency were contained in a single packet which moved at a speed independent of the individual frequencies. Or does it? I think of a chain only being as strong as its weakest link or a migration that moves as fast as its slowest member. Is the speed of white light additive of the combined frequencies of all colour light, does it travel at the slowest frequency's speed or does it have an independent velocity?

I'm sure the answers are easy for someone "in the know".

 

[Sol Logos]

Here are my totally layman thoughts. It's like the blind leading the blind :) or may fresh eyes?

1. Apparent we can't go faster than the speed of light as time apparently stops at that velocity. Doesn't make sense does it?

2. Say light is a substance, then you'd have to assume that each spectrum has a different mass, because it's has a different frequency. That is when light is viewed as a particle. So like a river with mud lots of mud in it, we'd have to assume it's like you said traveling via the resistance of it's weakest link. But that is slower than light, so conceptually it illogical.

How does this get logical. I just don't know.

Barclay concepts at least for a layman make sense but this for me as yet doesn't.

 

[SoCurious]

OK, I'm just being dumb.

All light and other electromagnetic radiation travels through a vacuum at the speed light. The wavelength has nothing to do with it.

My question regarding light and time still stands though.

 

[dant]

Somewhat related: "Laws of physics 'are different' depending on where you are in the universe"
http://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,25901.msg325433.html#msg325433