>Small detail. This is *letter* to Nature. Do letters go through the same filter as a regular article? Could this a misplaced article from the Journal of Irreproducible Results? Don't know enough to tell the difference.
>
>Anyway, the "peers" will review it and their response will be interesting.
>
>Alex
>
>
>>For all of us who have speculated about this in this thread, the article in Nature is available at http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v406/n6793/abs/406277a0_fs.html
>>
>>>Folks,
>>>
>>>Thought you might find this interesting: http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/000719/nj_nec_sup.html
>>>
>>>Best,
>>>
>>>DD


I think letters to "nature" are also reviewed - and probably a full description of the experiment will follow at a later date.

The main point which is brought out in the letter is that

Quote "The observed superluminal light pulse propagation is not at odds with causality, being a direct consequence of classical interference between its different frequency components in an anomalous dispersion region."


In a layman's terms it means that no "cause and effect " relationship has been established between the incoming and exiting beams, allthough their shape seems to be identical.
Had there been a causal relationship (meaning, for example that you could transmit information) this would have been at odds with special relativity.

This would mean that this seems to be a kind of "trick" using the "phase velocity" of the waves (which can have any value) versus the "group velocity" (where information is actually transmitted and that is limited by the speed of light)


Nice to talk about something that has nothing to do with MS, Fox or Rushmore

Eylon