Contact! A 25 year UN disclosure plan is now in year 5

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: ForteanOrgFantasy until proven.

Yes, of course. Check out Kuhn.

The mere postulation of a thought is not proof, but necessary to facilitate proof later.

a reply to: nerbot

If Nimtz has worked for Porsche, and has been the head of a EU radiotelescope program/organisation, that might well be the case. I found another name, but am still investigating if it is the proper person.

originally posted by: ForteanOrg
a reply to: nerbot

If Nimtz has worked for Porsche, and has been the head of a EU radiotelescope program/organisation, that might well be the case. I found another name, but am still investigating if it is the proper person.

If you check the "wikipedia" link in the name I gave earlier, you'll see a magnetic chamber experiment he helped Porsche with.

Let us know if you come up with another person confirming that he is linked to Prof Simon's story, but I find the connections hard to ignore for Nimtz.

a reply to: nerbot

Porsche is quite big in Germany, so it makes sense many people have worked for it, especially when living and working in Europe. But I fail to see the connection that "professor" Holland said his source had with radio telescopy (as a head for a big EU network).

My problem is that I have a name, but can't find much references to that name online. So, I need to pull some other strings I have. Which may take a while.

Oh, so now we have to wait 20 years. Here we go again some ex-CIA spook, injecting poison into UFOLogy.

originally posted by: introufo2
Oh, so now we have to wait 20 years. Here we go again some ex-CIA spook, injecting poison into UFOLogy.

What I’ll look like 20 years from now…….sheeesh

👽

a reply to: introufo2

In my case, that would be "INTCEN spook"

nice post, Arb
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I found this regarding quantum tunneling speed:

Full experimental determination of tunneling time with attosecond-scale streaking method

We demonstrate that the tunneling time of an electron from an atom is close to zero within our experimental accuracy. Our study represents a straightforward approach toward attosecond time-resolved imaging of electron motion in atoms and molecules.

a reply to: IndieA
New Results in Quantum Tunneling vs. The Speed of Light

12:11
Is faster-than-light motion or influence possible?
Perhaps yes, but it seems only in cases where faster-than-light signaling is impossible.

There is definitely faster than light correlation in quantum entanglement, but so far all avenues to using that for faster than light communication seem unavailable. If we could use that for FTL communication, it would ake a lot more sense than trying to use quantum tunneling.

I think the jury is still out on these quantum tunneling experiments but it seems to be the same story, that even if an effect of the uncertainty principle seems to show "FTL" experimental results, as with quantum entanglement, nobody has ever demonstrated FTL communication, and it seems even less likely with quantum tunneling, especially for interstellar distances.

Think about it, do you know anything about quantum tunneling? Where do you put the barrier and how big is it for Prof Simon's claim ? If it's say a meter long, maybe a particle tunnels through the barrier faster than light where one meter of the journey didn't have to be limited by light speed. That's a dubious proposition, but let's see where that goes. Once on the other side of the barrier, why wouldn't the travel then again be limited by light speed? So you've got a particle traveling at faster than light for one meter, then traveling at light speed for the other 104 trillion kilometers on the way to the star system 11 light years away. Does that one meter faster than light really help in that case? Not that I can see, it's insignificant.

So how to use quantum tunneling to communicate 11 light years away? Build an 11 light year long barrier? That's probably impossible, but you're probably not going to get many particles to even penetrate the 1 meter long barrier, and the longer the barrier gets, the fewer particles will be able to get through it. So you might have to wait the age of the universe to get a single particle through such an (impossible to make) barrier, even if you could make such a barrier and even if FTL quantum tunneling is ever confirmed, and even then there's still the hurdle of whether it could be used to communicate.

So, the quantum tunneling FTL communication claim doesn't even make sense unless someone can explain how long the barrier is, and if it's not 11 light years long, why do you expect any speed boost outside the barrier? It's really one of the dumbest things I've heard in a long time from a guy who doesn't seem to know much about quantum tunneling. One hypothesis is that some people start these ridiculous rumors or claims as a social experiment, and spread them as a test of the population's gullibility and scientific illiteracy to see how well they spread. In that scenario, folks like David Grusch and Prof Simon pass the gullibility test if they believe extraordinary claims without any extraordinary evidence. The claims are obviously originating elsewhere, not with them.

a reply to: anthelion
Thanks.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I haven't watched the video yet, and quantum tunneling is a new concept for me and one that I have limited knowledge of, however I would like to attempt to respond to parts of your post.

I think the jury is still out on these quantum tunneling experiments but it seems to be the same story, that even if an effect of the uncertainty principle seems to show "FTL" experimental results, as with quantum entanglement, nobody has ever demonstrated FTL communication

The quantum tunneling experiment that sent Mozart FTL, is an example of FTL communication, because music is a signal and any signal that can be interpreted is a communication.

So you've got a particle traveling at faster than light for one meter, then traveling at light speed for the other 104 trillion kilometers on the way to the star system 11 light years away. Does that one meter faster than light really help in that case? Not that I can see, it's insignificant.

So how to use quantum tunneling to communicate 11 light years away? Build an 11 light year long barrier?

Using a barrier to demonstrate quantum tunneling is only 1 of 3 ways to quantum tunnel that I have come across. Another way that was demonstrated in the videos posted, uses prisms, and I'm fairly certain in that case, the quantum tunneled signal is just traveling through space.

So hypothetically speaking, a long-range quantum tunneling radio could be made up of a little more than a couple of prisms, a microwave laser transmitter, and receiving signal detectors.

a reply to: IndieA
Are you talking about this paper?
arxiv.org...

The most prominent
example of the occurrence of evanescent modes is frustrated total internal reflection (FTIR) at double prisms. In 1949 Sommerfeld 1 pointed out that this optical phenomenon represents the analogy of quantum mechanical tunneling.

The raisins in a loaf of baking raisin bread moving away from each other is an analogy to how galaxies move apart from each other in the expansion of the universe. But to say that the analogy is the thing it's being compared to is completely inaccurate. The expansion of the universe has nothing to do with raisins or raisin bread.

Using a barrier to demonstrate quantum tunneling is only 1 of 3 ways to quantum tunnel that I have come across. Another way that was demonstrated in the videos posted, uses prisms, and I'm fairly certain in that case, the quantum tunneled signal is just traveling through space.

First, remember the paper says "analogy" for quantum tunneling, but even in that case, the space is between two prisms, and to communicate at 11 light years away, you would need to put the other prism 11 light years away, so you still need more than 11 years to put the prism there.

At that distance you have the same problem with the space barrier as with any barrier. This paper talks about how the signal with the prisms spaced even one meter apart would be too weak, being reduced by 88 orders of magnitude by the 1 meter gap! So how much is the signal going to be reduced after a gap of 104,000 trillion meters? Is this something you would really take seriously?

Comment on “Macroscopic violation of special relativity” by Nimtz and Stahlhofen

While the article listed does not actually state the dimension of the air gap, its abstract alludes to “macroscopic scale on the order of a meter.” The New Scientist quotes the authors as having tunneled photons “instantaneously across a barrier of various sizes, from a few millimeters up to a meter.” We can believe a few millimeters. But at 0.88 dB/mm, an evanescent wave tunneling across a 1 meter gap would be attenuated by 880 dB! This translates to a transmission of 10^-88

Suffice it to say that the authors could not possibly have measured tunneling across a 1 m gap, a result that has set internet
discussion groups all aquiver. The maximum spacing they could have used and still obtain a measurable transmission would be about 40 mm, which would yield an attenuation of 35.2 dB, consistent with the minimum transmissions reported in Refs. 3, 4, and 6.

So that author is basically saying a 1 meter gap is impossible using that method. If it's impossible for 1 meter, is it fair to say it's 104,000 trillion times more impossible for 104,000 trillion meters?

a reply to: Arbitrageur

First, remember the paper says "analogy" for quantum tunneling, but even in that case, the space is between two prisms, and to communicate at 11 light years away, you would need to put the other prism 11 light years away, so you still need more than 11 years to put the prism there.

1. Not if there is already a "prism", or rather a quantum tunneling radio, already there.

2. And even if we sent a QT radio light years away, having instantaneous, or near instantaneous communication with it would be a big deal.

First, remember the paper says "analogy"

First of all, your second paper says "comment", and I would suggest that the commenters classical approach to the distance doesn't apply to quantum tunneling, which breaks classical laws.

I'm thinking that since time is commingled with space, Maxwell's equations may not apply to a change that happens instantaneously, or where t=0.
Maybe attenuation (dB/mm) also goes to zero inside the quantum tunnel.

Classical models would still apply outside of the tunnel, but things like speed and frequency change within the tunnel.

Also, consider the fact that we are talking about a fairly simple and repeatable tabletop experiment, and not something scientists have poured their lives into.

Here's a thought, instead of using old classical knowledge to disprove quantum communication over vast distances, try using inductive reasoning. Assume that what's being reported about FTL communication over vast distances is true, then try to determine how that can be.

a reply to: IndieA
That's what some scientists are objecting to, the claim that the prisms are demonstrating a quantum effect when they can explain the reported results classically without faster than light and without invoking quantum.

However based on the sketchy nature of the paper claiming the prisms show some analogy of quantum tunneling, meaning the paper lacks specifics, doesn't even mention a specific gap size, doesn't show the data etc, we are still using the author's own words in the paper saying it's been described as an analogy for quantum tunneling.

So your insistence it really is quantum is sort of one-sided when that's actually part of the debate about the experiment. The other part of the debate is hard to resolve based on lack of specifics in the paper, as to exactly what is being measured and how, and again the lack of data makes it not a very good paper.

This scientist thinks it might be related to group velocity, which can go faster than light, but doesn't allow superluminal communication:

Latest “faster than the speed of light” claims wrong (again)

A paper submitted to the physics arXiv has been picked up by a number of major news outlets (e.g., the Daily Mail) because the paper suggests that its authors have measured something traveling faster than the speed of light. Unfortunately, the claim is worse than weak; it is silly. I'll talk about why that is after briefly discussing their research...

The paper in question has no data at all so; although it asserts that it has measured superluminal velocities, it offers nothing to back that up. It also has very little in the way of experimental detail, so we can't determine with certainty what they are measuring, making it very difficult to evaluate their claims. We'll take as close a look as we can, given these limitations.

Ask yourself why the paper doesn't have data to back up its claims, and doesn't even clearly describe the experimental detail? I have read lots of science papers the good papers about experiments usually do that.

In practical terms, most experiments measure light in terms of what is called the group velocity, which is how fast a pulse propagates along an underlying carrier frequency. This can, in some circumstances, lead to the pulses traveling faster than the speed of light in the medium they're in, but not faster than light in vacuum. Although the setup in the new paper is not entirely clear, they were measuring the arrival time of pulses, which means we're talking about group velocity rather than the actual speed of light.

Another problem that occurs in these experiments comes from determining when the pulse actually arrived. If you analyze a pulse of light, you find that it is made up of a huge number of frequencies that, as you move away from the fundamental frequency, get lower and lower in amplitude. Once you look at the experimental set up in detail, you find that it is triggering on the pre-pulse noise generated by these high frequency components.

That's the same issue more or less I posted earlier from another source, that claims of faster than light group velocity can be true, but that doesn't imply faster than light communication since you don't communicate at group velocity.

See this post on page 1.

Some processes, like quantum tunneling, have been shown to occur instantaneously. But the ultimate cosmic speed limit remains unavoidable.

Here’s how to reconcile the instantaneous nature of quantum tunneling with the fact that no information is ever transmitted faster than the speed of light...

people fool themselves (and unscrupulous news organizations try to fool you) into thinking they’re breaking the speed of light.

But that’s not what’s happening here, or in any of these so-called “faster-than-light” demonstrations. Instead, all that’s happening here is that only a portion of the quantum particles found in the pulse manage to successfully tunnel through the barrier. The majority of the particles do what a (classical) tennis ball would do: they bounce back, failing to arrive at the destination. The “trick” to fooling yourself into believing that you’ve created a faster-than-light system is that it’s possible to front-load which particles make it through the barrier, preferentially cutting off the particles in the back of the pulse.

If you do this without being sufficiently careful, you’ll falsely measure a faster-than-light speed for the overall pulse, even though no individual particle actually ever exceeds the speed of light.

Here's a thought, instead of using old classical knowledge to disprove quantum communication over vast distances, try using inductive reasoning. Assume that what's being reported about FTL communication over vast distances is true, then try to determine how that can be.

The claim in Simon's case is it's being done with quantum tunneling, and I've already explaned the reasons why that doesn't make sense so I would never assume something which goes against all evidence is true. I still think it's a dumb idea to use tunneling to communicate over 11 light years and every real experiment over longer distances will confirm that. FTL quantum entanglement correlation has been demonstrated over long distances, FTL quantum tunneling hasn't, and there's not even any consensus that it's been demonstrated over short distances.

As I said if there is any hope of longer distance FTL, you would have a better shot with entanglement which doesn't present the same problems as the barrier in quantum tunneling over long distances. But so far, all experiments seem to exclude that possibility too, but that doesn't stop researchers from trying. At least researchers are seeing faster than light correlations in entanglement over long distances, and everybody agrees with that, it's not disputed like the FTL quantum tunneling communication claims.

What's left is a possibility of faster than light communication through a wormhole, though there's no guarantee this would be possible. So far research seems to show it's probably impossible to send material objects through a wormhole, but they haven't ruled out communicating through a wormhole, to my knowledge. But maing a wormhole to this 11 light years away would be no easy task; you'd have to distort spacetime a heck of a lot to accomplish that, and you may need some exotic matter to do that, which hasn't yet been shown to exist, so it's highly speculative.

I brought up the wormhole FTL communication possibility on page one in this post. So it's not like I haven't already considered some alternatives that might work or at least have a chance of working, and I already posted about them in this thread.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Your first post is from 2007, which is quite a while ago in the grand scheme of things.

I found this 2013 paper from Nimtz, which appears to address the critics, but still seems to lack any recorded experimental results.

The Superluminal Tunneling Story
PDF

Since 1992 experimental evidence of superluminal (faster than light, FTL) signals are causing much excitement in the physical community and in the media. Superluminal signal velocity and zero time tunneling was first observed in an analog tunneling experiment with microwaves. Recently, the conjectured zero time of electron was claimed to be observed in ionizing helium. The FTL signal velocity was reproduced with infrared light and with various tunneling barriers in several laboratories worldwide. Remarkable, it was shown that the tunneling time is a universal quantity for elastic and for electromagnetic fields.

There may be nothing that can be measured inside the tunnel, as stated here:

Evanescent and tunneling modes are not measurable. They are virtual particles as sketched in Fig. 6.

This to me, suggest zero signal attenuation while quantum tunneling, as I previously suggested may be the case:

However, tunneling is an elastic process and after reflection took place at the barrier front any transmitted wave packet of electrons or photons is not attenuated, thus no wagon is dropped off between Chicago and New York.

Summing-up: Many physicists see the FTL interpretation of tunneling like the poet Morgenstern 24 : What cannot be must not be. In order to prove the FTL interpretation to be incorrect, unphysical assumptions are proposed. Usually the STR crusaders assume signals to have infinite frequency bands, which results in signal reshaping and in a luminal front velocity due to the dispersion of a barrier. Another incorrect assumption is a signal to have a point-like time. A signal and thus the information are always given by the product of time duration and frequency bandwidth. For example even the single photons had a time duration of the order of 100 fs and a bandwidth of the order of 10 THz at a center frequency of 427 THz in Ref. 21. There is no front velocity as was claimed by Chiao et al.

For added reference, here's another paper from Nimtz from 2011:

Tunneling Confronts Special Relativity

Experiments with evanescent modes and tunneling particles have shown that i) their signal velocity may be faster than light, ii) they are described by virtual particles, iii) they are nonlocal and act at a distance, iv) experimental tunneling data of phonons, photons, and electrons display a universal scattering time at the tunneling barrier front, and v) the properties of evanescent, i.e. tunneling modes is not compatible with the special theory of relativity.

He also has a book that is selling for $49.95:

Zero Time Space: How Quantum Tunneling Broke the Light Speed Barrier

Based on his groundbreaking experiments, Prof Nimtz places the topic in a broader context by showing connections with other branches of physics. He and the team of authors begin by introducing such fundamental concepts as space and time and continue with tunneling phenomena from optics, nuclear and solid state physics. Avoiding mathematical equations and definitions altogether, they explain step-by-step the prerequisites for the tunnel effect to function, from classical mechanics to quantum mechanics, right up to modern topics, such as wormholes and space travel a la Star Trek.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


I should add that if it was that simple to do, don't you think someone would have figured it out by now?

This is where these fantastical claims usually shoot themselves in the foot. They claim some fancy new tech unknown to the public is being used, and then they just have to throw in that it's not all that complicated but the Powers That Be suppress knowledge of it.

Quantum research is a large and growing field with a lot of research money flowing into it and tons of papers coming out every year. If this quantum tunneling communication over vast distances were that simple to do, so many independent teams of researchers would've discovered it that the PTB wouldn't be able to keep them all quiet. Money and threats don't work on everyone. Eventually you'd get an idealistic do-gooder that would come forward with the knowledge, even at his/her own peril.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Also from the Tunneling Confronts Special Relatively paper:

Measured signal velocities were up to 5·c17,18,33. However, due to a signal’s product of finite frequency band width times finite time duration and considering the transmission dispersion of any barrier, the tunneled signals will begin in the past but end up in the future14,15. That is, primitive causality applies even in the case of superluminal signal velocities. The latter is contradictory to most text books on special relativity, see e.g. Refs.34. It is usually assumed that a signal has a point like time duration ∆t →0. This assumption has no physical reality because a wave packet and a signal, even if it informs us about an event in a distant galaxy, follows the relation15,35 ∆ν∆t ≥ 1 (8) where ∆ν and∆tarethe frequencyband width and the time durationof a wavepacket. This relationwould correspond for ∆t → 0 to an infinite frequency band width and thus according to quantum mechanics to an infinite signal energy. The various mentioned properties run counter of the intuition of special relativity.