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:


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!




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 as evidence that there is something seriously wrong with a theory. I think this attitude exists for a few reasons. First mathematical models have been tremendously successful at describing patterns in nature. Second,  the structure of the mathematical models themselves can suggest the existence of novel particles such as the positron. Third, mathematical problems seem to be eventually rectified at a later date.

Also, even if the positron had not been found I doubt it would have led physicists to doubt the validity of the mathematics of quantum mechanics. For example the mathematics of special relativity allows for the existence of tachyons (faster than light particles) but as far I know tachyons have never been detected and their absence has never led physicists to doubt the validity of special relativity.


On 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>>

        >>it might be preferable to accept them as each true within their respective 

        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
        <mailto:r.j.ander...@btinternet.com>> wrote:


            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.


            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

            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.



Jürg Wyttenbach
Bifangstr. 22
8910 Affoltern am Albis

+41 44 760 14 18
+41 79 246 36 06

Reply via email to