Testing superluminal transmission of near field light waves.

On Feb 20, 10:20 am, William wrote:
Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show
that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
farfield of the source.

Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein's
theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is
reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is
dependent on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or
farfield propagating EM fields.

In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the
coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the
gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula
indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield.

Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether near-field
or far-field propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is
proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by
the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and
time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.

A paper arguing this proposal is available for download at:

http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/walker.pdf

William D. Walker

William there have been suggestions that the recently confirmed
negative refractive index materials also imply superluminal
propagation for near field light waves. Supportive of this idea, but
not proving it, is that in one experiment the light cone from negative
refractive index materials at radio wavelengths has been found to move
backward. It is well known that a superluminal signal will appear to
move backward when observations are made of it with c light signals.
It seems to me that FTL transmission of near field waves should be
easy to test for long wavelength radio waves. Say if you created radio
waves hundreds of meters long then the near field also extends to a
distance of hundreds of meters. Your papers tested phase differences
as an indication of superluminality, but a true test would really test
the time of transmission.
The speed c is 300,000,000 m/s. This amounts to 3.3 nanoseconds to
traverse 1 meter. Then a few hundred meters distance would take in the
range of a microsecond to traverse for a standard light signal. This
is well within the timing capabilities of equipment available at most
universities to determine if the transmission is indeed occurring
faster than c. The distance of a few hundred meters is also easy to
arrange for the distance between transmitter and receiver. The
antennas also would have to be a quarter to a half the wavelength but
could be made vertical:

Very low frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

Low frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency#Antennas

Note that for a convincing test you would need to prove the round
trip time is less than that for c. This is because other prior
experimental indications of superluminal tranmission, which resulted
in for example a light pulse appearing to exit the test equipment on
one end before it had entered the front end, were interpreted as only
being due to early precursors of the entering pulse creating the full
pulse at the exit.
See for example the explanations of these prior experiments he

Light pulses flout sacrosanct speed limit
Peter Weiss
Science News Online
Week of June 10, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 24 , p. 375
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?
By JAMES GLANZ
New York Times, May 30, 2000
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...ics-light.html

It might be sufficient to simply have the signals be bounced back to
the origin point for a convincing test. But better would be to have a
separate receiver generate and transmit back a separate near field
signal on reception of the first signal of a quite different
character, wavelength, polarization, etc., to ensure there really
was signaling being transmitted from one place to another.
The negative refractive index materials are complicated to make at
visible wavelengths because the materials have to be constructed at
the nanoscale, smaller than the wavelength. But they are easy to
construct for radio wavelengths, which is why they were first
confirmed for microwaves. They should be even easier to make for
wavelengths of hundred meter lengths. And if your suggestions are
correct we wouldn't even need these special materials since you say
near field waves routinely travel faster than c.

I noted that in your papers as well as in discussion of those
previous indications of apparent FTL transmission there was much
discussion of the "conflict" with causality. It is important to
realize that even true superluminal transmission of signals does not
have to imply signaling back in time. This is because the experimental
results supporting relativity can be fully explained as light
traveling faster than c in one direction and slower than c on the
reverse direction, so that the average speed is c. There has been no
experimental confirmation of the one-way speed of light. All
experimental methods to determine the speed of light actually have
been round trip observations. This fact has been well known to
researchers in the foundations of relativity but apparently has not
filtered down to the general physics community. See the discussion of
this topic he

Conventionality of Simultaneity.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sp...e-convensimul/


Bob Clark

wrote:
On Feb 20, 10:20 am, William wrote:

Analysis of the Electric and Magnetic fields generated by a moving
dipole source shows that contrary to expectations, the speed of the
fields are dependant on the velocity of the source in the nearfield and
only become independent in the farfield. I addition, the results show
that the fields propagate faster than the speed of light in the
nearfield and reduce to the speed of light as they propagate into the
farfield of the source.

Because these effects conflict with the assumptions on which Einstein's
theory of special relativity theory is based, relativity theory is
reanalyzed. The analysis shows that the relativistic gamma factor is
dependent on whether the analysis is performed using nearfield or
farfield propagating EM fields.

In the nearfield, gamma is approximately one indicating that the
coordinate transforms are Galilean in the nearfield. In the farfield the
gamma factor reduces to the standard known relativistic formula
indicating that they are approximately valid in the farfield.

Because time dilation and space contraction depend on whether near-field
or far-field propagating fields are used in their analysis, it is
proposed that Einstein relativistic effects are an illusion created by
the propagating EM fields used in their measurement. Instead space and
time are proposed to not be flexible as indicated by Galilean relativity.

A paper arguing this proposal is available for download at:

http://folk.ntnu.no/williaw/walker.pdf

William D. Walker


William there have been suggestions that the recently confirmed
negative refractive index materials also imply superluminal
propagation for near field light waves. Supportive of this idea, but
not proving it, is that in one experiment the light cone from negative
refractive index materials at radio wavelengths has been found to move
backward. It is well known that a superluminal signal will appear to
move backward when observations are made of it with c light signals.


I am not sure if it is related, but my research has shown that the
transverse electric field is generated about 1/4 wavelength outside the
source and transmits superluminal fields both **backwards toward the
source** as well as away from the source.


It seems to me that FTL transmission of near field waves should be
easy to test for long wavelength radio waves. Say if you created radio
waves hundreds of meters long then the near field also extends to a
distance of hundreds of meters. Your papers tested phase differences
as an indication of superluminality, but a true test would really test
the time of transmission.


I actually measured the time delay of the propagating transverse
oscillating field with a scope by comparing the received signal to the
transmitted signal.



The speed c is 300,000,000 m/s. This amounts to 3.3 nanoseconds to
traverse 1 meter. Then a few hundred meters distance would take in the
range of a microsecond to traverse for a standard light signal. This
is well within the timing capabilities of equipment available at most
universities to determine if the transmission is indeed occurring
faster than c. The distance of a few hundred meters is also easy to
arrange for the distance between transmitter and receiver. The
antennas also would have to be a quarter to a half the wavelength but
could be made vertical:


If you are proposing to measure the speed of a pulsed on/off signal your
will have problems measuring the effects in the nearfield because of
dispersion. This is because a broadband pulse will distort if the the
phase shift is not linear over the spectrum of the signal.

Since the phase vs kr curve for the transverse field is nonlinear in the
nearfield, the spectrum of the signal to be transmitted needs to be band
limited to at least about 1/10 of the carrier frequency so that signal
propagates without much distortion. This can be done with a Gaussian
modulated carrier, or a typical AM or FM modulated signal.



Very low frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

Low frequency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency#Antennas

Note that for a convincing test you would need to prove the round
trip time is less than that for c. This is because other prior
experimental indications of superluminal tranmission, which resulted
in for example a light pulse appearing to exit the test equipment on
one end before it had entered the front end, were interpreted as only
being due to early precursors of the entering pulse creating the full
pulse at the exit.


This is not happening in the dipole solution. This is perhaps because
there is no feedback as in these other experiments.

The fields from a dipole simply propagate superluminally in the
nearfield and reduce to the speed as they propagate into the farfield.
Also there are no precursors in the dipole solution.


See for example the explanations of these prior experiments he

Light pulses flout sacrosanct speed limit
Peter Weiss
Science News Online
Week of June 10, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 24 , p. 375
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?
By JAMES GLANZ
New York Times, May 30, 2000
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/...ics-light.html

It might be sufficient to simply have the signals be bounced back to
the origin point for a convincing test. But better would be to have a
separate receiver generate and transmit back a separate near field
signal on reception of the first signal of a quite different
character, wavelength, polarization, etc., to ensure there really
was signaling being transmitted from one place to another.
The negative refractive index materials are complicated to make at
visible wavelengths because the materials have to be constructed at
the nanoscale, smaller than the wavelength. But they are easy to
construct for radio wavelengths, which is why they were first
confirmed for microwaves. They should be even easier to make for
wavelengths of hundred meter lengths. And if your suggestions are
correct we wouldn't even need these special materials since you say
near field waves routinely travel faster than c.

I noted that in your papers as well as in discussion of those
previous indications of apparent FTL transmission there was much
discussion of the "conflict" with causality. It is important to
realize that even true superluminal transmission of signals does not
have to imply signaling back in time. This is because the experimental
results supporting relativity can be fully explained as light
traveling faster than c in one direction and slower than c on the
reverse direction, so that the average speed is c. There has been no
experimental confirmation of the one-way speed of light.


But my experiment measures the one way propagation speed of the
transverse field. The return speed from a stationary reflector would be
the same according to Maxwell's equations.

My point in witting my last paper is that these superluminal speeds in
the nearfield violate relativity in a much more fundamental way. In the
nearfield the fields propagate with infinite speed and in the farfield
they propagate at speed c.

Because the fields propagate with infinite speed in the nearfield they
are more compatible with Galelian relativity. This can be easily shown
by simply inserting infinity for c in the Lorentz transformations
yielding the Galelian transformations.

But in the farfield the fields propagate with speed c making them more
compatible with Einstein relativity theory. This is because the
invariant speed in the nearfield is infinity and apparently c in the
farfield.

My proposal to solve this contradiction is that Einstein relativity is
an illusion caused by the EM fields used to measure time and space in
moving frames. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in the
Galelian transformations. Einstein relativity is useful only in
calculating the illusion. In other words time and object lengths are
actually the same in stationary and moving frames, but they can appear
to be different depending on weather one uses nearfield or farfield
propagating EM fields to measure them.


All
experimental methods to determine the speed of light actually have
been round trip observations. This fact has been well known to
researchers in the foundations of relativity but apparently has not
filtered down to the general physics community. See the discussion of
this topic he

Conventionality of Simultaneity.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sp...e-convensimul/


Bob Clark

William wrote:

My point in witting my last paper is that these superluminal speeds in
the nearfield violate relativity in a much more fundamental way.
In the nearfield the fields propagate with infinite speed and in the farfield
they propagate at speed c.

Do atoms emit photons with infinite speed?
Please explain to me how this violates relativity theory.

"John Smith" wrote in message ...
William wrote:

My point in witting my last paper is that these superluminal speeds in
the nearfield violate relativity in a much more fundamental way.
In the nearfield the fields propagate with infinite speed and in the farfield
they propagate at speed c.

Do atoms emit photons with infinite speed?

According to Einstein,
"For velocities greater than that of light our deliberations become meaningless; we shall, however, find in what follows, that the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity."

Ref:
§ 4. Physical Meaning of the Equations Obtained in Respect to Moving Rigid Bodies and Moving Clocks
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/



Please explain to me how this violates relativity theory.

What would you like to know, real physics violates your religion?
It does. shrug
Tough beans, Smiffy old chap.

John Smith wrote:
William wrote:


My point in witting my last paper is that these superluminal speeds in
the nearfield violate relativity in a much more fundamental way.
In the nearfield the fields propagate with infinite speed and in the farfield
they propagate at speed c.


Do atoms emit photons with infinite speed?
Please explain to me how this violates relativity theory.





The analysis I have present in my paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0603240

discusses the propagation of the EM fields created by a oscillating
charge. At distances much less than one wavelength the fields propagate
with infinite speed and as they propagate away from the source they
reduce to the speed c.

Photons come from a quantum mechanical description of EM fields.
Although photons are known to propagate at the speed c in the farfield,
their propagation behavior in the nearfield is poorly understood.

In the derivation of Einstein relativity theory, propagating EM fields
are used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are instantaneous then it can be shown that the Lorentz
transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be seen by
substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms. In the farfield
the time delays of the fields increase to light-speed time delays and
the Lorentz transform applies there. A more detailed analysis is
presented in my latest paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The dilemma is that the space-time transformations should be independent
on whether near-field or far-field EM fields are used in the analysis.
My proposal is that Einstein relativity theory is a illusion caused by
the EM fields used to measure the space time effects in moving
reference systems. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in
Galelian relativity and only appear flexible when far-field EM fields
are used to measure the space-time effects in moving reference frames.
When near-field EM fields are used, time dilation and space contraction
effects will disappear.

On Mar 8, 7:45 am, William wrote:
...
In the derivation of Einstein relativity theory, propagating EM fields
are used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are instantaneous then it can be shown that the Lorentz
transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be seen by
substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms. In the farfield
the time delays of the fields increase to light-speed time delays and
the Lorentz transform applies there. A more detailed analysis is
presented in my latest paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The dilemma is that the space-time transformations should be independent
on whether near-field or far-field EM fields are used in the analysis.
My proposal is that Einstein relativity theory is a illusion caused by
the EM fields used to measure the space time effects in moving
reference systems. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in
Galelian relativity and only appear flexible when far-field EM fields
are used to measure the space-time effects in moving reference frames.
When near-field EM fields are used, time dilation and space contraction
effects will disappear.

You may be right that a modification of relativity will be required
that allows superluminal speeds (as I argued this will not require
causality violations) but time dilation effects have been confirmed
for round trip measurements, which do not have the shortcoming of
needing light speed c time synchronization.
So time dilation will still be required.


Bob Clark

wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:45 am, William wrote:

...
In the derivation of Einstein relativity theory, propagating EM fields
are used to measure the location of points from a stationary frame to a
moving frame. This is done by measuring the time delay of a propagating
EM field from one frame to the other. Since the time delays very near
the source are instantaneous then it can be shown that the Lorentz
transforms reduce to the Galilean transforms there. This can be seen by
substituting infinity for c in the Lorentz transforms. In the farfield
the time delays of the fields increase to light-speed time delays and
the Lorentz transform applies there. A more detailed analysis is
presented in my latest paper:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

The dilemma is that the space-time transformations should be independent
on whether near-field or far-field EM fields are used in the analysis.
My proposal is that Einstein relativity theory is a illusion caused by
the EM fields used to measure the space time effects in moving
reference systems. Space and time are actually inflexible as stated in
Galelian relativity and only appear flexible when far-field EM fields
are used to measure the space-time effects in moving reference frames.
When near-field EM fields are used, time dilation and space contraction
effects will disappear.


You may be right that a modification of relativity will be required
that allows superluminal speeds (as I argued this will not require
causality violations) but time dilation effects have been confirmed
for round trip measurements, which do not have the shortcoming of
needing light speed c time synchronization.
So time dilation will still be required.


Bob Clark


Perhaps the results need to be rechecked. All experiments are prone to
experimental error and researcher bias.

William wrote:

discusses the propagation of the EM fields created by a oscillating
charge. At distances much less than one wavelength the fields propagate
with infinite speed and as they propagate away from the source they
reduce to the speed c.

But decreasing something continuously from infinite to finite is not
possible in principle. At what point do you consider the
transformation, which must be discrete in order to occur at all, to occur?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no simpler."

A. Einstein

Bob Cain wrote:
William wrote:


discusses the propagation of the EM fields created by a oscillating
charge. At distances much less than one wavelength the fields propagate
with infinite speed and as they propagate away from the source they
reduce to the speed c.


But decreasing something continuously from infinite to finite is not
possible in principle. At what point do you consider the
transformation, which must be discrete in order to occur at all, to occur?


Bob


My proposal is that The Galelian transformations are what are real and
that the Einstein relativity transformations are useful in only
calculating the illusion of time dilation and space contraction. Space
and time are actually inflexible and only appear inflexible when
propagating EM fields are used to measure their effects.

If you use near-field EM fields to measure the space-time effects on a
moving frame then no time dilation and space contraction effects will be
observed. But if far-field EM fields are used to measure the space-time
effects on a moving frame, then time dilation and space contraction
effects will be measured, but the effects are not real. Time and space
are not really changing, they only appear to change because of how we
make our measurements.

In between the nearfield and farfield gamma will change in a continuous
way enabling the *apparent* time dilation and space contractions to be
calculated. Refer to my lasted paper for a qualitative look at how the
relativistic gamma changes continuously from nearfield to farfield:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166

William D. Walker

On Mar 6, 7:47 pm, wrote:
...
It seems to me that FTL transmission of near field waves should be
easy to test for long wavelength radio waves. Say if you created radio
waves hundreds of meters long then the near field also extends to a
distance of hundreds of meters. Your papers tested phase differences
as an indication of superluminality, but a true test would really test
the time of transmission.
The speed c is 300,000,000 m/s. This amounts to 3.3 nanoseconds to
traverse 1 meter. Then a few hundred meters distance would take in the
range of a microsecond to traverse for a standard light signal. This
is well within the timing capabilities of equipment available at most
universities to determine if the transmission is indeed occurring
faster than c. The distance of a few hundred meters is also easy to
arrange for the distance between transmitter and receiver. The
antennas also would have to be a quarter to a half the wavelength but
could be made vertical:

Very low frequency.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

Low frequency.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_frequency#Antennas

Note that for a convincing test you would need to prove the round
trip time is less than that for c. This is because other prior
experimental indications of superluminal tranmission, which resulted
in for example a light pulse appearing to exit the test equipment on
one end before it had entered the front end, were interpreted as only
being due to early precursors of the entering pulse creating the full
pulse at the exit.
See for example the explanations of these prior experiments he

Light pulses flout sacrosanct speed limit
Peter Weiss
Science News Online
Week of June 10, 2000; Vol. 157, No. 24 , p. 375http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

Light Exceeds Its Own Speed Limit, or Does It?
By JAMES GLANZ
New York Times, May 30, 2000http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/053000sci-physic...

It might be sufficient to simply have the signals be bounced back to
the origin point for a convincing test. But better would be to have a
separate receiver generate and transmit back a separate near field
signal on reception of the first signal of a quite different
character, wavelength, polarization, etc., to ensure there really
was signaling being transmitted from one place to another.
The negative refractive index materials are complicated to make at
visible wavelengths because the materials have to be constructed at
the nanoscale, smaller than the wavelength. But they are easy to
construct for radio wavelengths, which is why they were first
confirmed for microwaves. They should be even easier to make for
wavelengths of hundred meter lengths. And if your suggestions are
correct we wouldn't even need these special materials since you say
near field waves routinely travel faster than c.
...

Bob Clark


Bill, perhaps you can answer this question for me.
More convincing tests would result from longer distances between
transmitter and receiver, perhaps longer than millisecond travel times
for normal c light signals, where the near field light waves beat
these travel times.
For this you would need wavelengths at hundreds to thousands of
kilometers to detect the near field effects, with the c light signal
travel times at milliseconds or longer. I'm still talking in regards
to something that could be easily accomplished by university physics
departments or amateur radio HAMS.
My question is could you make the transmitter size be much smaller
than the size of the wavelength? Perhaps for example by using widely
separated elements that are each small in comparison to the
wavelength?
This page which discusses PC based reception of very low frequency
waves suggests the receiving antenna can be much smaller than the
wavelength:

Very low frequency.
"PC-based VLF reception
PC based VLF reception is a simple method whereby anyone can pick up
VLF signals using the advantages of modern computer technology. An
aerial in the form of a coil of insulated wire is connected to the
input of the soundcard of the PC (via a jack plug) and placed a few
metres away from it. With Fast Fourier transform (FFT) software . in
combination with a sound card allows reception of all frequencies
below 24 kilohertz simultaneously in the form of spectrogrammes.
Because PC monitors are strong sources of noise in the VLF range, it
is recommended to record the spectrograms on hard disk with the PC
monitor turned off. These spectrograms show many interesting signals,
which may include VLF transmitters, the horizontal electron beam
deflection of TV sets and sometimes superpulses and twenty second
pulses."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_low_frequency

This page also suggests the receivers for extremely low frequency and
very low frequency waves could be quite small:

Ultra Low Power ELF/VLF Receiver Project.
http://www-star.stanford.edu/~vlf/ulp_reciv/ulp.htm

The question is how small could you make the tranmitting antenna for
wavelengths hundreds to thousands of kilometers long?
You would also have to put the transmitter at a high height for a
straight-line transmission because of the curve of the Earth. In this
case you wouldn't want to repeatedly bounce off the ionosphere because
that would detract from the speed of the transmitted signal. If the
transmitting antenna could be made small you could perhaps use high
altitude balloons, something many universities have done experiments
with. Or perhaps you could put the transmitter at the top of a
mountain or high plateau.
If the method of widely separated elements for the tranmitter would
work then we can imagine more advanced tests at wavelengths of
hundreds of thousands of kilometers long carried out by spacecraft
where the transmission time for c light signals would be seconds and
longer and see if the near field light waves can better these
transmission times.


Bob Clark