/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9906677
Einstein BTFO

>>9906677
>>9906685

>"b-b-but was this research published in a r-reputable p-peer reviewed p-paper...?"

How can speed of light slowpokes recover?

>>9906689
>>9906677
>1992
next thing coming up is that the jews are keeping this from being investigated because they don't want us to have FTL space travel so we can't as easily discover their pedophile rings on different star systems

>>9906696
>DA JOOS
Who hurt you?

You cannot send information faster than c. This is still an irrefutable truth about our universe.

Shadows can move arbitrarily fast because they do not transmit information. The same is true about the phase velocity of light.

>>9906677
Bitches don't know bout my Speedy Cat.

>>9906677
>It's a phase velocity vs group velocity thread
kys faster than the speed of light in a vacuum OP

>>9906677
>>9906689
>>9906714
>>9906727


>b-b-but you can't transfer information faster than the speed of light...!

>>9906733
>2003
>Will become a thing in the near futue

I'm waiting. Post newer stuff

>>9906717

told you there was plus side to toxoplasmosis!!

>>9906733
>Chris Lee has stated that there is no new physics involved here, and that the apparent faster-than-c transmission can be explained by carefully considering how the time of arrival is measured (whether the group velocity or some other measure).[7]

>Recent papers by Herbert Winful point out errors in Nimtz' interpretation.[3][8] These articles propose that Nimtz has provided a rather trivial experimental confirmation for General Relativity. Winful says that there is nothing specifically quantum-mechanical about Nimtz's experiment, that in fact the results agree with the predictions of classical electromagnetism (Maxwell's equations), and that in one of his papers on tunneling through undersized waveguides Nimtz himself had written "Therefore microwave tunneling, i.e. the propagation of guided evanescent modes, can be described to an extremely high degree of accuracy by a theory based on Maxwell's equations and on phase time approach."[8] (Elsewhere Nimtz has argued that since evanescent modes have an imaginary wave number, they represent a "mathematical analogy" to quantum tunnelling,[3] and that "evanescent modes are not fully describable by the Maxwell equations and quantum mechanics have to be taken into consideration." Since Maxwell's laws respect special relativity, Winful argues that an experiment which is describable using these laws cannot involve a relativistic causality violation (which would be implied by transmitting information faster than light). He also argues that "Nothing was observed to be traveling faster than light. The measured delay is the lifetime of stored energy leaking out of both sides of the barrier. The equality of transmission and reflection delays is what one expects for energy leaking out of both sides of a symmetric barrier."

>>9906751

>Chris Lee
>sources the arguments of a pop sci journalist >sources random papers published on arXiv as an argument instead of a peer review journal

Its like slowpokes are not even trying anymore

>>9906677
So FTL (faster than light)
Space Travel when?

>>9906763
>cherrypicking on the weaker critique to hide the fact that you can't respond to the stronger one
never change, retards

>>9906763
not him, but if you want to discuss this with someone with any knowledge on the subject, you are wrong here. This place is for shitposting and pretending you are retarded, not for highly specific matters in which nobody has the time to get into while browsing his favourite taiwanese IQ comparison forum

>>9906677
Reminder to /sci/ that Quantum Entanglement and Wormholes (predicted by Einstein himself) allow Faster than Light travel/communication

>>9906771
>>cherrypicking on the weaker critique to hide the fact that you can't respond to the stronger one


Alright. Lets go through the "critics" one by one referenced in that wikipedia article

>Chris Lee
A pop sci journalist for Ars technica. Nice opinion, but not a refutation.

>Herbert Winful
>Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Michigan
>publishes his refutation on a Quantum Mechanics experiment on arXiv instead of a peer reviewed journal

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he is overreaching his domain of expertise?

>Aephraim M. Steinberg
>Aephraim Steinberg, a quantum optics expert at the University of Toronto, Canada, doesn't dispute Nimtz and Stahlhofen's results.

Not sure why he's included as opponent to Nimtz experiments, but ok :^)

>Apart from these interpretations further authors have published papers arguing that quantum tunneling does not violate the relativistic notion of causality, and that Nimtz's experiments (which are argued to be purely classical in nature) don't violate it either.[12]

So basically nobody has actually bothered to disprove the experimental results obtained by Nimtz and are instead coping by saying "ahaha so FTL travel doesn't disprove Einstein after all...ahahaha....!"

>>9906829
>an entire blogpost of ad hominems
>accusing Herbert Winful of being in an unrelated field while he literally specializes in Theoretical Optics and Photonics
>on top of all of this, you're a goddamn weeb
yep, business as usual here :^)

>>9906829
didnt read lol

>>9906705
Da joos

>>9906848 >>9906705

Oy Vey!

FTL doesn't exist Goyim.

Trust (((Einstein))) Goyim

>>9906838

>t. Herbert Winful

>>9906855
>Einstein
HOLY shit it's true! We need to redpill the other boards. Is OP, dare I say it, OUR GUY?

>>9906858
>I have nothing of value to say
That much was clear from the beginning.

>>9906860

I'm curious to know why you think no one has looked into these FTL experiments since the 1990s other than this Nimtz guy? These papers were published in highly reputable peer reviewed journals btw.

>>9906863
see >>9906848

>>9906863
>I'm curious to know why you think no one has looked into these FTL experiments since the 1990s other than this Nimtz guy
yeah, one of those people is Winful. He's published plenty of peer-reviewed papers refuting them.

>>9906869

What do you think of Nimtz argument against Winful's criticism?

>Recently Winful calculated superluminal transport of pulses with narrow frequency bandwidth [61]. He believes that a superluminal signal velocity would violate the principle of causality and provided a theory to resolve the mystery of apparent superluminality in a strange and incorrect way. He claimed that the incoming pulse is not related to the outcoming pulse and he did not consider the nonlocal property of the tunneling process.

>Superluminal signaling becomes especially obvious in the case of FM signals. Fig. 17 displays an FM signal as described by Eq. (12). The time duration between the zeros of the oscillations represents the information. A computer simulation of the time advance of the demodulated signal of a tunneled FM carrier is presented in Fig. 18. The frequency components of the information of the tunneled signal traveled faster than light. The frequency distribution is at the input the same as at the output which is opposite to Winful's incorrect statement [61]. The output frequencies of the signal are connected by causal propagation to the input frequency components.

Basically Nimtz argues that his FTL experiment does not violate causality. Thoughts?

Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6727(03)00057-0

>>9906714
Podkletnov produced gravity waves that traveled 64X the speed of light

>>9906893
Lol. Bullshit.

>>9906927

>Lol. Bullshit.


Oh, and theres more

> According to Platt, a member of the editorial staff, Ian Sample, leaked the submitted paper to Robert Matthews, the science correspondent for the British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph.[1]
>On September 1, 1996, Matthews's story broke, leading with the startling statement: "Scientists in Finland are about to reveal details of the world's first antigravity device."[6] In the ensuing furor, the director of the laboratory where Podkletnov was working issued a defensive statement that Podkletnov was working entirely on his own.
>Podkletnov withdrew his second paper after it had been initially accepted.[4][5] The resulting furor over the alleged claims in the withdrawn paper is reported to be the primary reason for his expulsion from his lab and the termination of his employment at the university.[1][2]

classic case of character assassination just because he was researching something he was not meant to investigate

>>9906947
>classic case of character assassination just because he was researching something he was not meant to investigate
The people on the outside who have no first hand experience might think that peer-review is actually important. As outsiders, I think a lot of them would be surprised to learn how absolutely frowned upon breadth of research is, among PhD students at least. So... where the outsider might say, "I'm sure that breadth of research is promoted among PhD science students," they might also wrongly say, "I'm sure peer review is an important check on the validity of a result."

>>9906877
honestly? I don't have the faintest idea how to evaluate it

bump for interest

>>9906947
Gravitational force shielding!?

>>9906677
>silently whiting-out the word “reproducible” in the description for the experimentation part of the scientific method and hoping no one will notice

Nice try there bud, better luck next time.

>>9906677
this is literally introductory quantum level shit on wave packets

http://gravitycontrol.io

>>9907678
Take your vixra-teir garbage to /x/ where it belongs.

oh look its another FTL thread based on faulty reasoning and understanding of physics