At 12:37 PM 12/9/4, Keith Nagel wrote: >First, looking at the graph, we see the reference pulse/count profile >for light speed is spread over a huge range, something like >40 feet of free space. There is no need for any of the >experimenters clever messing with polarizing filters >or birefringent materials, if you are correct fully >half of the photons IN THE REFERENCE CONDITION are >traveling faster than C, not a tiny percentage of >them and at speeds 3*c and much more. Heck, if >my reference pulse was doing that, I'd drop >the actual experiment immediately and call the nobel >prize people. And as you say, it would be trivial >to construct the devices you suggest to achieve >superluminal velocity. Something is wrong here.
Yep. Bungled data? For sure, the conclusion, based on the data, that useful information can not be transmitted FTL is wrong. Maybe the experiment is bungled as well? This points out a feature of modern science that I think needs revolutionary change. That is the amount of backup material that should be supplied, and required, and made available for long duration, possibly in national digital archives, or at least in the publisher's archives, for a given scientific article involving experimental results. Given the existence of the web and massive cheap data storage capacity, it is no longer reasonable to depend on the solely integrity and reputation (and for that matter subsequent cooperation) of the researcher and/or peer reviewers (a) to assume the method(s) used to be valid enough to depend on the stated accuracy of the results obtained, and (b) to replicate the experiment. It is often impossible to determine exactly what the researcher did from a published article. Backup material should include photos, videos, logs, notes, plans, equipment specifications, and detailed descriptions, etc., all in digital form. To be accepted for peer review publication, sufficent backup information should be supplied to comfortably do the review and to resolve problems with replication without the cooperation of the author. > >What the experimenters are doing to change the group >velocity is to make the dissipation different for >the leading and trailing edges. The result is an >overall reduction in counts, but less on the >leading edge than the trailing edge. Again I've >done the exact same thing with nonlinear transmission >lines, with roughly the same results. You can >indeed get the calculated group velocity to >exceed C. > >Here's the rub. The gold standard I used to make >measurements in the radio circuits I worked with was the following. > >The distance d is measured as direct line of site from the >sender to the receiver. If, for example, we make a triangle >of bare wire and launch a pulse on it, the first detectable signal >will arrive as if it traveled directly along the base of the > triangle, not up and down the arms. You might say this is >a ground wave, but really it looks more like all paths are >being traversed, not just the wire path, but at a much >lower signal strength. Sounds sort of familiar, huh??? (grin). Yes indeed. This is one reason I suggest a two-way transmission standard using transformed data on the return. It raises the bar for the difficulty of FTL proof, due the dual channel requirement plus transformation circuitry, but these costs are comparatively small compared to the importance of the underlying principles at stake. This standard of proof eliminates the alternate path argument, provided d, the distance between Sender Alice and Reciever Bob used for the FTL calculation, is measured in a straight-line fashion. > > wire > ******************* > * * > * d * >Sender * ------------------> *Receiver I have personally observed this kind of problem of the unexpected secondary path (though not related to the QED multi-path photon amplitudes). It was during a replication of Shoulder's original EV work using a Hewlett Packard analog scope similar to the one he used in his original work. I was getting similar traces to his published traces. Then at one point I disconnected the probe lead to the EV detection (secondary) coil to which it was attached, and yet the EV signal persisted! It was being transmitted by air from the primary spark generator, not through a secondary coil used to "detect" the EV. You have to really watch out for secodary paths for any measurements related to sparks! > >The time is measured as the 50% point on the leading edge >of the shock wavefront. We used mercury relays and spark >gaps to generate the pulses, risetimes were in the >100's of picosecond range so from the point of view >of the total circuit the shock front was basically >a straight wall. So, why not use multiple channels and lower the trigger point as far as possible? I guess the major problem with the relay and spark technique would be the impossiblity of obtaining a fast data turn-around time due to the use of relays. It doesn't lend itself to practical application like fiber techniques might. Regards, Horace Heffner
