Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities?

[EL]
Let me help you and the readers by proposing a much more tenable
scenario Robert.

Assume that the experimenters used a symmetrical wave the wavelength
of which is about 38 meters long or anything approximately oscillating
at 8MHz (These values are very rough and just for demonstration).

Assume that the wave shape is symmetrical and that the wavefront has
the minimum amplitude but the maximum tare of amplitude change of
state. The maximum amplitude is at the centre of the wave.

Now let that wave enter the chamber and propagate at c and the
wavefront reaches the far end after exactly 0.2 nanoseconds but the
detector translates the maximum rate of change of the amplitude to a
maximum output amplitude, and the wavefront thus triggers the timer to
register the arrival of the wave-peak, which did not yet enter the
chamber, which when on entering the chamber triggers the near end
detector of a wave peak about 62 nanoseconds which is half the full
period of the wave.

In other words it could be a clumsy mistake or a deliberate foul play
with experimental results.

If those experimenters were serious, they must repeat the same
experiment showing the arrival time being ahead by 31 nanoseconds when
they double the frequency of the wave being transmitted and 124
nanoseconds when the frequency is halved or the wavelength doubled.

Then my scenario should make full sense and they should discard the
relevance of their experiment for any proof of a superluminal speed.

A much better experiment is to send a square wave pulse from a
chopper.
In that scenario the wave front is the same as the maximum rate of
change in the amplitude.
The body of the wave having a constant amplitude shall not induce
changes at the far end until the falling edge arrives and produces a
second peak. This frequency doubler shall prove my suspicions and give
them accurate time of the arrival of each edge and by the knowledge of
the wavelength the velocity may be calculated.

As far as I know and am sure of my knowledge in electronics that
somewhere in there measuring system there is an inverter that reports
the inverse of the wave amplitude at the caesium far end while it
reports a none-inverted wave amplitude at the vacuum far end.

This might explain what you meant by wave-reshaping or the weird
expression of rephasing.

In any case of which I have presented, there is no superluminal
propagation of anything but we do have a screwed up experiment with
results prepared before experimenting.

To fully understand what I am explaining here you need access to the
full specifications of the caesium cell, wave splitters, the vacuum
cell, the wave detector integrated circuit and if its part number
causes inversion or not and its sensitivity curves and the length of
leads and the recording of data and the acquisition methods.

After studying the specifications of the device you may proceed to
inspect the data that was recorded before any mathematical
manipulation of that data.

Kind regards.

EL






(Robert Clark) wrote in message . com...
Microsoft Outlook Express uses a proportional font by default in
reading newsgroup messages. To properly view the diagram below in OE,
you need to tell it to use a fixed-width font such as Courier: go to
Tools - Options...- Read - Fonts ... Then choose actually a
fixed-width font such as Courier in the pull-down list under the box
for the Proportional Font.

Or you can read the post he

From: Robert Clark )
Subject: Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities?
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity, alt.sci.physics.new-theories,
sci.physics, sci.astro
Date: 2003-11-07 11:49:03 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

The diagram itself I took from the article:

"Slow" and "Fast" Light.
by Robert W. Boyd and Daniel J. Gauthier
http://www.phy.duke.edu/research/pho...ssInOptics.pdf

It appears in Fig. 1 on page 21.

The conclusion that under the accepted explanation the exiting
Sommerfeld precursor reflected back reaches the start 124 nanoseconds
before the start peak reaches the chamber is puzzling however. This
would also seem to mean that this reflected precursor reaches the
start *before* the precursor of the start pulse as well. But it is
this precursor of the start pulse that is supposed to get the process
going to begin with. Then you are back to a causality problem.
I tried making the precursor of the start pulse arrive at the chamber
shorter or longer than 62 nanoseconds before the start peak but I
still keep coming back to the conclusion that the reflected precursor
arrives at the start before the starting precursor.
The only thing I can think, following the accepted explanation, is
that the exiting pulse really does not look just like the entering
pulse. It would for example not have that leading exiting portion. But
this should be visible in the shape of the exiting pulse if true. The
exiting pulse would be chopped off at the front.


Bob Clark

EL:

Now let that wave enter the chamber and propagate at c and the
wavefront reaches the far end after exactly 0.2 nanoseconds but the
detector translates the maximum rate of change of the amplitude to a
maximum output amplitude, and the wavefront thus triggers the timer to
register the arrival of the wave-peak, which did not yet enter the
chamber, which when on entering the chamber triggers the near end
detector of a wave peak about 62 nanoseconds which is half the full
period of the wave.

A constant fraction discriminator solves that problem and is one of
the most common, if not the most common method of obtaining timing marks
which are independent of rise time and amplitude. Timing considerations
are such a crucial part of any experiment that no experimental physicist
would make such a mistake.

A cfd works by splitting an input signal, inverting one of those,
delaying it slightly, adding it to the non-inverted signal and
taking the zero crossing of the summed signal as the timing mark,
which is then output as a digital pulse (typically NIM).

[...]

As far as I know and am sure of my knowledge in electronics that
somewhere in there measuring system there is an inverter that reports
the inverse of the wave amplitude at the caesium far end while it
reports a none-inverted wave amplitude at the vacuum far end.

A standard way of determining the timing of two pulses is the
following:

+--------------- analog pulse data
|
------+-|cfd|-|TAC|-- timing information
In 1

+--------------- analog pulse data
|
------+-|cfd|-|TAC|-- timing information
In 2

Or some variation on that theme. A time-to-digital converter or
time-to-amplitude (TAC) converter follows the constant fraction
discriminator. The analog pulse data are then completely irrelevant
for timing information. All of the timing information is in a time
spectrum. It's trivial to get time resolution at a resolution of
a couple of nseconds. It's possible to better than 1 ns by being
careful and using a good cfd and TAC. Propagation times are always
matched to account for any differences due to cable delays or elec-
tronics. If anything, they would have a set up that is better than
this, not worse, since this is very basic.

(Bilge) wrote in message ...
EL:

Now let that wave enter the chamber and propagate at c and the
wavefront reaches the far end after exactly 0.2 nanoseconds but the
detector translates the maximum rate of change of the amplitude to a
maximum output amplitude, and the wavefront thus triggers the timer to
register the arrival of the wave-peak, which did not yet enter the
chamber, which when on entering the chamber triggers the near end
detector of a wave peak about 62 nanoseconds which is half the full
period of the wave.

A constant fraction discriminator solves that problem and is one of
the most common, if not the most common method of obtaining timing marks
which are independent of rise time and amplitude. Timing considerations
are such a crucial part of any experiment that no experimental physicist
would make such a mistake.

[EL]
They should not make such a mistake but they would make such a
mistake, especially if the mistake was deliberate.


A cfd works by splitting an input signal, inverting one of those,
delaying it slightly, adding it to the non-inverted signal and
taking the zero crossing of the summed signal as the timing mark,
which is then output as a digital pulse (typically NIM).

[EL]
Indeed, and our technology now has reached manufacturing photon
detectors/ counters with built-in state-of-the-art Integrated Pico-CFD
modules. However, you are talking about an experiment that Bilge and
EL would love to build not the one that produced a superluminal
fabrication.


[...]

As far as I know and am sure of my knowledge in electronics that
somewhere in there measuring system there is an inverter that reports
the inverse of the wave amplitude at the caesium far end while it
reports a none-inverted wave amplitude at the vacuum far end.

A standard way of determining the timing of two pulses is the
following:

+--------------- analog pulse data
|
------+-|cfd|-|TAC|-- timing information
In 1

+--------------- analog pulse data
|
------+-|cfd|-|TAC|-- timing information
In 2

Or some variation on that theme. A time-to-digital converter or
time-to-amplitude (TAC) converter follows the constant fraction
discriminator. The analog pulse data are then completely irrelevant
for timing information. All of the timing information is in a time
spectrum. It's trivial to get time resolution at a resolution of
a couple of nseconds. It's possible to better than 1 ns by being
careful and using a good cfd and TAC. Propagation times are always
matched to account for any differences due to cable delays or elec-
tronics. If anything, they would have a set up that is better than
this, not worse, since this is very basic.

[EL]
Yes, yes, but the Wang group would never wish to do that because any
legitimate Pico-CFD-TAC coupling would give causal results with
proper time sequences and they do not want that, or do they?

A fair design would demand replicating the timing integrated devices
on both the vacuum and the caesium inputs and outputs to ensure the
recording of all discriminations very precisely.
This means that the caesium cell would never stand a chance to escape
from a starting time mark after which the vacuum cell would conclude
the experiment by 0.2 nanoseconds only and there would never be enough
time to produce any errors to stick on a superluminal label.

Am I right or am I right Bilge?

EL