J
John Fields
Guest
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 00:42:14 +0000 (UTC), kensmith@green.rahul.net
(Ken Smith) wrote:
Perhaps. If you could state precisely what it is, we might be able to
get past this impasse.
---
Your experiment is really quite different from mine in that I require
nothing to keep time until a pulse is received, and then only to keep
time until until it receives another pulse which stops it, when the
accumulated time from the reception of the first pulse to the
reception of the second will be displayed.
Looking at a diagram I posted earlier:
+-->COM PATH 1-->[EDGE DETECTOR]<----------------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[EDGE DETECTOR]-----------------+
Just for grins, let's assume that both channels are identical, so that
the delays through each of them will also be identical, and that the
com paths themselves are through a vacuum. Such being the case,
signal A and signal B will both arrive at the scope at exactly the
same time. Assuming that we have A triggering the horizontal sweep
and that it takes no time for the sweep to work, we should see the
sweep start with both A and B high (I'm assuming A and B are
high-going pulses) and both go low at exactly the same time, when the
pulses go low, like this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB |______________________________________
This tells us nothing, however, since both pulses could be travelling
any speed, or even faster than C and we'd never know it.
So let's do this to get a time reference we can use to make some
differential measurements:
+-------------->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+
Now, when A and B start heading for the scope, A will get there first,
will trigger the scope (which will start the sweep) and some time
later the pulse propagating dowm com path 2 will show up on channel B,
like this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ___________| |__________________________
t1 |<---1ľs--->|
t1 is, of course, the 1ľs delay introduced into channel B and as long
as both channels are otherwise identical it will take the leading edge
of pulse B 1ľs longer to get to the scope than it did for pulse A to
get there, So pulse B will be displayed 1ľs after the sweep was
started by pulse A. The lengths of the com paths will make no
difference as long as the velocity of propagation of the pulse in each
is the same in both, and because we have contrived to make the com
paths exist in a vacuum, the pulses will travel at C.
Now, let's say that we have found what we believe is a way to make EM
travel faster than C in a vacuum and that we want to try to determine
whether we're right.
Let's also say that we hooked up our experiment with no delay, (as
shown in the first diagram) that we got the results we expected, and
that when we then hooked it up with a delay, (as shown in the second
diagram) the results were precisely as shown on the timing diagram.
Then we hook up our FTL machine like this:
+->[FTL MACHINE]->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]--->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
and when we look at the scope we see this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ______________________| |_______________
t1 |<---------2ľs-------->|
A curious result indeed, since it seems to indicate that either the
length of com path 2 was increased or the length of com path 1
decreased. Since we did neither, and the only change we made in our
rig was to introduce the FTL machine into com path 1, it seems that
the _effectice_ length of com path 1 was made shorter. In order for
that to happen (since the path wasn't made physically shorter) the
propagation velocity of the pulse must have been increased, and since
the pulse was already moving along at C, the FTL machine must have,
somehow, pushed it past C.
Of course this is all conjecture based on the premise that a pulse
scurrying along at faster than C could have an effect on things
operating on this side of C, (that is, causing a scope to be
triggered) so so far it's all science fiction. As far as we know,
though, we may well be surrounded by superluminal events which we have
no way of recognizing, and so we say, "It can't be..."
Interestingly, there have been reports of objects materializing out of
thin air, with those materializations accompanied by a flash of blue
light. Cerenkov radiation accompanying the decelerating object?
Maybe...
---
Yes. And about time, I'd say!^)
---
I'm in no bind at all.
If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong. I don't have a problem with that, And if it turns
out that FTL is totally unrealizable then I don't have a problem with
that either. What I _do_ have a problem with is inflexible
authoritarians who pontificate that only their viewpoint is valid.
---
No, "C" is about three hundred million meters per second, and is how
fast light moves in a vacuum, which is not necessarily the fastest
that anything can go, anywhere. It's just the fastest speed we've
been able to detect in our universe. It may even be that things are
going faster but we can't tell because if they are we can't detect
them.
---
--
John Fields
(Ken Smith) wrote:
---
Perhaps. If you could state precisely what it is, we might be able to
get past this impasse.
---
---
Your experiment is really quite different from mine in that I require
nothing to keep time until a pulse is received, and then only to keep
time until until it receives another pulse which stops it, when the
accumulated time from the reception of the first pulse to the
reception of the second will be displayed.
Looking at a diagram I posted earlier:
+-->COM PATH 1-->[EDGE DETECTOR]<----------------+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+-->COM PATH 2-->[EDGE DETECTOR]-----------------+
Just for grins, let's assume that both channels are identical, so that
the delays through each of them will also be identical, and that the
com paths themselves are through a vacuum. Such being the case,
signal A and signal B will both arrive at the scope at exactly the
same time. Assuming that we have A triggering the horizontal sweep
and that it takes no time for the sweep to work, we should see the
sweep start with both A and B high (I'm assuming A and B are
high-going pulses) and both go low at exactly the same time, when the
pulses go low, like this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB |______________________________________
This tells us nothing, however, since both pulses could be travelling
any speed, or even faster than C and we'd never know it.
So let's do this to get a time reference we can use to make some
differential measurements:
+-------------->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]----+
Now, when A and B start heading for the scope, A will get there first,
will trigger the scope (which will start the sweep) and some time
later the pulse propagating dowm com path 2 will show up on channel B,
like this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ___________| |__________________________
t1 |<---1ľs--->|
t1 is, of course, the 1ľs delay introduced into channel B and as long
as both channels are otherwise identical it will take the leading edge
of pulse B 1ľs longer to get to the scope than it did for pulse A to
get there, So pulse B will be displayed 1ľs after the sweep was
started by pulse A. The lengths of the com paths will make no
difference as long as the velocity of propagation of the pulse in each
is the same in both, and because we have contrived to make the com
paths exist in a vacuum, the pulses will travel at C.
Now, let's say that we have found what we believe is a way to make EM
travel faster than C in a vacuum and that we want to try to determine
whether we're right.
Let's also say that we hooked up our experiment with no delay, (as
shown in the first diagram) that we got the results we expected, and
that when we then hooked it up with a delay, (as shown in the second
diagram) the results were precisely as shown on the timing diagram.
Then we hook up our FTL machine like this:
+->[FTL MACHINE]->[COM PATH 1]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
| |
| +--|--+
| | A |
[PULSE GEN]--[SPLITTER] |SCOPE|
| | B |
| +--|--+
| |
+->[1ľs DELAY]--->[COM PATH 2]->[EDGE DETECTOR]--+
and when we look at the scope we see this:
_
CHA |______________________________________
_
CHB ______________________| |_______________
t1 |<---------2ľs-------->|
A curious result indeed, since it seems to indicate that either the
length of com path 2 was increased or the length of com path 1
decreased. Since we did neither, and the only change we made in our
rig was to introduce the FTL machine into com path 1, it seems that
the _effectice_ length of com path 1 was made shorter. In order for
that to happen (since the path wasn't made physically shorter) the
propagation velocity of the pulse must have been increased, and since
the pulse was already moving along at C, the FTL machine must have,
somehow, pushed it past C.
Of course this is all conjecture based on the premise that a pulse
scurrying along at faster than C could have an effect on things
operating on this side of C, (that is, causing a scope to be
triggered) so so far it's all science fiction. As far as we know,
though, we may well be surrounded by superluminal events which we have
no way of recognizing, and so we say, "It can't be..."
Interestingly, there have been reports of objects materializing out of
thin air, with those materializations accompanied by a flash of blue
light. Cerenkov radiation accompanying the decelerating object?
Maybe...
---
---
Yes. And about time, I'd say!^)
---
---
I'm in no bind at all.
If FTL is impossible under the aegis of either theory and it later
turn out that FTL _is_ possible, then both of the theories will have
been proved wrong. I don't have a problem with that, And if it turns
out that FTL is totally unrealizable then I don't have a problem with
that either. What I _do_ have a problem with is inflexible
authoritarians who pontificate that only their viewpoint is valid.
---
---
No, "C" is about three hundred million meters per second, and is how
fast light moves in a vacuum, which is not necessarily the fastest
that anything can go, anywhere. It's just the fastest speed we've
been able to detect in our universe. It may even be that things are
going faster but we can't tell because if they are we can't detect
them.
---
--
John Fields
