Talk:Günter Nimtz

message: I'm not sure of the right way to flag this, but much of the text in this article appears to be taken directly from a seven-year-old article on Science News Online. Kyle Maxwell 19:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I've removed the offending text and put a note on User talk:Kim Dent-Brown.  It is possible to remove those old revisions from the article history, as described at Wikipedia:Oversight (I think a copyvio would just be a "regular" administrator removal of a revision, rather than an oversight removal), but I don't know much about that. Kingdon 13:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: I removed the following text:
:He contends that information can indeed travel faster than c, casting doubts on both causality and special relativity. In 1995, for example, his research team encoded Mozart's 40th symphony in a microwave beam traveling at 4.7 times c to a receiver.
The most obvious reason was a nit-picky ones (given where this was placed, it wasn't clear whether "he" was Nimtz or Steinberg).  But the more fundamental reason is that, although the symphony encoding has been widely reported in the press, it isn't clear what was done with the symphony and why it would matter whether it was a symphony or a simple pulse.  If people really want this factoid included, I'm not firmly opposed (if it has a reference, etc, etc).  But my past reasoning has always been the symphony does more to muddy the waters and spice things up than to actually explain what the experiment did. Kingdon 18:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mozart 

message: I've removed the following:
:Perhaps Einstein's view on this subject is appropriate here. In the 15th chapter of part I of his book on special relativity, Einstein stated (according to the authorized translation of Robert W. Lawson): ”Let me add a final remark of a fundamental nature. The success of the Farady-Maxwell interpretation of electromagnetic action at a distance resulted in physicists becoming convinced that there are no such things as instantaneous actions at a distance (not involving an intermediary medium) of the type of Newton’s law of gravitation. According to the theory of relativity, action at a distance with the velocity of light always takes the place of instantaneous action at a distance or of action at a distance with an infinite velocity of transmission. This is connected with the fact that the velocity c plays a fundamental role in this theory”. (End of quote) An actual statement that nothing can move faster than the speed of light is not found in his book, and yet Einstein is often quoted as making a statement to this effect.
The text, in addition to having problems with tone, WP:NPOV, and lack of relevance to Nimtz's work, is misinterpreting Einstein.  The Einstein quote is pretty much as close to saying "nothing can move faster than c" as one gets in science (which deals in the weight of the evidence, rather than absolute certainties). Kingdon 13:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Einstein quote 

message: I removed the text below. The tone is immature, and the discussion is crackpot. 153.90.113.189 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph Removed 

message: I modified some sentences that were in conflict with Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. However, this article appears to be not a real biography but more a discussion (debate?) about "faster than light" experiments. For a biography, too little is written about the person and this is not an appropriate place for an elaborate debate of the topics that he is working on.
Harald88 (talk) 17:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  neutrality and biography 

message: Günter Nimtz has a book out now, it should probably be mentioned. []  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.61.183 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nimtz' Book 

message: This entry is clearly an opinion piece promoting Nimtz's views and claims of priority, summarily dismissing criticisms of his work (even though those criticisms are the mainstream view), and neglecting other contemporaneous research.  It has no place on wikipedia in my opinion, but if it is to remain it should be written in an unbiased manner.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.2.93 (talk) 22:12, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed.  If you look in the history it has recently been extensively edited by GNimtz, which suggests the man himself. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 22:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased 

message: Recently some editors have been changing the reference at the end of the sentence However, Herbert Winful argues that the train analogy is a variant of the "reshaping argument" for superluminal tunneling velocities, but that this argument is not supported by experiment or simulations, which actually show that the transmitted pulse has the same length and shape as the incident pulse. The original reference at the end of this sentence was to this paper by Winful himself, which on p. 12-13 contains Winful's statement that The New Scientist article also relates another train analogy that was used to try to explain the results of Nimtz and Stahlhofen ... This analogy is a variant of the so-called “reshaping argument” for the existence of superluminal tunneling velocities [18]. According to that argument, the barrier transmits the front end of the pulse and chops off the back end, resulting in a forward shift of the pulse’s peak and a shortening of the pulse.  Unfortunately this argument is supported neither by the experimental observations [19,20] nor by simulations [21].  In all cases the transmitted pulse is the same length and the same shape as the incident pulse, albeit much attenuated in intensity.  The reshaping argument simply does not apply to tunneling pulses and needs to be laid to rest. So here, the paper in the reference is directly supporting the sentence in the wikipedia article. The editors have been changing this reference to references 8 and 13 (Stefano Longhi et al., "Superluminal optical pulse propagation in periodic Bragg gratings" and G. Nimtz, "Do evanescent modes violate relativistic causality?") which do not provide support for the claim Herbert Winful argues that the train analogy is a variant of the "reshaping argument" for superluminal tunneling velocities, but that this argument is not supported by experiment or simulations. If the editors' intention was to link to these papers because they argue against Winful, a new sentence should be added to the article summarizing whatever claims the papers make relating to Winful's claims, but it makes no sense to add them to the end of a sentence which is solely about what Winful claims about this subject. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Why_and_when_to_cite_sources which explains that the point of citing sources in the article is to provide background on specific claims made during the article, so that they can be checked by anyone reading it. Hypnosifl (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  References should provide background on the statement they're attached to 

message: Dear Hypnosifl,
I am sorry for the confusion concerning the change of references. The "back and forth" of changes was due to the fact that I simply thought this was an error in the Wiki-Update process. I wasn't aware of the fact that you actually changed it back until I saw your post on the talk list. In that context I would like to explain my intention of the reference change.
My name is Alexander Carôt - I am working together with Günter Nimtz on a revisited experiment setup based on his past investigations on superluminal pulse transmission. It is actually Günter Nimtz himself and myself who have written his own WIKI-page and the section we are currently focusing on and it is he himself who wants the reference change. Let me state the sentence first:
***************
"However, Herbert Winful argues that the train analogy is a variant of the "reshaping argument" for superluminal tunneling velocities, but that this argument is not supported by experiment or simulations, which actually show that the transmitted pulse has the same length and shape as the incident pulse."
***************
Actually, the problem is that there is a mistake within the sentence --> "but THAT this argument ...". By correcting this you might understand why Winful's reference cannot remain at the end of this sentence and why we want to change it:
***************
"However, Herbert Winful argues that the train analogy is a variant of the "reshaping argument" for superluminal tunneling velocities, but this argument is not supported by experiment or simulations, which actually show that the transmitted pulse has the same length and shape as the incident pulse."
***************
So far I changed it to that version, nevertheless, I am looking forward to further discussion.
Best regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzalex (talk • contribs) 12:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Alexander, no problem about the misunderstanding--but why do you say that there is a mistake in the quote "but that this argument ..."? The sentence as it stood was grammatically correct, and it correctly summarized Winful's view that the reshaping argument is incorrect because it isn't supported by experiments or simulations (I quoted from p. 12-13 of this paper where Winful writes Unfortunately this argument is supported neither by the experimental observations [19,20] nor by simulations [21].) Perhaps the sentence would be clearer if I changed it to this:Herbert Winful argues that the train analogy is a variant of the "reshaping argument" for superluminal tunneling velocities, but he goes on to say that this argument is not actually supported by experiment or simulations, which actually show that the transmitted pulse has the same length and shape as the incident pulse.Then if you like you can add a separate sentence pointing out that Longhi and Nimtz also argue that the reshaping argument is incorrect, even if they don't agree with Winful about his own separate argument for why tunneling doesn't violate the speed-of-light limit. Would this be a satisfactory compromise? Hypnosifl (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion about references 

message: Hello all,
the article claims that the neutrality is disputed. Can anyone give *precise* facts in how far this is the case ? Since superluminal pulse propagation is a highly debated topic I changed the headline "Superluminal quantum tunneling" to "Discussion on superluminal quantum tunneling". This section clearly outlines Nimtz' interpretation and conclusion in contradiction to opposite ones. Since this page is supposed to highlight Nimtz' and his coworkers's point of view it has to clearly show their intention and approach - which it actualy does in a comprehensive manner.
Thanks for letting me know what in your opinion the problem is.
Best regards  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzalex (talk • contribs) 15:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality disputed ? 

message: Hello all, 
with respect to the Orphan tag in the head of the page I finally found (and edited) 6 pages, which now link to Günter Nimtz' page. In comparison with other Wiki pages I considered it correct to eventually remove the Orphan tag. Please let me know if and why anyone might have a different opinion on this. 
Thanks in advance for your contribution 
-- A l e x
--Jazzalex (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphan tag removed 

message: Hello all,
I have figured a number of minor errors (such as wrong references, dead links etc.). Within the next days I will apply the required corrections.
Best
Alex  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzalex (talk • contribs) 05:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fine-tuning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Günter Nimtz. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070621222329/http://www.sciencenews.org:80/articles/20000610/fob7.asp to http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article as of this writing says, "... see chapter Scientific opponents and their interpretations ..." This makes no sense in context--was this section quoted without attribution from another source?
IAmNitpicking (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See chapter"?