`I recently had and still have some discussion on researchgate about`

`superluminal signal transmission by scalar waves. It is well known and`

`even classically allowed that the group/phase speed can be greater than`

`the speed of light.`

`This has been experimentally proven to be higher than at least 64 * c!`

`: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08735-8`

`<https://www.researchgate.net/deref/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fs41467-019-08735-8>`

`It looks like we must rewrite Maxwell equation for dense matter as`

`matter is able to provide an extra force:`

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341931087_Revision_of_Maxwell's_Equations

`The method used in the proposal is "basically the same" I used in SO(4)`

`physics to derive all known nuclear properties including strong force,`

`gravity etc..`

`It looks like energy transport to any point in an SO(4) entangled system`

`is instantaneous at least for the added phase part that couples 2D`

`orthogonal to the classic wave. This of course basically violates GR but`

`an entangled system looks like a black hole and thus it is external to`

`the horizon of GR!`

Discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Did_I_actually_measure_a_superluminous_signal_thus_disproving_the_relativity_theory J.W.

`PS: On RG you also find many different experimental refutations of GR`

`but this is anyway mots since we know that gravity is an (SO(4) based)`

`EM force...`

On 12.06.2020 18:25, H LV wrote:

Typically mathematical issues that arise never seem to be regarded asevidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. Ithink this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematicalmodels have been tremendously successful at describing patterns innature. Second, the structure of the mathematical models themselvescan suggest the existence of novel particles such as the positron.Third, mathematical problems seem to be eventually rectified at alater date.Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would haveled physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantummechanics. For example the mathematics of special relativity allowsfor the existence of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as farI know tachyons have never been detected and their absence has neverled physicists to doubt the validity of special relativity.HarryOn Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 9:19 PM Che <comandantegri...@gmail.com<mailto:comandantegri...@gmail.com>> wrote:On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 3:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote: >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains<< When "they" talk of those "domains" - there is a lot of handwaving; general relativity is often said to breakdown at the singularity, and quantum mechanics supposedly fails to be able to deal with gravity; but no maths for that is presented as to precisely when equations from such theories fail. Isn't that 'divide-by-zero' issues..? On Monday, 8 June 2020, 20:03:09 BST, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 4:30 PM ROGER ANDERTON <r.j.ander...@btinternet.com <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote: >>Thoughts?<< there are problems combining relativity (especially general relativity) with quantum physics, so when people try to talk from things combining them then they are not on solid ground. I only mentioned SR because it is often wrongly invoked to dismiss any experiment needing simultaneity. On the issue reconciling the two domains of quantum mechanics and SR/GR, instead of trying to change one or the other or both, it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective domains and build a bridge between the domains by integrating them technologically instead trying to merge them into a single mathematical theory. Harry From my point-of-view relativity has been mistranslated and misunderstood so false claims are made about it. My latest video-I think it was mainly written by his wife. On Wednesday, 3 June 2020, 17:25:51 BST, H LV <hveeder...@gmail.com <mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote: Quantum Non-locality explained by Sabine Hossenfelder https://youtu.be/XL9wWeEmQvo I disagree with the conclusion that non-locality cannot be used to send an FLT message. What is overlooked is that an indeterminate state, i.e. unmeasured state is also a type of information. If the transmitter and the receiver have synchronised clocks (which is possible in SR) then the transmitter can send a message by a sequence of binary choices: either measure or not measure the particle's spin in the diagonal direction at a given time. What the receiver detects will be meaningfully informed by the sequence of the transmitter's choices. Thoughts? Harry

-- Jürg Wyttenbach Bifangstr. 22 8910 Affoltern am Albis +41 44 760 14 18 +41 79 246 36 06