I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about
superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and
even classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than
the speed of light.
This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!
: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8
<https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41467-019-08735-8>
It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as
matter is able to provide an extra force:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations
The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4)
physics to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force,
gravity etc..
It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system
is instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D
orthogonal to the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but
an entangled system looks like a black hole and thus it is external to
the horizon of GR!
Discussion:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory
J.W.
PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR
but this is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based)
EM force...
On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:
Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded as
evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I
think this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical
models have been tremendously successful at describing patterns in
nature. Second, the structure of the mathematical models themselves
can suggest the existence of novel particles such as the positron.
Third, mathematical problems seem to be eventually rectified at a
later date.
Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have
led physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum
mechanics. For example the mathematics of special relativity allows
for the existence of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far
I know tachyons have never been detected and their absence has never
led physicists to doubt the validity of special relativity.
Harry
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com
<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>>
wrote:
>>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective
domains<<
When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of
handwaving; general relativity is often said to breakdown at
the singularity, and quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be
able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is presented
as to precisely when equations from such theories fail.
Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..?
On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV
<hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON
<r.j.ander...@btinternet.com
<mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:
>>Thoughts?<<
there are problems combining relativity (especially
general relativity) with quantum physics, so when people
try to talk from things combining them then they are not
on solid ground.
I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to
dismiss any experiment needing simultaneity.
On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics
and SR/GR, instead of trying to change one or the other or
both, it might be preferable to accept them as each true
within their respective domains and build a bridge between the
domains by integrating them technologically instead trying to
merge them into a single mathematical theory.
Harry
From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated
and misunderstood so false claims are made about it. My
latest video-I think it was mainly written by his wife.
On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV
<hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder
https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo
I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be
used to send an FLT message. What is overlooked is that an
indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured state is also a type
of information.
If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised
clocks (which is possible in SR) then the transmitter can
send a message by a sequence of binary choices: either
measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal
direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will
be meaningfully informed by the sequence of the
transmitter's choices.
Thoughts?
Harry
--
Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis
+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06
