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
