Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
Horace Heffner at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 5:48 PM 12/10/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Thank you for responding to my revised post. Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location. Atomic clocks eh? Hard to get delta t accurate to nanoseconds or even microseconds from the difference between absolute times on two clocks. You still have no reason to expect the average communication velocity will be faster than c. Even the subject article shows that. It is of no use to measure a few photons at faster than c when most are slower than c. It is the *average* communications turn around time that is important. That's why I included it in my definition. Regards, Horace Heffner My expectation is that group and phase forms can affect a distant receiver before the shock form arrives. It would amount to communication of energy without momentum. In other words, communication without 'bullets'. Harry
Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
On Friday 10 December 2004 19:03, Horace Heffner wrote: At 5:48 PM 12/10/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Thank you for responding to my revised post. Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location. Atomic clocks eh? Hard to get delta t accurate to nanoseconds or even microseconds from the difference between absolute times on two clocks. You still have no reason to expect the average communication velocity will be faster than c. Even the subject article shows that. It is of no use to measure a few photons at faster than c when most are slower than c. It is the *average* communications turn around time that is important. That's why I included it in my definition. Regards, Horace Heffner Hello Listers I would like to say that IMHO any photons actually measured at greater that 'c' would be enough to shake the foundations of the Einstein religion to its very foundations. And I do mean .ANY photons! Of course there is the question of using 'c' limited calibration tools. Standing Bear Off Topic There is a website around that mentions macroscopic tunneling similar to quantum tunneling in electronics. Web author claims it is possible that hardware can use this principle to send objects of any size literally out of known space to tunnel and appear somewhere else. I think where would be a very good question if that object is a ship. A passenger on that ship might like to know when and if he/she were coming home.
Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
Harry Veeder wrote: Synchronisation is done beforehand. e.g. Synchronise two clocks at the sender's location. Then move one of the clocks to the receiver's location. Problems arise here, due to relativistic effects. If you move one of the clocks, its time will be different than that of the unmoved clock, due to its having moved at some velocity to get to its new location. It won't be off by much, but it will be enough to cause problems for ultraprecise measurements. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page Try My Yahoo! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
--- Standing Bear [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Listers I would like to say that IMHO any photons actually measured at greater that 'c' would be enough to shake the foundations of the Einstein religion to its very foundations. And I do mean .ANY photons! My thoughts on this would be that if some photon moves from point A to point B at a speed greater than C, then it doesn't really matter if the bulk of photons take longer to get there...if it moves FTL, then the problem is simply getting whatever is measuring to trigger off of the photons which arrive first, and reply using the same system, with a receiver at the opposite end measuring for the first, FTL photons as well. Then two way FTL communications should be possible, Feynman's path quantum mechanics notwithstanding. Personally, I find the whole business of a photon taking every available path to the target as being a little ridiculous. If I aim a laser pointer at the wall, it is obvious which way the photons are going. They are not going to go to the far reaches of the universe, then travel back in time by just the right amount to get to the spot on the wall and make it 'average out' to c. If you can't measure these, but must just assume that they are their because some probability mathematics says so, then I question why everyone is so against something which, although it cannot be measured directly by currently known means, is a lot more sensible than most of QM, the idea of an absolute frame of reference. Read about advanced/retarded waves for some more 'good stuff'. As I understand it, the problem arose from some infinities showing up in the math of photons being emitted from a source, had to do with the recoil effect on the emitter. So, to solve this, it was proposed that two waves are involved, not just one, a retarded wave which moves from emitter to absorber, and an 'advanced' wave which moves from absorber to emitter, but in time-reversed manner. When I first heard this, my first thought was, well, lets just say it would give this email close to an R rating. Now it is interesting that the whole issue of causality is under severe threat by these theories, and everyone feels its ok. But whenever someone brings up FTL communication, which according to relativity should threaten causality, everyone balks. Why? As near as I can tell, it is because true FTL communication would allow us to determine if causality-violating things actually do take place, which further could imply that the unobservable elements of QM become observable, and thus face potential refutation. If you get real, useful FTL, you risk losing a good chunk of both relativistic theory and QM. --Kyle __ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Re: Corrections! was Re: Superluminal...
At 4:02 PM 12/10/4, Harry Veeder wrote: Sorry I made a few typos and misused some terms. Harry Here is a proposal for a natural measure of FTL messaging. I say it is natural because it does not require a response message. The relevant variables are: 1) T - communication time. The time it takes to send and receive a message. 2) d - the distance between the receiver and the sender. Each of these constitute a message: a.Group velocity b.Phase velocity c.Shock velocity (Nagel's message) The messaging speed for each is then d/Tg, d/Tp, d/Ts. One would need to build a distant receiver which is capable of interpreting all three messages. Harry You seem to have missed much of the prior discussion. None of the above velocities should average above c. The timing problem for the above leads to an alternate data path problem or a clock synchronzation problem, and neither is mentioned or solved. Regards, Horace Heffner
