Metalloptik, Vakuumlayer, Spinlicht, Nimtz

This is a collection on discussions on superluminal effects, spin effects
and metall optics discussions. Some notes are in german and others written
in english.
The references to Nimtz home page and another link to rotating blood cells
in a light field are given.
Answers are given for frequently asked questions on the top 3 topics:
1. Frustrated internal total reflection (Nimtz experiment) - superluminal
behaviour
2. Spin flux formula for electromagnetic waves
3. Energy formulas in metal optics

[Only registered users see links. ]
der neueste pdf -download:
[Only registered users see links. ]
ing.pdf ist aus dem Jahre 2001


Licht mit Spin, Licht mit Überlichtgeschwindigkeit, Konvergentes Modell der
Metalloptik

Licht mit Spin

um (bzw. vor) 1992 wurden in Amerika Lichtstrahlexperimente mit Spinlicht
durchgeführt. Die klassische Elektrodynamik kennt keine Drehimpulsformeln.
Sonnenlicht und thermische Strahlung sind ohne Drehimpuls. Wer kennt die
Gruppe in Amerika oder hat eine Referenz auf eine Veröffentlichung ? Warum
ich frage ?
Wie ich gehört habe soll es diesen Leuten geungen sein, ein schwarzes Rad
bei senkrechtem Strahungseinfall in Rotation zu versetzen !

Quantenmechanisch ist die Existenz von Spinlicht gut zu verstehen. Photonen
haben rechts- bzw.linkshändigen Spin. Viele Photonen (ein Photonenfluß)
könnte demzufolge Spin transportieren, wenn eine der beiden Photonensorten
überwiegt.

Licht mit Überlichtgeschwindigkeit

Inhomogene Wellen, wie sie etwa bei der Totalreflexion an einem Glasprisma
im optisch dünneren Medium auftreten, transportieren Lichtwellen
signalerhaltend mit effektiven Überlichtgeschwindigkeiten. Bringt man einen
Signalempfänger in die inhomogene Welle, so entsteht ein Tunnelfluß, der
exponentiell mit dem Abstand von der Grenzfläche abfällt. Mit guten
Verstärkern läßt sich das Restlicht im Exponentialschwanz verstärken und bei
nicht zu großer Entfernung das Signal (z.B. Mozartmusik) rekonstruieren.
Diese Experimente von Prof. Nimtz an der Uni Köln scheinen der
Relativitätstheorie zu widersprechen. Es zeigt sich als Ergebnis der Nimtz -
Experimente, daß das Licht den Tunnel quasi instantan überbrückt. Eine tolle
Erfindung. Die
Experimete wurden mit 10 cm langen Wellen durchgeführt.

Mit der Relativitätstheorie verträglich ?

Zunächst einmal ja. Auch Einstein hat die Existenz von
Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsphänomenen (er nannte sie Tachionen) nicht
ausgeschlossen. Photonen haben keine Masse und so ist das Problem mit der
Masse nicht vorhanden. Materielle Körper nur max. Lichtgeschwindihkeit.
Die Theorie ist aber nichtlokal ? Der Raum ohne Zeit ? - so ist der Schluß
des Experimentators. Das wäre nicht so wenn wenigstens endiche
Überlichtgeschwindigkeiten herauskämen. Kann man also das signalerhaltende
Hopping auf der Rückseite eines Quarzprismas nicht als Grenzfall einer
lokalen kausalen Theorie verstehen ?
Ein weiterer Aspekt: Die Konstanz der Lichtgeschwindigkeit wird
experimentell immer genauer bestätigt. Sind die Experimente von Nimtz dazu
nicht im Widerspruch ?
Die Antwort lautet: Nein! Dort werden die Messungen immer an homogenen
Kugelwellen durchgeführt, nicht an Wellen mit stark exponentiell abfallender
Flanke wie es Nimtz tut.
Der Raum ist auch nicht ohne Zeit, denn während der Durchführung der
Experimente sind auch normal reflektierte thermische Photonen gleicher
Frequenz im Raum hinter dem Totalreflexionsprisma anwesend und die verhalten
sich völlig normal mit der Zeit.
Es gibt Erklärungsversuche von Nimtz betreffend die zeitliche Erstreckung
von Signalen, die mir nicht einleuchten. Könnte es nicht einfach nur sein,
daß die Tunnelwellen eine sehr kleine Energiedichte haben oder diese sogar
Null ist ? Ist das nicht die einfachere Erklärung?

Metalloptik

Warum gibt es keine Metalloptik mit Energieflüssen ? Wie Richard Feynman es
formulierte: Was hat es mit dem komplexen Brechungsindex auf sich ?

Ich kann dazu nur sagen: Es gibt sie !
Die herkömmliche Metalloptik (ohnehin nicht akzeptiert von den Theoretikern)
ist falsch. Allerdings ist sie nicht ganz falsch. Man muß an Grenzflächen
zwischen zwei Stoffen eine Vakuumlayer einführen, also so tun, als wäre eine
Vakuumschicht zwischen den Stoffen. Die Dicke dieser Vakuum - Schichten läßt
man dann in den Lösungsformeln gegen Null gehen. Was man erhält sind andere
Formeln für Plattensysteme. Auch die in der Literatur beschriebene und
gemessene Dickenabhängigkeit des Brechungsindex (z.B. Landolt Bernstein) ist
wahrscheinlich ein Effekt, der aufgrund der Verwendung falscher Formeln
entsteht. Auch die Tatsache, daß es Reflexionen und Totalreflexionen an
Gradienten des Brechungsindex gibt (z.B. Gradientenfasern bei
Lichtwellenleitern) läßt sich mit den neuen Formeln erklären (die
Fresnelschen bzw. Drudeformeln gestatten keine Reflexionen an Gradienten !).

Mich würde interessieren, ob es Interesse gibt, diese Formeln experimentell
zu bestätigen. Mich würde dabei auch interessieren, wie es sich mit der
Reproduzierbarkeit bei Ellipsometermessungen verhält. Dort werden die
vermeindlich falschen Drudeformeln eingesetzt um Schichtdicken und komplexe
Brechungsindizes dünner Schichten zu bestimmen. Ich würde mich freuen von
geplagten Experimentatoren etwas über die Unzulänglichkeiten der
Drudetheorie zu erfahren.

Diesbezüglich einen kleinen Einschub: Ich habe eine Rückmeldung bekommen,
die die Übereinstimmung der
Vakuumlayer mit dem Experiment bestätigt. Ich weiss auch aus meiner
Studienzeit wo solche Experimente in einer Nachbargruppe durchgeführt
wurden, daß nur komplizierte Mittelungsverfahren zu brauchbaren
Meßauswertungen führten. Die Vakuumlayer scheint sich also als wahr
herauszustellen. Sie ist direkt meßbar und einfach zu verstehen: Warum
sollte sich an den Reflexionsformel was ändern wenn man zwei Platten im
Vakuum zusammenschiebt. Warum nehme ich Vakumm ? Weil nur dann eine
konvergente Theroie herauskommt.

Noch ein Wort zur Permeabilität des Vakuums: Es handelt sich dabei um keine
Materialkonstante wie es hier einige Physikstudenten hinterfragen. Nur die
relative Permeabilität magnetischer Stoffe ist eine Materialkonstante, wenn
keine Hysterese auftritt. Das cgs - system kommt ohne eine Permeabilität des
Vakuums aus.
Im MKSA - System ist sie 4 mal pi mal Zehnerpotenz ! Daran sieht man schon,
daß es eine Definition ist.

Schlußwort:

Wie es Richard Feynman formulierte: Die Quantenmechanik bzw.
Quantenelektrodynamik kommt am komplexen Brechungsindex nicht vorbei. Er
ist existent und die Wellen richten sich danach. Man hat ihn nur noch nicht
ganz verstanden. Beim Auftreten inhomogener Wellen (z.B. am
Totalreflexionsprisma im Vakuum) gibt es Tunnelphänomene bei denen sich
Lichtwellen oder Einzelphotonen mit neuen bislang theoretisch nicht
verstandenen Eigenschaften bewegen
(Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsphänomene, instantanes Hopping).

Auch in der Metalloptik dünner Schichten treten Tunnelflüsse auf. Man kann
sie berechnen. Allerdings ist der Tunnelfluß (dafür gibt es eine Formel) im
Gegensatz zum Tunneln bei der Totalreflexion nur partiell, d.h. Es gibt auch
reguläre nicht tunnelnde Anteile beim Hindurchtritt durch eine dünne
absorptive Schicht.
Ich nenne das partielles Tunneln. Auch haben immer wieder Experimentatoren
auf Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsphänomene bei optischen Experimenten
hingewiesen.
Zumindest seit den Experimenten von Prof. Nimtz an der Uni Köln sind diese
Leute rehabilitiert - und um es etwas schärfer zu formulieren: Ich hoffe,
daß es künftig nicht anmaßend ist, den Begriff Überlichtgeschwindigkeit in
den Mund zu nehmen.

Die Spinlichtexperimente könnten die Grundlage für einen sehr reizvollen
neuen
Ast der Physik sein. Es gibt Evidenz daß auch hier die alten
Maxwellgleichungen gültig sind.

All diesen Theorien ist eines gemeinsam: Sie lassen sich im Rahmen der
Maxwellschen Gleichungen zumindest teilweise verstehen. Dabei werden keine
neuen Glieder (wie die früher diskutierten Magnetischen Monopole benötigt).
Man muß die Lösungen wie oben beschrieben nur etwas anders bilden. Und eines
muß man auch noch: An die Existenz des komplexen Brechungsindex glauben. Das
tun nicht alle Physiker aber wohl gemerkt: Richard Feynman tat das.

Das Einführen von finiten Vakuumlayern kommt den Theoretikern nahe, die die
Welt als Einbettung von Eletronen und Protonen ins Vakuum begreifen.
Spätestens seit den Nimtz - Experimenten ist gezeigt daß dieses Bild falsch
ist. Es dürften dann nämlich keine Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsphänomene
existieren.
Auch bleiben alle Messungen an Schichtsystemen gültig, bei denen ohnehin ein
Vakuumspalt zwischen den Schichten war.
Die korrekte Auffassung scheint zu sein: Jede noch so kleine Änderung des
Brechungsindex wirkt sich so aus, als ob es zwei Reflexionen gäbe, eine in
die lokale Vakuumlayer und eine aus der Layer heraus.

Mathematisch gilt das nur exakt an unendich ausgedehneten Platten und
unendlich ausgedehnten Wellenfronten. Sobald man diese Einschränkung
verläßt, gibt es inhomogene Beugung. Inhomogene Beugungsprinzipien sind
äußerst kompliziert`und meiner Meinung nach wert, daß man sich mit ihnen
beschäftigt. Es sind die 3 dimensionalen Lösungen der Maxwellgleichungen bei
vorhandenem komplexen Brechungsindex. Eine Denksportaufgabe für gute
Mathematiker, Physiker und Experimentatoren. Im Grenzfall homogener
Kugelwellen und nicht komplexer Brechungsindizes müßte die Theorie das
Huyghens´sche Prinzip ergeben.

Für Diskussionsbeiträge stets dankbar aber bitte in netter Form

Email: [Only registered users see links. ]

Gruß

Josef Matz

The Nimtz Experiment (Overlightvelocities of the tunneling waves between two
prisms when total reflection condition is fulfilled) has nothing to do with
special relativity or even relativistic quantum mechanics. It is a general
effect. It has to do with the possibilty of having complex field vectors in
classical electrodynamics. It is an outcome of the full theory for the
complex refraction index n. It is also outcome of the fact that light can
travel with lower velocities than the velocity of light and light becomes
absorbed when going through matter. It is the follow of the fact, that in
matter fields are complex and the propagation vektor k is complex.

If somebody of the quantummechanics guys has an better explanation, please
tell me. It is an irony of history that it has not been found how the
complex index works (the theory has no energyfluxes at all) and because one
thought that Quantum mechanics will solve all problems this theory has been
put aside. Sometimes you find in the books that the theory is fully
ununderstandable and a reference to a book from 1939 Stratton.

Fact is there exist no energy fluxes in Strattons theory but the theory
might exist somwhere else. But i think this is not the case. I wanted to
make my promotion in 1992 in this field. Therefore i know the outcome. I was
not allowed to work on such an topic.

The nimtz experiment is true and can be explained by the full theory of
complex index.

And in our books is a mistake while treating staples of different index.
Thats the cause why no energy fluxes exist in this theory.

Prof. Nimtz at the University of cologne and i assume many of his colleagues
in the world measured microwaves to transmit the vacuum gap between two
prisms with nearly infinite velocities when the
total reflection condition is fulfilled. It tunnels between the two surfaces
and hereby makes an instantaneous hop = nearly infinite velocity. Also a
signal like mozart music can be repeatet and therfore signaling with
nearly infinite velocities is possible.

Sensation !

What are our present theories worth if they can´t predict and describe such
a simple experiment ?
I fear that something fundamental is wrong in what we call true physics.

I propose Prof. Nimtz to get the noble price.

[Only registered users see links. ]


A last remark: I read that Nimtz tried to treat the results of his
experiments in an official way. But the German Physical Society does not
support this.

Therefore he published his new book ( without formulas ! ) describing the
effects. That is good, that a guy is defending his results against the
stupid society

of DPG.

The theory of inhomogeneous waves delivers the Nimtz Experiment !



A new flux density in electrodynamics

In some of my last essays i asked about an experiment i have seen in TV in
germany. A american group of scientists presentet the spinnimg of a black
wheel while radiation incident perpendicurar on the wheel.
The wheel was sensitively mounted in a evacuatet glass tube. It was around
1991 or 92.

I do not know the origin, but i want to say that this was a great
experiment.

It leads to a flux density which is electromagnetic origin. Except the
energy flux density there exists another flux density in electrodynamics, i
call it spin flux density. It has the direction of the energy flux. It
differs by a factor 1/frequency from the energy flux density and it is built
up by the difference of the circular split of a elliptic polarized wave.
Note the energy density is the sum (not the difference) of both.

This simple formula i found 1992 cause i was concerned with polarization
calculations. I found the following rules that time:
1. The energy is propotional to the square of the two main axes of the
ellipse. while the spin flux is proportional to the product of both.
2. 2002 i found that this flux density fulfills a conservation law for the
normal component when you have a incident wave on a non absorptive
macroscopic medium. Formulas similar to the Fresnel formulas. The reflection
coefficient for example is the root of the product of the reflection
coefficients for the perpendicular and parallel polarized part of the
incident wave. The transmission coefficient is the root of the product of
the Fresnel transmission coefficients times a simple factor. Reflection plus
transmission coefficient equal 1 for these spin fluxes.
3. Linear polarized waves do not transport spin.
4. The flux is proportiobal to the vector product of E and E*, the complex
conjungated field. If you assume
the electric field to be real, this flux would not exist, because the vector
product of the same real vector is zero !
The complex vectorproduct between E and E* is purely complex and therefore
must be multiplied by the imaginary unit in
order to get a real valued spinflux. This is the secret why the spin flux
was not found and adpted in electromagnetic theory.
5. Thermal light - circular or elliptic polararized - which comes directly
from a thermal source like a lamp or the sun - does not show spinning of the
wheel.

This symmetry i call the spin symmetry of classical electrodynamics. There
exists a variety of possibilities
to form spinwaves from thermally emitted waves:
1. Using a circular polarizer to strip of one of the two rotating fields in
a thermal emitted wave (the rotation for both goes in opposite direction)
2. Linear polarize thermal emitted wave and then make a metal or total
reflecion (then you get light which is elliptic polarized and having spin
3. I also found a literature note that thin magnetic layers on a substrate
could have such an effect.

I also thought upon thermodynamic machines an found following rules
1. You can not find polarizers in nature with can polarize thermal light
linear or circular with more than 50% efficiency. Normally very much less
than 50 % efficiency.
2. Energy which is transferred in form of a momentum to the body (the
rotating black wheel) can not be transformed to thermal energy at the same
time.
3. There are frequency dependent effects which limit radiation machines to
efficiencies not far away from the efficiencies of solar cells.

Spin effects can be used to directly transform radiation energy to
mechanical energy.

Best regards [Only registered users see links. ]

Josef Matz

Please excuse my english its not perfect.


Answers to questions about Nimtz

Read his essays on university cologne department physik nimtz or
his new published book -
Räume ohne Zeit - Vom Urknall zum Wurmloch - ISBN 3-527-40440-6
Misses Haibel is Co-autor and made the experiments on the double prism. She
working today at the Hahn Meitner Institute in Berlin.

Its really interesting but in my opinion the interpretation in his book is
wrong. I found the experiment to be explained by the completed theory of
complex refractive index. (with energy and spin sentances at each surface).

The measurements were approved in other countries (see his article in Physik
in unserer Zeit 1998) and articles on nimtz web page where it was also
approved for single photon experiments by another guy.

Nimtz still is at University Cologne and i think what he found is correct.
I tried once to discuss with him and his people now two years ago but was
not got an answer, probably because he gots plenty of asks.

Best regards

Josef Matz

A comment to the third Nimtz arrangement:

I don´t know if the third Nimtz arrangement was already measured ( the
interference experiment ). The theory does not allow this effect.
It is not convenient to mix up bandwith and material dispersion. Therefore
this effect should not exist !


The biggest mistake in classical optics and its solution

We consider a glass system with tree glass plates (all having weak
neglectable absorption). All of these three
glass plates shall have an different refraction index, that means non of
these three indexes shall be equal.
Now we put these three plates together and let light fall perpendicular onto
the surface.

We look into standard books like Max Born or other good optical books and
find the solution for this problem or at least the way the sokutions are
built. We get simple Formulas for the reflection and transmission
coefficient, they belong to a Formula System containig Fresnels formulas or
Drudes Formulas (if you have complex indices with absorption). But here we
restrict to the above mentioned system of three glas plates
with different real index.

Now you can make the following: If you let the thickness of the middle glass
plate go to zero. What happens:
If you do this, the formulas for the system of the two outer glas plates is
not the formula, you would get
if you are doing the same process for the two outer glas plates. The formula
where you let the thickness
of the middle plate go to zero still contains the index of the middle plate
when you let go thickness d to zero.

This is a paradox which shows, that something on the theory is wrong. It is
not a small mistake, it is a big error. The theory is wrong !

But what is wrong with this theory, i will answer it here. When i say you
that it took me more than 20 years to
find the simple error, then laugh !

Let us consider a third arrangement: We have our three glass tubes same as
above but we separate them
from each other. What we do: We separe them in vacuum ( Index 1 ). Now we
make the following:
We take for this also the Drude theory and then shift the plates ( in
between the vacuum ) together.
Now we have a second formula for three plate system which is different from
the first which stands in the Books. This formula has one big advantage
against that one in the books:

If you now let the thickness d of the middle glass plate go to zero, then
you get a solution where the index of the middle glass plate plays no roll
any more ! And this formula you get ( the two plate formula) is identical
with the solution you derive when you have a two plate system with a vaccum
layer in between land let the thickness of the vacuum layer go to zero !

The soltions of this theory are fully self consistent !

Thats the biggest mistake of the old optics of layers at all. The old optics
of layers is wrong, except you have
exact vacuum between all plates. In this case the old theory is right.


metal optics - an ununderstood chapter in optics becomes understandable :


Everybody has concerned with formulas having a complex index of refraction.
One of the best prooven theories is the incident wave on a homogeneous bulk
metal. Intensity and polarization of the reflected wave - everything in well
agreement with the theory. But what is with the energy fluxes within
the bulk metal ? The books stop here. You get no answer or only qualitative
answers in the books.

No serious book in electrodynamics gives those formulas. All give references
to very old literature. And
also published new articles at top institutes just may write some formulas
for the electric field very old stuff.
Many theory professors doubt on this theory !

Thats so because the Flux density in the metal is somehow mysteric because
very complicated.

We just talk about bulk! material here (bulk = very thick material).

One of the Discussions on these waves within the metal is going about the
direction of propagation. There is the meaning that the direction of the
real part of the propagation vektor k is the direction the wave propagates.
This is wrong in general. It is only true for the H - Wave. The E - Wave
propagates in another
direction. (And for the H - Wave the direction is in direction of the real
part of k only if the material is nonmagnetic).

Thus what i want to say is: There exist energy flux formulas within the bulk
which fulfill energy conservation.
You get them if you treat the incident perpendicular and parallel polarised
waves fully separately. That means in other words: If you add E and H Waves
in your energy flux formula within the the metal, you get shit
(Everything else than energy conservation !). If a elliptic wave falls in,
it splits into two waves and you have to do the calcus for the perpendicular
and parallel polarized part seperately - thats the rule to follow !

Light which is incident on a metal splits into two beams, the E - wave and
the H - wave both propagating into two different directions ! Believe what
the Maxwell Equations give you and just follow the one rule i gave you
above. Thats it people !


Magnetdispersion

My studies around the complex formulated elektrodynamic with complex
refraction index have given a very top result. When one tries to find energy
formulas in thin magnetic metal layers this is only possible inducing a
magnetic dispersion principle which qualitatively looks as follows:

The magnetic permeability is the sum of the permeability in vacuum and the
product of the conjungatet
dielectricity constant and a constant which does not depend on the
frequency ( there is another factor i the imaginary unit and Omega = 2 pi
times freuency)

This is a surprising easy thing.

The real part depends on imaginary part of the dielectric constant. Thats
true because magnets are conductors. There also exists an magnetic induced
absorption of energy - the imaginary part is dependant on the real part of
the dielectric function and must be greater zero at all frequencies.

The constant can be determind with the tabled dia - and peramagnetic
coefficients and the conductivity value for direct current. Since the
conductivity is positiv, the sign of that constant determines, weather a
material is diamagnetic or peramagnetic. For these the constant must be
small. If the constant is very big the magnetic field H is not any more
strictly proporitonal to B, therefore the old known effect that ferromagnets
have hysteresis comes out (not completely but at least qualitatively) !

The formula fulfills the Cramers - Kronig relations ! What i want to say
here,is, that the cramerd cronig relations seam to be fulfilled for the
invers 1/permeability. But up to now, this theory is not valid in classical
physics ! The relation can be derived if one wants to have a theory with
energy fluxes in magnetic material.

But ist behaves otherwise than the old guys believed. When the constant is
not zero the effect runs with mathemacial precition down to higher
frequencies. Therefore also microwave and optical frequencies show
magnetic induced effects and within magnets you have not only one index of
refraction, you have two of them.

If my english is not perfect, please excuse.

Josef Matz [Only registered users see links. ]


Die Formel für den Tunnelfluß


Der Nimtzsche Energiefluß oder Tunnelfluß im Gap zwischen den zwei
Prismen ist gebeben durch

S = 1/2 (E x H´* + E* x H´ + E´ x H* + E´* x H)

Dabei bedeutet * konjungiert komplex, x Kreuzprodukt zwischen den Vektoren
und ´ ist die reflektierte Welle
am zweiten Doppelprisma von Nimtz.

Wie leicht zu erkennen ist, ist der Tunnelfluß konstant, da sich die
exponentialfunktionen e^(-k2 z) und e^(k2 z) der
einfallenden und reflektierten inhomogenen Welle genau zu 1 ergänzen wenn
man multiliziert. Obwohl die beiden inhomogenen
Wellen also exponentiell abfallende Flanken haben, ergibt sich für den
Tunnelfluß was konstantes.

Die Energieichte des Tunnelflußes im Gap zwischen den zwei
Prismen ist gebeben durch

w = 1/4 (E D´* + E* D´ + E´ D* + E´* D + B´H* + B´* H + BH´* + B* H´)

Sie ist identisch Null im Falle des Nimtz Experimentes in einem Vakuumspalt
zwischen den Prismen und im Falle von Luft fast Null (Im Falle von Luft
ist die Formel aber nicht die Gruppenenergiedichte !). Im Falle von Vakuum
ist diese Formel, die die Phasenenergiedichte darstellt, gleich der
wirklichen
Energiedichte oder Gruppenenergiedichte.


Die Formel für den Spinfluß:

L = i E x E* / w f

w Kreisfrequenz, f Wellenwiderstand, L Spinfluß reellwertig, i imaginäre
Einheit, E komplexwertiges elektrisches Feld



Ein Leser schrieb:

Bei Physicsweb war neulich was zu dem Thema. Indische Forscher haben
mit zirkular polarisiertem Licht rote Blutkörperchen zum Rotieren
gebracht:

[Only registered users see links. ]

Meine Antwort:

Top ! Es scheint so zu sein, als ob es eine zweite Flußdichte in der
Elektrodynamik gibt. Neben dem Energiefluß gibt es einen Spinfluß. Und die
Formel steht in diesem Aufsatz. Wenn ich mich an meine Studienjahre
erinnere, so wurde damals ein nobler Preis versprochen für denjenigen, der
das Rätsel, warum die Elektrodynamik keine Drehimpulssymmetrie kennt,
knackt.
Das Rätsel wurde also in dieser Newsgroup das erste mal formelmäßig
gelüftet. Ich bin mir sicher daß hieraus noch vieles folgern wird was ich
heute noch gar nicht absehen kann.

Es ist also so daß dies hier das erste mal formelmäßig veröffentlicht wurde.
Ihr seht also daß es sich bei dieser Veröffentlichung um keinen Scherz
handelt sondern um die Wahrheit.

Ich habe übrigens keinen Job !!!

Herzlichen Dank für die Referenz und Gruß - So macht Physik richtig Spaß !!

Josef Matz

A nice cooment and my reply:
A reader wrote:


Dear Josef Matz,
I liked your discussion of optical layers. Although I don't know much
about optics, it is clear that your intermediate layers, with K=1, that go
to differentially small thickness is a very good physical picture. There is
no such thing as a surface of a piece of optical material, just a place
inside of which all the atoms of that piece remain. When two pieces are
brought together their "surface atoms" come close, but there is still empty
space (K=1) between them.
Very nice picture,
Roland Dishington

My reply:

Tank you for your nice comment, Roland

I needed more than 20 years to find this simple answer to the question, why
the theory of complex index has no energy fluxes.
The new theory with the vacuum layer has energy formulas and the double
prism experiment of nimtz can be fully understood
in terms of this new theory. The result is the nimtz double prism experiment
as he measures it explained with a local theory -
the Maxwell equations - describing it !

Thanks for your nice answer

Josef


A further answer to a guy doubting the existence of overlight velocities:

Nimtz selbst besteht darauf, daß seine Messungen
Überlichtgeschwindigkeitsmessungen der Gruppengeschwindigkeit
sind.

Im Gap zwischen den Prismen ist Luft, dessen Eigenschaften denen des Vakuums
sehr ähnlich sind. Daher wird das Überlichtgeschwindigkeitssignal das den
Vakuumgap zwischen den Prismen passiert nicht verändert ( keine Dispersion
im Gap ).
In den Prismen selbst gibt es wohl Signalverformungen, aber diese kann Nimtz


eliminieren, indem er die Prismen zusammenschiebt. Insgesamt kann das Signal
einwanfrei detektiert werden.

Ich habe daher keine Zweifel an dem Nimtzschen Interpretation, daß er
Gruppen - Überlichtgeschwindigkeiten mißt.
Im Gegenteil: Was er mißt kommt aus der vervollständigten Theorie des
Brechungsindex heraus !
Darum geht es in einem Teil dieses von mir angebotenen Artikels.

Gruß

Josef Matz


An additional comment to the meaning of the rule i gave you above
(Superposition rule):

The room of fields with a complex k - vektor is an imaginary vectorroom. A
description of full three - dimensional problems should - in my opinion also
be possible.

In the case of real k - vektors you have
two vectorial independant parts the perpendicular and the parallel polarized
wave which are related to the normal vector n on the plane of incident. But
you can also use any other
vektor to describe your polarization with respect to. For example if your
reflected wave falls onto another makroscopic surface, which is totally
different oriented you need a transform of the wave from the one surface
normal to the other. What is parallel polarized at the one surface might
have also a perpendicular polarized component on the other surface.
If you have multiple waves which you do want to to superpose, because they
are overlapping, you first must transform them all to the same direction
vektor before you add the fields
and calculate the Pointing vector. Thats the symmetry with real k.

If you have complex k - Vektors, you have in general cases two different
directions for the real and imaginary part of k. Two directions are enough
to describe everything, that means you do - in principle need no normal
vector to describe your problem. On the other hand, the symmetry of real k
has to come in in your solution.
And the answer is:
If you have many waves you want to overlap in a 3D situation with komplex
k - vectors, you need a rule how
to calculate the fiels as a sum of several fields. And as far as i know it
presently this looks so in general:
Calculate all E Waves and calculte one flux - the sum of all E - Waves and
do the same with all H - Waves
and then add these two fluxes. The outcome of this rule in the easy case of
a simple bulk material is the rule i gave you. It is the superposition
theorem for E - Waves and H - Waves in full 3D Cases. I do not tell you here
explicit, how E - Waves and H - Waves are described in 3D Cases. In the
moment thats my secret, because its not treated up to the final.


Josef

And some comments to readers which misunderstand whats going on:


In a prism light speed is approximately c/n with n = 1.5 depending a little
on the frequency because of dispersion. When n becomes complex, i.e. when
a big absorption occurs, the formulas one can derive from the makroskopic
maxwell equations indicate that there are no limits for the light speed in
certain cases.
But it is probable that in the upmost cases these speeds are smaller than
luminal.
When light is total reflected at a surface to the vacuum the speed of light
of the reflected wave is c/n. But when you near a second prism, light
tunnels between
the two prisms while in the glass the velocity is c/n and therefore smaller
than luminal.
In the gap between the two prism the light speed is infinte ! The waves in
the gap which have this funny property are not normal waves. They have a
complex propagation vektor k = k1 + i k2 and k2 leading to an exponential
falling amplitude in the vaccum between the two prisms.

If you read the lectures of Feynman on QED you know that the theory of
complex index still leaves open questions. And Feynman said also, that light
can have
all !!!! velocities. This realizes in the case of tolal reflection to
infinite light speeds in the gap between the prisms.

There exist formulas for this. The effect is experimental approved by Nimtz
and Haibel at the University colonge. Mrs. Haibel now at the HMI Berlin.
Also other groups confirmed the effect. The Wang experiment for example for
single photons.
The completed theory of index exactly gives these measured results.

Light therfore travells in the index world with own new properties like for
example infinite velocities (instantaneaous hopping). Therefore the index
world is not just an illusion as many theoreticals believe. This hopping can
not be described in term of any microscopic theory !!!!

Thanks

Josef Matz


Discusion about Snell-Descartes-Harriot Law in complex form.


So you are right with your questions and the answer is not trivial.

The answer is: you can wirite

n1 sin Theta1 = n2 sin Theta2 = 1 sin Theta

where Theta is the incident wave in Vakuum. So you can write

n1 sin Theta1 = sin Theta and

n2 sin Theta2 = sin Theta


Theta is the real incident angle. Theta1 and Theta2 are complex angles.
Their meaning is not an angle like Theta. It is just a formal analogy. But
it is right.
This you can circumvent if you make vectorial approaches. This vectors have
interpretable meanings. But representing the reflection coefficient by
assuming
formal relations like these described you have to take care. Two solutions
with physical meaning for Theta1 and the same for Theta2 possible. You have
to take the right one ! The right solution can be selected by the task that
the energy flux has to flow away from the surfaces. But Drudes theory does
not know such energy flux formulas. Only shit comes out !

The second problem you have is that if you use your approach, that means you
assume the two absorptive coatings to be in contact like in Drudes Theory,
you obtain a solution, where the thickness of the intermediant layer plays a
role. But Drudes solutions have the unnice property, that the index of the
intermediant
layer remains in your reflection formula when you let go the thickness d of
the layer to zero. A zero layer is still active and influences yor solution
!!!

Formerly one assumed that the index of absorptive layers is thickness
dependant when the layer becomes too thin. Tables for thin metallic layers
you can find in Landolt Bernstein chapters complex index of metals - nice
tablework. What they did: They used a wrong formula and now postlated that
the index is thickness dependent. This is the present official view of the
things. The mistake they made: The measurement was not in agreement with
theory and from that they concluded
that the index is thickness dependant. They did not think about that the
theory is wrong !
Now: A refraction index can be dependant on the composite of the medium and
therefore also from lokation. But is can not be thickness dependant !!!!!

The solution of this problem is described in an article of me in this
newsgroup and soon will come again.

The principle: You form new soltions that way that you seperate your
intermallic layers a little in thoughts and let flow vacuum in between you
metal layers (remark: same for non aborptive layers like staples of glass
plates with different index). Now you apply Drudes theory ( - make yor
reflection and transmission formula) and then you let the thickness of this
vacuum layers again go to zero.


You now have the right theory where energy fluxes can be defined. And the
new formula you get needs not any more measured data for the thickness
dependent index. The indermediant layer vanishes fully if you now vary the
thickness of intermediant layers to zero.

The main benefit: You only need index properties of the bulk ( = very thick
substances ). The interference pattern is decribed correctly and compatible
with resistance theories.


A comment on the energy fluxes:

Light refracted into a metal splits into two beams, The E wave and H wave
have different diections of propagation.

In a coating you have this two waves and their two reflected waves. In
addition you have two tunnel waves with a constant amplitude passing the
coating normal to the surface. I call this two a E tunnel wave und a H
tunnel wave. On each surface you have energy conservation laws since
absorption takes only place at a distance. (The fields are the same than for
the E and H wave, but the tunnel flux is calculated like discussed above).


Try this and approve it ----- it is true !!!!!

Josef


If you have questions, ask them. I am willing to answer them. If you plan
experiments, i would like to support you.

[Only registered users see links. ]