RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
At 11:52 pm 06-12-04 -0900, you wrote: At 11:01 PM 12/6/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Hi Terry. You will see from their scope graph http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 that the light speed pulse is larger than both; measuring from the peak like that can be deceptive as they show. I also agree with the authors that a signal velocity or what I might call a shock wave velocity need be measured. It seems to me that if the group velocity can be sensed at 3*c then that constitutes data transmitted FTL. Live data can thus be sent FTL using parallel data cables (or fibers) for a single bit (a bundle), and parallel bundles of cables for a binary word, provided it is known *with good confidence* an interval for the arrival of some indication of the value of each of the parallel data bits in a word. Multiple cables can be used to transmit each bit, including multiple cables to transmit (initiate) the timing (strobe) pulse which starts the sensing interval for a binary word. In this manner multi-bit words can be sent FTL asynchronously. The first indication of a signal on any cable for a given bit then sets that bit. This would not be 100 percent reliable, but neither is any other form of transmission. An indication of both a 1 and a 0 value for a given bit would trigger error processing. If 32 cables were used to transmit a pulse indicating a 1 bit in a given position of a binary word, and 32 cables used to indicate a 0 bit in that word position, then it is known with great reliability much faster than the speed of light if a given bit is 0, 1, or in error. Transmitting an 8 bit byte (with parity) in parallel would take 9*64 + 32 = 608 cables. It may be worthwhile to dedicate 64 cables to the timing pulse bundle, which is always a 1 bit, for reliability in identifying an earliest possible start for the strobe window. The 640 cables is extravagant, but so what. It's just a proof of principle. So what indeed. A very clear explanation Horace. Even I managed to follow that. 8^) Cheers Grimer
Off Current Subject: Big Bang Simulator
<>December 7, 2004 Hi all, The WMAP study conducted by NASA concluded with startling revelations which should give ZPE supporters support. 23 percent of the universe is unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy. That leaves only 4 percent we know about. NASA also announced that the universe was expanding at an expanding rate. That would seem to make the universe flat and expanding forever. <>To test this, I developed a simulator of the Big Bang. I created a computer model that simply produces an energy field and drops matter into it. The object was to see what happens. Here is what I got: 1. Matter self organizes in an energy field. Gravity, centripetal, and acceleration forces all appear naturally but you need to look closely. 2. As matter approaches the edge of the field, it expands faster away from the center. 3. Local groups tend to hold together longer, but eventually as the field diminishes, the matter loses integrity. I would believe that matter would turn into quarks or something similar later in the expansion phase as energy is cooled or fades. (not shown in the simulator). In my mind, these results are physics-shaking. For any of you that might be interested in this line of research, the simulator is available on my web site. It is clean, cause I wrote it-placed it there. The URL is http://www.eskimo.com/~rebrady/BigBang1.exe Robert E. Brady
Greenview Group: Cold Fusion
Experts provide practical perspective to a new and challenging scientific field. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/12/prweb186609.htm
Re: Greenview Group: Cold Fusion
Well Lew, here is an enterprising group that might be worth contacting to see what they know. Ed Emeka Okafor wrote: Experts provide practical perspective to a new and challenging scientific field. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/12/prweb186609.htm
Re: Off Current Subject: Big Bang Simulator
On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 06:38:52 -0800, you wrote: *December 7, 2004** * *Hi all,* *The WMAP study conducted by NASA concluded with startling revelations which should give ZPE supporters support. 23 percent of the universe is unknown dark matter and another 73 percent is mysterious dark energy. That leaves only 4 percent we know about.* *NASA also announced that the universe was expanding at an expanding rate. That would seem to make the universe flat and expanding forever.* *To test this, I developed a simulator of the Big Bang. I created a computer model that simply produces an energy field and drops matter into it. The object was to see what happens. Here is what I got: * *1. **Matter self organizes in an energy field. Gravity, centripetal, and acceleration forces all appear naturally but you need to look closely.* *2. **As matter approaches the edge of the field, it expands faster away* *from the center.* *3. **Local groups tend to hold together longer, but eventually as the * * field diminishes, the matter loses integrity. I would believe that* * matter would turn into quarks or something similar later in* * the expansion phase as energy is cooled or fades. (not shown in * * the simulator).* *In my mind, these results are physics-shaking.* --- NASA'a announcement and your results seem to add credence to my hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a big bubble which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid. All of the matter in our universe would have outgassed from the other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion. Assuming the bubble is nonspherical and that what lies behind it is massive, the matter on our side of the wall being attracted to it will be attracted to it more strongly the closer it gets, so it will accelerate and its doppler signature will be increasingly red shifted from any viewpoint in the bubble. That would seem to explain the increase of red shift with distance and the apparent expansion of the bubble. Next, assume that the bubble is not expanding at a rate faster than that which would allow the matter on this side of the wall to collide with the wall, and that's where the missing matter went; it's been absorbed! Or, perhaps, the matter accelerated to the point where it went superluminal and got added to the ZPE pool. In either case, it would seem to be missing. -- John Fields
Re: Triple coherency experiment
Jones Beene Posted; The following is an evolution of ideas towards the design of a state-of-the-art LENR experiment. The purpose here is to explain an enhancement called ìtriple coherency, You raise a number of issues that I don't understand Jones. It is hoped and suspected that this ìtriple coherencyî (overlapping coherency between photon, phonon, and conduction electrons) I assume that conduction electrons are the outer most of the electron. I'm wondering what photon and phonon electrons are. will give the same kind of paradigm shift that arises in light itself, once it becomes phase locked, as in a laser. paradigm shift? I though that was something that happened in mind when I understood a new way of explaining a phenomena. coherency would work, one should understand the interplay of kinetic vibration with mass: and the I've enjoyed the various posts on the nature of the electrons cloud particularly the pancaking effect and the Frenkel defects. I downloaded a paper on the subject. It showed circles which I assume were the nucleus and curved triangles extending outward from them. The triangles intersected, and there was a note that the electron positions weren't centered over either nucleus, I assume that this is were the Frenkel defects occur in a crystal. I assume that as you increase the speed of an atom the electron cloud flattens out, is this correct? The other thing that interests me is tunneling. I assume that this is the quantum tunneling that the webmaster of Singularity Technologies was talking about. The question I have is how is this initiated? I assume that it is more difficult than two particles having the same De Borglie wave length.
RE: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Hi Horace. You write: It seems to me that if the group velocity can be sensed at 3*c then that constitutes data transmitted FTL. Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. Hmmm, that doesn't seem very attractive now. does it? Frankly, IMHO, the math is not adequate to describe the physical system. I agree with the authors that a new velocity definition is needed. I have no problem with FTL transmission, I just want to actually DO IT and judge the physical implementations accordingly... By the way, things do get more interesting when the transmission media is nonlinear and active. What is described on the site is pretty much the argument about tunnelling in QM, it's easy to build macroscopic models with radio techniques that behave the same way as the quantum systems do. One can see the same results as this experiment. However, you can probe the radio system much more intimately than the QM system. Very enlightening. Here's some more refs. http://www.aei-potsdam.mpg.de/~mpoessel/Physik/FTL/tunnelingftl.html This guy in particular has some interesting work. http://www.ph2.uni-koeln.de/Nimtz/pub/paper-list.html K.
Re: Off Current Subject: Big Bang Simulator
John Fields writes, [snip] my hypothesis that there was no big bang but, instead, a big bubble which sprang into being much like a bubble in a cavitating fluid. All of the matter in our universe would have outgassed from the other side of the wall of the bubble as it expanded, and has been being attracted back ever since the beginning of the expansion. Much as I like the basic idea, it is clear from observation that there are numerous loci or centers of attraction, spread uniformly throughout the universe, but no common center-of-attraction (or repulsion) for all of them. It also glosses over the most important basic starting point - the distinction between an open and closed universe. The real beauty of your idea (is it original?) on the other hand, is that the bubble wall may itself be a dimensional wall, instead of a physical wall. To expound on this a little. Almost all the mass in our visible sky (that being the mass which is blue-shifted wrt to our solar system) is moving towards our great attractor, located in the night sky at about Sagittarius, 14 degrees and two minutes. This local or blue-shifted mass (wrt to our solar system) consists of our local group and a few thousand other galaxies - all in the Virgo supercluster. This is one factor that must be explained by any larger scale model. No galaxy which is red-shifted to our local group, which is supposedly over 99% of the rest of the universe, is moving towards our great attractor. All those other galaxies have their own superclusters (about 10,000 supposedly) and therefore they all have their own individual great attractors. It is really a two-tier system, gravitationally. The only way to salvage your main point is to say that all of those individual great attractors are themselves moving outward towards the bubble wall, BUT not for the normal reason. The normal reason is also what is to be expected in the open universe of the standard model, and it is indeed what the bulk of observation now tends to show - which is that the 10,000 or so superclusters are all moving away from each other. The open universe model cannot be disproven yet, however, despite the apparent continuity logic of a closed universe model (which many of us prefer if only because of our meager brains needing the same kind of psychological closure, so that we are dealing to some extent with transference). Without some evidence of a closed universe, then, what is there to distinguish a bubble from a big-bang? IOW they become just two similar ways of expressing the same thing ... without the factor of gravitational closure, that is ... The factor which would bolster your theory would be to find both 1) evidence that the universe is indeed closed (gravitationally) and not open AND also 2) evidence that despite (1. above) that the individual great attractors are nevertheless all still moving away from a common center, as if the universe was open Note that 1.) is incompatible with the current standard cosmological model (which to be honest is based mostly on 2). But both 1) and 2) are necessary for your hypothesis to be valid. Do you see the subtle distinction, or am I not clear on the details of your hypothesis ? Jones
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 2:08 PM 12/7/4, Keith Nagel wrote: Let's look at that graph again. http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/8/11/10/1/041110 Notice how the light speed delayed pulse is larger than the slow or fast wave? Let's imagine two machines as you describe, the only difference being that one is implemented using the fast wave and the other with the light speed delayed signal ( the large one ). If I set the detector to trigger at the peak ( roughly the center of mass of the energy of the pulse ) the fast wave will be faster than the delayed wave. If I set the trigger at the 50% point on the risetime, now my light speed delayed system is going to be faster than my fast wave system. It appears you are misinterpreting the subject graphic (or I am.) I take it as in incident count graph. It is a tabulation of photons by arrival times. Some photons arrive early, some late. It is not a pulse trace, but could be if all the photon's detection pulses were summed (pulse time averaged) together. I think it is fairly well known in QM that all photons do not travel at c, but rather have a distribution of travel times. My point is that it pays to go way out on the tip of the trace as far as possible. In this case that would be at the single photon detection level. Now, the problem is that on average, the first photon may arrive early or late. On average we don't do better than c with a single fiber. My suggestion is to simultaneously transmit a given bit on lots of fibers at once. Then, *with any desired degree of but not perfect reliability*, based on the number of fibers used in a bundle, an early photon will be sensed within a time window that provides communication at greater than c velocity. We can do reliable communications way out on the front of the distribution. By sending multiple bits at a time in parallel, along with a timing pulse, we can use error detection and correction techniques to greatly increase reliability. By sending photons on two bundles, one bundle having photons sent if the data bit is 1, the other having photons sent if the data is 0, we can reliably do error correction at the bit level way out on the tip of the pulse, before any photons even arrive at velocity c. A more simple test of concept might be to use two bundles from Alice to Bob, with Bob having a repeater to send the data back to Alice on two return bundles. Alice could then measure the error rate as well as turn-around time. Regards, Horace Heffner The null result of Michelson-Morely experiment may also be some sort of statistical illusion. It seems to me the best way to look for an aether is to directly measure travel times, rather than infer travel times from an interference pattern. Since we now have the technological means to do so, somebody should do so. Harry
'The Little Commentary' by Copernicus
The following comes from http://www-gap.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Copernicus.html Harry Veeder - Around 1514 he distributed a little book, not printed but hand written, to a few of his friends who knew that he was the author even though no author is named on the title page. This book, usually called the Little Commentary, set out Copernicus's theory of a universe with the sun at [near!? HV] its centre. The Little Commentary is a fascinating document. It contains seven axioms which Copernicus gives, not in the sense that they are self evident, but in the sense that he will base his conclusions on these axioms and nothing else; see [79]. What are the axioms? Let us state them: 1.There is no one centre in the universe. 2.The Earth's centre is not the centre of the universe. 3.The centre of the universe is near the sun. 4.The distance from the Earth to the sun is imperceptible compared with the distance to the stars. 5.The rotation of the Earth accounts for the apparent daily rotation of the stars. 6.The apparent annual cycle of movements of the sun is caused by the Earth revolving round it. 7.The apparent retrograde motion of the planets is caused by the motion of the Earth from which one observes. Some have noted that 2, 4, 5, and 7 can be deduced from 3 and 6 but it was never Copernicus's aim to give a minimal set of axioms. The most remarkable of the axioms is 7, for although earlier scholars had claimed that the Earth moved, some claiming that it revolved round the sun, nobody before Copernicus appears to have correctly explained the retrograde motion of the outer planets. Even when he wrote his Little Commentary Copernicus was planning to write a major work, for he wrote in it (see [77]):- Here, for the sake of brevity, I have thought it desirable to omit the mathematical demonstrations intended for my larger work. It is likely that he wrote the Little Commentary in 1514 and began writing his major work De revolutionibus in the following year. -
Re: Superluminal cavity resonances was RE: Fast-food for thought
Physicists in Switzerland have confirmed that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light. Hmmmthe writers of the quoted article have made an error in the above statement. It would be more correct to say that it is confirmed that within the experimental proceedures used, information WAS not transmitted faster than the speed of light, not the catch-all phrase that this one experiment proves that information cannot be sent FTL, period. Nicolas Gisin and colleagues at the University of Geneva have shown that the group velocity of a laser pulse in an optical fibre can travel faster than the speed of light but that the signal velocity - the speed at which information travels - cannot This group/phase/information/signal/front/blah velocity stuff is getting old. Most of the experiments I have seen fall into either: A. The signal was distorted severely by its passage through the medium in which FTL is supposed to take place, thus making it appear FTL. Usually the signal is neither brief (compared to the dimensions of the transmission path) nor sharp (usually a spread or gaussian distribution) B. It is just phase/group/whatever velocity which moves super-c. Well, if it *is* moving super-c, and not just some distortion, it is important to think about this, regardless of whether or not we can use it at the present time to transmit something. C. They don't know what is going on for sure. The last category is of course the most interesting. Just my thoughts on this. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
