FTL (Faster Than Light) communications?

R

Ray L. Volts

Guest
I remember seeing a spot on tv news several years ago about a small group of
researchers who claimed they had sent an audio signal (human voice from a
recording I believe) through a transmitter device which emitted the signal
several microseconds BEFORE they had sent it!

As I recall, they said microwaves were somehow employed to allegedly
accomplish this feat.

Even if FTL is possible, would not the fact that humans perceive time as
linear preclude their being able to notice this effect -- since they
themselves were not sent through the device along with the signal?

I think either their equipment was out of calibration, in which case the
joke's on them, poor bastards, or they flat out fudged the numbers. If this
were real and recreatable in the lab, one would think we'd be hearing about
its progress virtually every week. It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such furor.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??


-Ray
 
"Ray L. Volts" <raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfbe4j$re8@library1.airnews.net...
Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??
Click to expand...
Yes, and plenty on these and other newsgroups already have.

Care to do a bit of research, rather than just trolling? You might start by
searching sci.electronics.design for the term "FTL". Or the term "group
delay".
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:44 -0500, "Ray L. Volts"
<raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote:


It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such con-fusion.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??
Click to expand...
I'm sure Jim Thompson has a chip to handle it somewhere in his
extensive, home-designed inventory.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
rayvolts posted:
Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??
Click to expand...
Absolutely! It is done by very careful application of a KS144689 List 3
Legpuller.

Don
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:46:16 +0100, Paul Burridge
<pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:44 -0500, "Ray L. Volts"
raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote:


It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such con-fusion.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??

I'm sure Jim Thompson has a chip to handle it somewhere in his
extensive, home-designed inventory.
Click to expand...
---
I'm sure that Jim has, in his library, things which you wouldn't even
dare to dream about, and I'm also sure that the only thing you can be
sure of of is that you're a know-nothing poser with delusions of
grandeur. Grandeur, in your case, thinking that you know how to clean
toilets without chipping the bowl.

--
John Fields
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:15:54 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:46:16 +0100, Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:44 -0500, "Ray L. Volts"
raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote:


It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such con-fusion.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??

I'm sure Jim Thompson has a chip to handle it somewhere in his
extensive, home-designed inventory.

---
I'm sure that Jim has, in his library, things which you wouldn't even
dare to dream about, and I'm also sure that the only thing you can be
sure of of is that you're a know-nothing poser with delusions of
grandeur. Grandeur, in your case, thinking that you know how to clean
toilets without chipping the bowl.
Click to expand...
Or chipping his teeth. ROTFLMAO!

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice:(480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax:(480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
 
On 10 Aug 2004 21:51:07 GMT, Walter Harley wrote:

"Ray L. Volts" <raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfbe4j$re8@library1.airnews.net...
Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??

Yes, and plenty on these and other newsgroups already have.

Care to do a bit of research, rather than just trolling? You might start by
searching sci.electronics.design for the term "FTL". Or the term "group
delay".
Click to expand...
Good call!
--
Best Regards,
Mike
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 19:15:54 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:

I'm sure that Jim has, in his library, things which you wouldn't even
dare to dream about
Click to expand...
That's a matter for the Feds. His private life is no concern of mine.

and I'm also sure that the only thing you can be
sure of of is that you're a know-nothing poser with delusions of
grandeur. Grandeur, in your case, thinking that you know how to clean
toilets without chipping the bowl.
Click to expand...
Hehe! Yeah, whatever.

--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
John Fields wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:46:16 +0100, Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:


On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:44 -0500, "Ray L. Volts"
raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote:



It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such con-fusion.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??

I'm sure Jim Thompson has a chip to handle it somewhere in his
extensive, home-designed inventory.


---
I'm sure that Jim has, in his library, things which you wouldn't even
dare to dream about, and I'm also sure that the only thing you can be
sure of of is that you're a know-nothing poser with delusions of
grandeur. Grandeur, in your case, thinking that you know how to clean
toilets without chipping the bowl.
Click to expand...
Right0- Burridge typifies the riffraff who come on USENET to shoot their
f--g mouth off with a bunch of specious verbiage in some puerile attempt
at appearing clever. You never see this crowd do anything productive-
the same vermin also whine about un-professional posting. These people
are sleazy unemployable rejects- the UK appears to be full of scum like
this- a consequence of the end of the colonial era where there is no
place left to eject the things- Australia is filled up.
 
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:26:37 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

Right0- Burridge typifies the riffraff who come on USENET to shoot their
f--g mouth off with a bunch of specious verbiage in some puerile attempt
at appearing clever. You never see this crowd do anything productive-
the same vermin also whine about un-professional posting. These people
are sleazy unemployable rejects- the UK appears to be full of scum like
this- a consequence of the end of the colonial era where there is no
place left to eject the things- Australia is filled up.
Click to expand...
Outrageous! I haven't been so insulted since Monday.
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.
 
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 16:21:44 -0500, "Ray L. Volts"
<raylvolts@SPAMRIDhotmail.com> wrote:

I remember seeing a spot on tv news several years ago about a small group of
researchers who claimed they had sent an audio signal (human voice from a
recording I believe) through a transmitter device which emitted the signal
several microseconds BEFORE they had sent it!

As I recall, they said microwaves were somehow employed to allegedly
accomplish this feat.

Even if FTL is possible, would not the fact that humans perceive time as
linear preclude their being able to notice this effect -- since they
themselves were not sent through the device along with the signal?

I think either their equipment was out of calibration, in which case the
joke's on them, poor bastards, or they flat out fudged the numbers. If this
were real and recreatable in the lab, one would think we'd be hearing about
its progress virtually every week. It seems to me, therefore, that this has
gone the way of the infamous cold fusion experiments which initially
generated such furor.

Anyone care to take a stab at how a communications phenomenon like this
could be measured??
Click to expand...
---
Putting the "received before it was transmitted' hokum aside,
determining whether superluminal communications exists is dead easy.

What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.

--
John Fields
 
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <rqikh0t8tq8g71ifes8eols4s26f8qijqk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.

I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.
Click to expand...

Am I missing something here? Why not set up a measurement station
somewhere, and send (by conventional means... microwave, light, fiber
optics, coax) a sample of the transmitted signal (from the transmit
site) and the received signal (from receive site) to the common
observer? It's trivial to subtract out the prop delays. The
measurement site could obviously be at the transmitter, eliminating
one of the comm links.

John
 
John Fields wrote:
Putting the "received before it was transmitted' hokum aside,
determining whether superluminal communications exists is dead easy.

What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.
Click to expand...
I have just found this scribbled in one of the notebooks of my departed
friend, Noah:

"I have a truly marvellous demonstration (based on causality) of the
impossibility of faster-than-light communication, which this margin is too
narrow to contain..."
--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

First law of debate:
Never argue with a fool. People might not know the difference.
 
In article <rqikh0t8tq8g71ifes8eols4s26f8qijqk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:04:55 -0700, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <rqikh0t8tq8g71ifes8eols4s26f8qijqk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.

I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.



Am I missing something here?
Click to expand...
---
Dunno...
---

Why not set up a measurement station
somewhere, and send (by conventional means... microwave, light, fiber
optics, coax) a sample of the transmitted signal (from the transmit
site) and the received signal (from receive site) to the common
observer? It's trivial to subtract out the prop delays. The
measurement site could obviously be at the transmitter, eliminating
one of the comm links.
Click to expand...
---
Using my [differential] method, the prop delays are unimportant, don't
have to be measured, and they all cancel except for the itty-bitty
differential delay which is truly trivial to subtract out. Once
that's done, if the delay in one of the channels decreases by
inserting the SLD into that channel, (that is, if the leading edge of
the pulse propagating down that channel is received before the leading
edge of the pulse propagating down the other channel, then FTL
communications will have (I believe) occurred.

--
John Fields
 
John Larkin wrote:
Is there in fact a causality violation which precludes FTL
communications?
Click to expand...
You'd have to ask Noah, but I suspect that what would violate causality is
actually any scenario in which the signal arrives before it was sent.

--
John Miller
Email address: domain, n4vu.com; username, jsm

"All God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact,
barely presentable."
-Fran Lebowitz
 
In article <llnkh05ugh7em7o0bp7sgik3qsqc9aqn81@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highSNIPlandTHIStechPLEASEnology.com> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

[...]
I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.



Am I missing something here? Why not set up a measurement station
somewhere, and send (by conventional means... microwave, light, fiber
optics, coax) a sample of the transmitted signal (from the transmit
site) and the received signal (from receive site) to the common
observer?
Click to expand...
Who/what is this "common observer" and how do you they/it didn't decide
what to tell you some time after the experiment is all over. If you can't
prove they/it didn't, you haven't really proven FTL.

If you form the path into a simple loop, so you can see both ends, you
can't rule out crosstalk.

This is why I say you need to send the signal to some device and return an
answer back. If you do that you can rule out the delayed decide and the
crosstalk.

--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge
 
John Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:
I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.

Am I missing something here? Why not set up a measurement station
somewhere, and send (by conventional means... microwave, light, fiber
optics, coax) a sample of the transmitted signal (from the transmit
site) and the received signal (from receive site) to the common
observer? It's trivial to subtract out the prop delays. The
measurement site could obviously be at the transmitter, eliminating
one of the comm links.
Click to expand...
Because the only way to find out if your transmission got received
is to compare something.

The only way is to have a transponder, say, on the moon, with
your transmitter and receiver in a lab or whatever. When you receive
the signal, you damn well better send the right signal "on time",
or all Hell will break loose.

Remember thiotimoline?

Cheers!
Rich
 
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 23:13:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:



Who/what is this "common observer" and how do you they/it didn't decide
what to tell you some time after the experiment is all over. If you can't
prove they/it didn't, you haven't really proven FTL.

If you form the path into a simple loop, so you can see both ends, you
can't rule out crosstalk.

This is why I say you need to send the signal to some device and return an
answer back. If you do that you can rule out the delayed decide and the
crosstalk.

--
Click to expand...
--
John Fields
 
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 17:18:17 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:

In article <rqikh0t8tq8g71ifes8eols4s26f8qijqk@4ax.com>,
John Fields <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote:
[...]
What you do is set up two identical communications channels and feed
their inputs with a single pulse, then measure the difference in
arrival times of the output pulses. The difference which exists will
be due to the fact that both channels aren't exactly identical, and
once that systematic delay difference is noted, the superluminal
signalling device (SSD) is introduced into one of the channels and the
measurement made again. Now, once the result of the measurement is
normalized by subtracting out the systematic delay, the delay
exhibited by the superluminal channel should be less than that
exhibited by the control channel. The measurement should be made many
times, of course, with the SSD moved back and forth between channels
to make sure whether or not the short delay follows the SSD.

I disagree. The experiment needs to have 2 way communications at a speed
faster than light. You have to send the signal from on location, have it
cause something at another and return a signal to the first. Without the
return trip the FLT could be an illusion.
Click to expand...
---
Not if the measurement is done correctly. Consider:



+-->COM PATH 1-->[EDGE DETECTOR]<----------------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[FIXED DELAY]--[EDGE DETECTOR]--+



Set up the system so the pulse generator is continuously putting out
pulses of a convenient width and PRF, and arrange the fixed delay time
so that with the scope trigger source set to A and the horizontal
speed set so that no more than one pulse is visible, the rising edge
of the received pulse will be seen at some convenient point to the
right of the start of the sweep. Now, if a working SSD is inserted
into COM path 1,:


+-->COM PATH 1-->[SSD]--[EDGE DETECTOR]<---------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[FIXED DELAY]--[EDGE DETECTOR]--+


the propagation time through COM path 1, by the pulse used to trigger
the scope, will be decreased and the rising edge of the pulse on the B
input will be seen to move to the right of the position it occupied on
the display when no SSD was fitted.

Of course, if long COM paths were desired, (say to the moon and back)
transponders could be installed on the moon at opposite points on the
face it always points at us and the experiment performed that way.

Matter of fact, I think that ESP is superluminal and that's part of an
experiment which could be performed to determine whether it exists
and, if it does, how fast it goes. Wanna hear about it?

--
John Fields
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Welcome to EDABoard.com

Sponsor

Back
Top