"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