Re: Theory of complex refraction index confirms Nimtz.

27/12/2008 - 16:48 von Josef Matz | Report spam
"Josef Matz" <josefmatz@arcor.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:...


"Oh No" <NotI@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:NHz0paDu0PUJFwOz@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> Thus spake Josef Matz <josefmatz@arcor.de>
> >
> >"Oh No" <NotI@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >news:kaAoVIAao+SJFwrL@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> >> Thus spake Josef Matz <josefmatz@arcor.de>
> >> >
> >> >"Oh No" <NotI@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> >> >news:mwSjCYBdSSSJFwpQ@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk...
> >> >> Thus spake Josef Matz <josefmatz@arcor.de>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> This is a quantum result, so cannot be dealt with in classical
> >optics.
> >> >> >> Quantum theory may be difficult to stomach, but we must because
it
> >is
> >> >so
> >> >> >> well empirically established.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now it can be treated with theory of complex index as is my


result

of
> >it.
> >> >>
> >> >> I think you should deal with using standard physics.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Index theory is standard physics. Fresnel formulas for total
reflection
> >too
> >> >or ?
> >>
> >> Indices are a mathematical common place. Index theory means nothing


to

> >> me I am afraid, but it sounds like a misnomer whatever it is.
> >>
> >
> >What do you use to calculate refraction, No index of refraction ?
>
> Refraction indices are standard elementary physics, and follow from
> basic wave mechanics. Giving them complex values makes little sense. One
> would need to see how this fits with quantum theory.
> >

No. Quantum mchanics (statstic) is used nowadays to calculate the complex
index of refraction as a function
of the composite, temperature and pressure. So i think that complex index
theory is a paert of quantum physics a
lonbg time. Has there changed something in the last years what has passed


me

?

Complex index theory is a religion, the theorist neglegt it and the
experimenters know that there is a theory but
this theory is not always sufficienz. So i just think that the theorist


want

to neglect it because toio complicated for them. Nobody really knows how


to

deal with it.

Sizmann a former professor at Uni Munich said: The theorist dont believe


in

the complex dielectricity constant.
On the other hand i know that the former physics chief Bross at the
university munich (a theorist that one that Sizmann meant) had discussions
on complex index theory with university texas on students level..

So what is the status? Is the complex index existent or not. Is it part of
QED or not ?
Why doe quantum mechanics give the formula for the complex refraction


index

but if thats true what you say
does not allow its usage in electrodynamics ?

I can only shake my head !!! That cant be true or ?


And if somebody tells you that he found interesting answers in a field you
aborted because of the unsolved questions, the reaction of you theorist


is:

That theory is not. - No interest.

On the other hand: How do you calulate polarization in advanced QED if not
taking the imaginary part into
account ?

Could we agree that the present state of complex index theory is unclear


in

any respect of QED theory ?


> >> >> >The book he published speaksa otherwise. He interprets the
> >tunneleffect
> >> >in
> >> >> >terms of space without time.
> >> >>
> >> >> In this paper
> >> >>
> >> >> http://www.springerlink.com/content...lltext.pdf
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Now read this reference you gave. He clearly speaks of superluminal.
But
> >> >that causality is not violated.
> >> >Therefore he is my line not yours.
> >>
> >> No. you have not understood at all. He is talking of wave mechanics.
The
> >> instantaneous transmission of a wave function does not violate
> >> relativity or causality in any form, because it is not the same thing
as
> >> the instantaneous transmission of information.
> >>
> >
> >He interprets with a nonlocal effect. That is possible to do so.
> >But it changes nothing. Nonlocal effects cant be calculated. If this
would
> >be true theory would be at the end,
> >because all theories that have been successful are local.
>
> Quantum theory does in fact challenge notions of locality. See Bell's
> theorem. There is no reason to think this is any different.
> >
>

Right. And if SR would leave away the light cone causality postulate it
still is valid except that
postulate that nothing can propagate faster than light.
Only homogene (none evanescent) waves strictly follow Einstein causality.
But its not a
universal law covering everything, as Nimtz found out. Here is the mistake
going through physics.

The existance of an universal time is the consequence of Nimtz findings.
Clocks run slow if moved,
slow than the universal time what else ? But if this s so, we can change


the

concept of SR mechanics and
use for all mass point locations the universal time and not the Eigentime
concept of SR mechanics.
So there is the second error, that must be corrected in order to delete


GR,

which id not any longer holdable.
Nothing can be bent in time by mass if time is everywhere the same. GR is
wrong.

A good new year

Josef


>
> Regards
>
> Charles Francis
> moderator sci.physics.foundations.
> charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces
and
> braces)
>
> http://www.teleconnection.info/rqg/MainIndex
>


 

Lesen sie die antworten

#1 Dono
28/12/2008 - 03:21 | Warnen spam
On Dec 27, 7:48 am, "Josef Matz" wrote:
snip same old idiocies<



No, it doesn't

Ähnliche fragen