SR contradiction in electric circuit?

[dsep...@austin.rr.com]

Contradictory electric circuit problem
An electric circuit is built that has a DC generator connected by 2 long wires to a resistor and capacitor and an LED. The distance from the DC generator to the resistor, capacitor and LED circuit is 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds. When the DC generator starts rotating, it rotates at 1000 revolutions per second. After it rotates for 30 seconds, the capacitor becomes charged enough to turn on the LED (30 seconds after the generator started rotating)..

Now we have two inertial reference frames that each have one of these identical circuits. In Frame F0, the circuit is positioned along the x-axis, with the DC generator at x, y = (0,0) and LED circuit at x = 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds, y=0.

In Frame F1 the DC generator in that frame is placed at x',y' = (0,0) and the LED circuit is at x' = -10 sqrt(3) light-seconds, y' = 0.

The relative velocity of frames F0 and F1 is sqrt(3)/2 c along the x-axis, with the two DC generators separated and initially moving toward each other.

When the two DC generators meet, the DC generators in each frame are turned on. With the relative velocity of sqrt(3)/2 c, the two LED circuits meet after 30 seconds (as measured in each of their respective frames). Therefore, the LED light in each frame turns on simultaneously when the two LED circuits meet.

Per Einstein, each frame measures that the other's DC generator rotated at 1000/2 revolutions per second, and was not on for 30 seconds when the LEDs lit up. Yet the two circuits are identical, both DC generators were turned on simultaneously and the LEDs lit up simultaneously when the LED of each frame passed the LED of the other frame at the same x coordinate in space. How is this contradiction explained using the concepts of relativity?

Thanks
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

[Dono,]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:31:46 AM UTC-8, dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> snip imbecilities<

You were born a cretin. Your only consolation is that you will die one.

[Daryl Bragg]

dseppala wrote:

> Contradictory electric circuit problem An electric circuit is built that
> has a DC generator connected by 2 long wires to a resistor and capacitor
> and an LED. The distance from the DC generator to the resistor,
> capacitor and LED circuit is 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds. When the DC
> generator starts rotating, it rotates at 1000 revolutions per second.
> After it rotates for 30 seconds, the capacitor becomes charged enough to
> turn on the LED (30 seconds after the generator started rotating)..

Actually it can lights up before, the led starts opening at 0.6V and
likely before. Those revolutions are irrelevant.

[Sylvia Else]

How does it pan out when you apply the Lorentz transformation instead of
your usual hand-waving analysis?

BTW, signals do not travel along wires at the speed of light, but
somewhat less.

Sylvia.

[dsep...@austin.rr.com]

No the revolutions aren't irrelevant. It is very easy to design a circuit with a resistor and capacitor and a DC generator that requires N revolutions of the DC generator to produce enough voltage and current to charge the capacitor so that the LED turns on.
David Seppala
Bastrop TX

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/11/2017 3:31 AM, dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:

> Contradictory electric circuit problem An electric circuit is built
> that has a DC generator connected by 2 long wires to a resistor and
> capacitor and an LED. The distance from the DC generator to the
> resistor, capacitor and LED circuit is 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds. When
> the DC generator starts rotating, it rotates at 1000 revolutions per
> second. After it rotates for 30 seconds, the capacitor becomes
> charged enough to turn on the LED (30 seconds after the generator
> started rotating)..

The power cannot propagate at more than the speed of light. If the LED
turns on after 30 seconds, then it doesn't need the power from 30000
revolutions, because not all that power has arrived yet,

Your analysis in the other frame needs to take account of that, and of
the propagation delay.

As it is, your analysis is fundamentally flawed. No surprises there.

Sylvia.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 29/11/2017 v 02:00 Sylvia Else napsal(a):

>
> BTW, signals do not travel along wires at the speed of light, but
> somewhat less.

As real wires can be modelled as a serie
of resistors R with parasitic inductance L
bridged by inter-wire capacitance C.



--- RL---.--- RL---.--- RL---.-- ....
| | |
C C C
| | |
---------.---------.---------.-- ....


--
Poutnik ( The Pilgrim, Der Wanderer )

A wise man guards words he says,
as they say about him more,
than he says about the subject.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 29/11/2017 v 07:36 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž napsal(a):

> Dne 29/11/2017 v 02:00 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
>>
>> BTW, signals do not travel along wires at the speed of light, but
>> somewhat less.
>
> As real wires can be modelled as a serie
> of resistors R with parasitic inductance L
> bridged by inter-wire capacitance C.
>
>
>

> --- RL---.-.- RL---.-.- RL---.-.-- ....
> | | | | | |
> C Ri C Ri C Ri
> | | | | | |
> ---------.-.-------.-.-------.-.-- ....

Additionally, there is Ri
as isolation resistance in parallel to C.

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/11/2017 5:36 PM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 29/11/2017 v 02:00 Sylvia Else napsal(a):
>>
>> BTW, signals do not travel along wires at the speed of light, but
>> somewhat less.
>
> As real wires can be modelled as a serie
> of resistors R with parasitic inductance L
> bridged by inter-wire capacitance C.
>
>
>
> --- RL---.--- RL---.--- RL---.-- ....
> | | |
> C C C
> | | |
> ---------.---------.---------.-- ....
>
>

A (very) long time ago, when I was at university, one of the tasks
assigned to me was to measure the speed of a signal along a coaxial
cable. I was surprised that it turned out to be only about 2/3 c.

Sylvia.

[Daryl Bragg]

dseppala wrote:

>> Actually it can lights up before, the led starts opening at 0.6V and
>> likely before. Those revolutions are irrelevant.
>
> No the revolutions aren't irrelevant. It is very easy to design a
> circuit with a resistor and capacitor and a DC generator that requires N
> revolutions of the DC generator to produce enough voltage and current to
> charge the capacitor so that the LED turns on.
> David Seppala Bastrop TX

That's why is completely irrelevant from an led's point of view where and
how that direct current is produced. I beg you to reconsider. If you were
to be a led, would you care? No.

[Daryl Bragg]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>>> BTW, signals do not travel along wires at the speed of light, but
>>> somewhat less.
>>
>> As real wires can be modelled as a serie
>> of resistors R with parasitic inductance L
>> bridged by inter-wire capacitance C.
>> --- RL---.-.- RL---.-.- RL---.-.-- ....
>> | | | | | |
>> C Ri C Ri C Ri
>> | | | | | |
>> ---------.-.-------.-.-------.-.-- ....
>
> Additionally, there is Ri
> as isolation resistance in parallel to C.

That's an old approach, slightly valid for low frequencies. For
the high, implicitly coax, you need something else. Why, because
you don't know the density of those things, nor the homogeneity.
Better luck next time.

[danco...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 28, 2017 at 8:31:46 AM UTC-8, dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:

Your y coordinate is irrelevant, since everything happens on the x axis. Also, you omitted the t coordinate from your analysis, and overlooked the relativity of simultaneity. Using units so c=1, Let x,t be the inertial coordinates in which one apparatus is at rest, and x',t' the other, and let the generators start at x=x'=0, t=t'=0, and let the illumination event be at x=L, t=T, where T=(L/v)(1+sqrt(1-v^2)). The proper time for the LED from x=L, t=0 to the illumination event is T, as is the proper time from x'=-L, t'=0.

Now, in terms of the rest frame coordinates of the *other* apparatus, the initial event for each LED (i.e., that is simultaneous with the generator start in its own frame) occurs at coordinate time -vL/sqrt(1-v^2). In your example, with L=10sqrt(3), v=sqrt(3)/2, this means that in each system of coordinates the initial event for the moving LED occurs 30 seconds prior to the start of the generators, and the illumination events occurs 30 seconds after the start of the generators, for a total of 60 seconds of coordinate time.

Again, it's completely pointless to devise these alleged contradictions, as you've been doing for the last quarter century. Based on that history, you will first reject the explanation, and then when it's made completely clear, you will alter the problem in some way, attempting to obfuscate. As you know, each and every one of your "contradictions" has been instantly debunked, merely by applying the simple grade school algebra of the Lorentz transformation. This is just Special Relativity 101.

I'd be interested to know: When did you first hear about special relativity? In school? In a book? When did you first start to devise "contradictions" to special relativity? How much time have you devoted to it? Have you ever considered learning about the Lorentz transformation and applying it to your "contradictions"? You often mention Einstein in your posts (as in "Per Einstein...). Do you feel some personal animosity toward Einstein? What is the fundamental reason for your dislike of special relativity?

[John Heath]

Forget about the wires. Just send an EM pulse out and put an antenna on the LED.
Properties of a vacuum are 9 PF by 1.2 u Henry. If you crank the numbers your propagation speed is 300 KM per second according to classic wave theory. 300 KM per second should ring a bell as this is the speed of light , c. Why would you be supersized by a time delay between generator and LED lighting up ? This is pre Einstein stuff laid out by Oliver Heaviside in 1890.

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/29/17 1:52 AM, Sylvia Else wrote:
> A (very) long time ago, when I was at university, one of the tasks assigned to
> me was to measure the speed of a signal along a coaxial cable. I was surprised
> that it turned out to be only about 2/3 c.

Well known and unremarkable. In the old days (~ 1980) we put together fast
electronics using NIM bins and RG-58 coax cables. We had hundreds of pieces of
coax labeled by their signal delay in nanoseconds, we timed the electronics to
within 1-2 ns by inserting the appropriate length of cable. A 1 ns cable is
about 8" long. Hard-line coax, with an air dielectric, can have a signal speed
about 0.8 c.

Today that high-speed logic is all done in FPGAs.

Tom Roberts

[Tom Roberts]

On 11/28/17 10:31 AM, dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> Contradictory electric circuit problem [...]

The only contradiction is in your "analysis", which is flawed throughout. Others
have shown how to analyze it correctly, using the Lorentz transform.

There is ONE AND ONLY ONE way to demonstrate an internal contradiction in SR:
mathematically. Your fooling around with "scenarios" is HOPELESS, and only
demonstrates your personal ignorance and incompetence.

Note that the mathematics involves proving that Euclidean
geometry or real analysis is self-inconsistent. Mathematicians
smarter and much more experienced than you have been considering
that for centuries....

Tom Roberts

[Daryl Bragg]

Tom Roberts wrote:

> Well known and unremarkable. In the old days (~ 1980) we put together
> fast electronics using NIM bins and RG-58 coax cables. We had hundreds
> of pieces of coax labeled by their signal delay in nanoseconds, we timed
> the electronics to within 1-2 ns by inserting the appropriate length of
> cable.
> A 1 ns cable is about 8" long. Hard-line coax, with an air dielectric,
> can have a signal speed about 0.8 c.

Actually more important is the frequency, to avoid reflection, using
proper impedance loads and stubs.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 17:52:26 UTC+1, tjrob137 wrote:

> Note that the mathematics involves proving that Euclidean
> geometry or real analysis is self-inconsistent.

Mathematics includes proving pythagorean theory (in EG)
and proving it's negation (in non-EG). Mathematics can
include a proof for anything - depending on axioms you
will fancy, poor idiot.

[Daryl Bragg]

mlwozniak wrote:

> Mathematics includes proving pythagorean theory (in EG)
> and proving it's negation (in non-EG). Mathematics can include a proof
> for anything - depending on axioms you will fancy, poor idiot.

Can you write the above in math symbols? I have
no idea about what you say.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Wednesday, 29 November 2017 18:58:47 UTC+1, Daryl Bragg wrote:
> mlwozniak wrote:
>
> > Mathematics includes proving pythagorean theory (in EG)
> > and proving it's negation (in non-EG). Mathematics can include a proof
> > for anything - depending on axioms you will fancy, poor idiot.
>

> Can you write the above in math symbols? \

Yes.

> I have
> no idea about what you say.

Too bad for you.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 29.11.2017 08.52, skrev Sylvia Else:
>
> A (very) long time ago, when I was at university, one of the tasks
> assigned to me was to measure the speed of a signal along a coaxial
> cable. I was surprised that it turned out to be only about 2/3 c.
>
> Sylvia.

The speed of light in a coax is c/n where n is
the index of refraction in the dielectric in the coax.

n ~= 3/2 = 1.5, the dielectric was probably Polyethylene.

(But why did this surprise you?)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 28.11.2017 17.31, skrev dsep...@austin.rr.com:
> Contradictory electric circuit problem
> An electric circuit is built that has a DC generator connected by 2 long wires to a resistor and capacitor and an LED. The distance from the DC generator to the resistor, capacitor and LED circuit is 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds. When the DC generator starts rotating, it rotates at 1000 revolutions per second. After it rotates for 30 seconds, the capacitor becomes charged enough to turn on the LED (30 seconds after the generator started rotating)..
>
> Now we have two inertial reference frames that each have one of these identical circuits. In Frame F0, the circuit is positioned along the x-axis, with the DC generator at x, y = (0,0) and LED circuit at x = 10 sqrt(3) light-seconds, y=0.
>
> In Frame F1 the DC generator in that frame is placed at x',y' = (0,0) and the LED circuit is at x' = -10 sqrt(3) light-seconds, y' = 0.
>
> The relative velocity of frames F0 and F1 is sqrt(3)/2 c along the x-axis, with the two DC generators separated and initially moving toward each other.
>
> When the two DC generators meet, the DC generators in each frame are turned on. With the relative velocity of sqrt(3)/2 c, the two LED circuits meet after 30 seconds (as measured in each of their respective frames). Therefore, the LED light in each frame turns on simultaneously when the two LED circuits meet.
>

I didn't even try to read your very convoluted 'paradox'.

> Per Einstein, each frame measures that the other's DC generator rotated at 1000/2 revolutions per second, and was not on for 30 seconds when the LEDs lit up.

But if a something it rotating at 1000 revolutions per second
for 30 seconds as measured in its rest frame, it will have
made 30000 revolutions.
In a frame where it is moving at the speed sqrt(3)/2 c, it will
according to SR be measured to be rotating with 500 rotations per second
for 60 seconds, and will have made 30000 revolutions.

No contradiction.

> Yet the two circuits are identical, both DC generators were turned on simultaneously and the LEDs lit up simultaneously when the LED of each frame passed the LED of the other frame at the same x coordinate in space. How is this contradiction explained using the concepts of relativity?
>
> Thanks
> David Seppala
> Bastrop TX
>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[John Heath]

I like what you are doing slowing the speed of light down to where it is manageable for making measurements. However as Paul said it is too complicated to follow. Can you simplify it. For one thing could you forget the generator. Just use inductance 1 henry with 1 uf condensers to slow it down. This way it can be quantified with math for precise delay time to light the LED. Also a clarification of what is moving and where the observer is in all cases.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 04/12/2017 v 14:54 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

I think Sylvia did not measure the speed of light,
but speed of the RF electric signal.

I suppose that n value is for the visible light,
not for radio frequencies. n varies a lot
across many orders of frequency from gamma to radio waves.

Aside of that, it would be determined by the coax geometry
and relative permitivity affecting the capacitance,
with n proportional to sqrt(eps_r), supposing mi_r about 1.

[Lara Ashline]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Dne 04/12/2017 v 14:54 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):
>> Den 29.11.2017 08.52, skrev Sylvia Else:
>>>
>>> A (very) long time ago, when I was at university, one of the tasks
>>> assigned to me was to measure the speed of a signal along a coaxial
>>> cable. I was surprised that it turned out to be only about 2/3 c.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The speed of light in a coax is c/n where n is the index of refraction
>> in the dielectric in the coax.

nonsense, light cannot propagate through a coax. You must be confusing it
with water.

> I think Sylvia did not measure the speed of light,
> but speed of the RF electric signal.

entertaining.

> I suppose that n value is for the visible light,
> not for radio frequencies. n varies a lot across many orders of
> frequency from gamma to radio waves.
> Aside of that, it would be determined by the coax geometry and relative
> permitivity affecting the capacitance,
> with n proportional to sqrt(eps_r), supposing mi_r about 1.

nothing.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 04.12.2017 22.30, skrev Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 04/12/2017 v 14:54 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):
>> Den 29.11.2017 08.52, skrev Sylvia Else:
>>>
>>> A (very) long time ago, when I was at university, one of the tasks
>>> assigned to me was to measure the speed of a signal along a coaxial
>>> cable. I was surprised that it turned out to be only about 2/3 c.
>>>
>>> Sylvia.
>>
>> The speed of light in a coax is c/n where n is
>> the index of refraction in the dielectric in the coax.

Ooops. :-)

It should obviously be:
The speed of EM-waves in a coax is c/n where n is

the index of refraction in the dielectric in the coax

for the frequencies in question.

>>
>> n ~= 3/2 = 1.5, the dielectric was probably Polyethylene.

http://www.febo.com/reference/cable_data.html
The VF (velocity factor) of a coaxial cable
with solid polyethylene dielectric is given to be 65.9%

n = 1/0.659 = 1.495 ~= 1.5

This is for the frequencies the coax can transmit.

>>
>> (But why did this surprise you?)
>
> I think Sylvia did not measure the speed of light,
> but speed of the RF electric signal.

Of course. My "speed of light" was a typo.

But thanks for the catch.

>
> I suppose that n value is for the visible light,
> not for radio frequencies.

See above. n ~= 1.5 for radio frequencies.

> n varies a lot
> across many orders of frequency from gamma to radio waves.

The refraction index of polyethylene doesn't vary much
from RF to visible light, it is still ~1.5 at 630 nm.

It will fall off at higher frequencies when the polarization
of the molecules can't keep up, though.

> Aside of that, it would be determined by the coax geometry

The geometry of a coax is given by the ratio D/d
where d = diameter of inner conductor
and D = inner diameter of outer conductor.

VF and n do not depend on the geometry.

The inductivity per metre L and the capacity per metre C
do depend on the geometry, though.

But since n = c.sqrt(LC) ~= 1.5, the product LC does
not depend on the geometry.
L is proportional to log(D/d), while C is inversely
proportional to log(D/d).

However, the characteristic impedance Zo = sqrt(L/C)
will depend on the geometry.

Zo = 138.log(D/d)/n

For polyethylen: Zo ~= 92.log(D/d)
D/d = 3.495 will give Zo = 50 ohm

> and relative permitivity affecting the capacitance,
> with n proportional to sqrt(eps_r), supposing mi_r about 1.

Right.
n = sqrt(eps_r.mu_r)
So eps_r of polyethylen is ~2.25.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Lara Ashline]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> I think Sylvia did not measure the speed of light,
>> but speed of the RF electric signal.
>
> Of course. My "speed of light" was a typo.

He said "think", which is not something for sure.

[Sylvia Else]

I was young and naive. I hadn't come across the issue before, and had
previously assumed (as many do) that electricity travels at the speed of
light.

Sylvia.

[Lara Ashline]

Sylvia Else wrote:

> I was young and naive. I hadn't come across the issue before, and had
> previously assumed (as many do) that electricity travels at the speed of
> light. Sylvia.

Apparently wrong again, since the Potential is travelling that fast, the
electrical charges very slow.

[John Heath]

A photon will travel the path of least resistance. This being the case you can trap a photon on a copper wire to have a closer look at it. A 30 foot copper wire with a 100 MHz source driving it will put a 3 foot diameter photon on the wire and it will be trapped there just bouncing back and forth trapped in what is called a standing wave. Now that it is trapped we can have a real close look at what a this 3 foot photon looks like. I can say from having seem this experiment that it is a 3 foot beach ball that is not length contracted. Also that the electric and magnetic fields are out of phase just like movement and stress are out of phase for sound waves. This can be detected by walking down the wire with a florescent tube for electric field and current meter for magnetic field. Those detectors say the photon is a round ball not length contracted and that the electric and magnetic fields are out of phase.

[Sylvia Else]

No, the potential does not travel that fast, as my own measurements [*]
at the time showed.

Sylvia

[*] I took the lab tech's word as to the length of the cable.

[benj]

So what is "electricity"? Usually we talk about a flow of charges as an
electric current. But as everybody knows post-Einstein, electrons even
in vacuum cannot travel at the speed of light. They only can approach
it. But then it appears that EM fields travel at the speed of light and
in vacuum they appear to. However when materials are involved (just as
light is slowed in a lens or piece of glass) EM fields also interact
with the materials and are slowed.

[benj]

There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of the the existence of
radio frequency photons. If you have some let us know. A standing wave
is not a photon. In fact, it is the polar opposite.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

benj brayed

There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of the the existence of
radio frequency photons. If you have some let us know. A standing wave
is not a photon. In fact, it is the polar opposite.

Radio waves travel at c, hence they are electromagnetic radiation

The communication system includes a 3.7 meter diameter parabolic dish high-gain antenna to send and receive radio waves via the three Deep Space Network stations on the Earth. ... The Voyager 1 communication is received on Earth by the Deep Space Network (DSN):

Even if mission managers recreated the computers on the ground, reloaded the software onto the spacecraft and were able to turn the cameras back on, it is not clear that they would work. A signal from Voyager 1, traveling at the speed of light, takes 17 hours one way to reach Earth.

[benj]

On 12/5/2017 9:23 PM, David (Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote:
> benj brayed
>
> There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of the the existence of
> radio frequency photons. If you have some let us know. A standing wave
> is not a photon. In fact, it is the polar opposite.
>
> Radio waves travel at c, hence they are electromagnetic radiation

Yes, so?

> The communication system includes a 3.7 meter diameter parabolic dish high-gain antenna to send and receive radio waves via the three Deep Space Network stations on the Earth. ... The Voyager 1 communication is received on Earth by the Deep Space Network (DSN):

yes, so?

> Even if mission managers recreated the computers on the ground, reloaded the software onto the spacecraft and were able to turn the cameras back on, it is not clear that they would work. A signal from Voyager 1, traveling at the speed of light, takes 17 hours one way to reach Earth.

And this proves "photons" how?

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/5/17 12/5/17 7:43 PM, benj wrote:
> There is absolutely NO experimental evidence of the the existence of radio
> frequency photons.

Not true. Hydrogen masers operate at ~ 1.4 GHz, which is UHF radio. The quantum
nature of light is essential for the operation of a maser.

Various free-electron lasers can be tuned from ~ 300 MHz (VHF radio) through
microwaves, infrared, visible light, and X-rays, proving that these are all
similar phenomena. As the quantum nature of EM radiation is essential for an FEL
to operate, there is no doubt that the radiation consists of photons.

Tom Roberts

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 05/12/2017 v 22:04 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

Hmm, so if we hypothetically considered a coax
with vacuum as dielectric, does that mean
the voltage pulse travels at c ?

What about frequencies where n < 1 ?

[John Heath]

If a radio transmitter antenna were to increase its carrier frequency up in the 100s of THz range you would see light coming off the antenna. Its all the same thing. Photons in the RF range are hard to detect as there are so many of them over lapping. The wire photon trap example I gave is the equivalent of a laser bean resonant cavity. Same deal just lower frequency. At very high frequencies you start to see individual photons such as gamma radiation picked by a geiger counter that makes a ticking sound. Those ticks are photons hitting a cathode with a strong voltage gradient.

[Lara Ashline]

You are young and naive again. Meant to be that fast whatever you measured
using that setup, assuming correct probes, no reflections, hence impedance
matching.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/6/17 12/6/17 12:30 AM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Hmm, so if we hypothetically considered a coax
> with vacuum as dielectric, does that mean
> the voltage pulse travels at c ?

No. In coax, the difference between vacuum and air dielectric is quite small.
The geometry (radii of the conductors) is much more important, and affects the
impedance as well as the signal speed.

Tom Roberts

[John Heath]

Impedance matching is interesting. If the impedance changes slowly relative to the EM wave length all to energy continues forward but at the new impedance. if the impedance changes quickly compared to the wave length there is a reflection where part of the energy reverses direction and the other continues forward. It gets better. If the sudden change in impedance is from low to high then the reflection is the same polarity for an EM pulse. If the impedance suddenly went from high to low then the reflected EM pulse will be reversed with the pulse facing down not up for the electric field. I know this as I have test equipment that does this to measure for potential problems with cables systems.

With this in mind a measurement could be made to test for the effect of gravity to the impedance of a vacuum , space. A neutron star would be a nice target. A low frequency EM pulse aimed at a neutron star. The vacuum has a normal impedance of Z = 370 ohms. If the reflected pulse is the reversed then the impedance of a vacuum goes down close to a neutron star. If reflection is not reversed then the impedance of a vacuum goes up near a neutron star. For the first time we will know if Einstein had it right for the shape of space caused by gravity.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

John Heath wrote

Impedance matching is interesting. If the impedance changes slowly relative to the EM wave length all to energy continues forward but at the new impedance. if the impedance changes quickly compared to the wave length there is a reflection where part of the energy reverses direction and the other continues forward. It gets better.

How about this....

Just after the big band, when ONLY PHOTONS existed because it was So Hot & Dense Quarks could not Confine into Protons, the Vacuum Impedance would be very high compared to Now.
If no matter exists, then gravity would in effect be canceled out. Zero nothing existing to gravitate in the first place.

So.... Matter would attenuate the Vacuum Impedance according to the inverse square law in spatial relation to its location in space time.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 06/12/2017 v 14:40 Tom Roberts napsal(a):

So this looks like confirming my understanding
and contradicting what Pail said ( to my amusement ),

i.e that the signal speed in a coax
is not determined by the dielectric refraction index.

[Lara Ashline]

Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:

> Dne 06/12/2017 v 14:40 Tom Roberts napsal(a):
>> On 12/6/17 12/6/17   12:30 AM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>>> Hmm, so if we hypothetically considered a coax with vacuum as
>>> dielectric, does that mean the voltage pulse travels at c ?
>>
>> No. In coax, the difference between vacuum and air dielectric is quite
>> small. The geometry (radii of the conductors) is much more important,
>> and affects the impedance as well as the signal speed.
>
> So this looks like confirming my understanding and contradicting what
> Pail said ( to my amusement ),
> i.e that the signal speed in a coax is not determined by the dielectric
> refraction index.

It has, or you already forgot what you pasted in here. You have to
quantify your delays, hence your capacitors. In your capacity.

[Paul B. Andersen]

(Air or vacuum is about the same)

Short answer: yes.

However, it would not be possible to make such a coax.
At least you must have connectors which by obvious
reasons must have a solid dielectric. And practical
coax cables must have some way to keep the centre conductor
in the centre.
You can buy coax cables with "Air Space Polyethylene" (ASP)
or "Air Space Teflon" (AST).
These use a helical plastic thread wound around the centre conductor
to keep the centre conductor in the centre, so the dielectric
is a mix of air and plastic.
These can have a VF up to 0.9c.

>
> What about frequencies where n < 1 ?
>

For extremely high frequencies (extreme UV, X-ray), n may less than 1.
This has to do with the resonance frequency of the molecule dipoles
in the dielectric.

This is way beyond the frequencies where a coax cable
is applicable, though.

c/n is the phase velocity, which can be > c.
The group velocity will be < c.

(In wave guides the phase velocity approaches infinite when
the frequency approaches the cut-off frequency from above,
while the group velocity approaches zero.)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 06/12/2017 v 21:39 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

> Den 06.12.2017 07.30, skrev Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
>> Dne 05/12/2017 v 22:04 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):


>>

>> Hmm, so if we hypothetically considered a coax
>> with vacuum as dielectric, does that mean
>> the voltage pulse travels at c ?
>
> (Air or vacuum is about the same)
>
> Short answer: yes.
>
> However, it would not be possible to make such a coax.
> At least you must have connectors which by obvious
> reasons must have a solid dielectric. And practical
> coax cables must have some way to keep the centre conductor
> in the centre.

I was not speaking about practical coaxes.

In such a vacuum coax thought experiment,
we can suppose the solid construction details
can be omitted wrt the segments with just vacuum.

>
>>
>> What about frequencies where n < 1 ?
>
> For extremely high frequencies (extreme UV, X-ray), n may less than 1.
> This has to do with the resonance frequency of the molecule dipoles
> in the dielectric.

AFAIK, resonance f of ionosphere and n<1 f region
is about the frequencies of used communication.

>
> This is way beyond the frequencies where a coax cable
> is applicable, though.
>
> c/n is the phase velocity, which can be > c.

Yes, I know.
But the pulse propagation is info propagation,
that cannot be > c.

> The group velocity will be < c.

So group velocity will be smaller than phase velocity
even for c/n < c...

>
> (In wave guides the phase velocity approaches infinite when
>  the frequency approaches the cut-off frequency from above,
>  while the group velocity approaches zero.)

Is signal propagation driven
by group velocity or phase velocity ?

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 06.12.2017 20.19, skrev Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 06/12/2017 v 14:40 Tom Roberts napsal(a):
>> On 12/6/17 12/6/17   12:30 AM, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
>>> Hmm, so if we hypothetically considered a coax
>>> with vacuum as dielectric, does that mean
>>> the voltage pulse travels at c ?
>>
>> No. In coax, the difference between vacuum and air dielectric is quite
>> small. The geometry (radii of the conductors) is much more important,
>> and affects the impedance as well as the signal speed.
>
> So this looks like confirming my understanding
> and contradicting what Pail said ( to my amusement ),
>
> i.e that the signal speed in a coax
> is not determined by the dielectric refraction index.
>
>

Well, I challenge you to find a reference where
the propagation speed (phase velocity) in a coax is
different from c/sqrt(\epsilon_r \mu_r) = c/n
where n is the dielectric refraction index.

http://www.radio-electronics.com/info/antennas/coax/coax_velocity_factor.php
http://tinyurl.com/ycrptusghttp://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=32496
http://chemandy.com/technical-articles/sitting-waves/standing-waves-article6.htm
https://www.picwire.com/technical/tech-papers/velocity-factor?/technical/velocity_factor.php
https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/rf-feeders-transmission-lines/coaxial-cable-velocity-factor.php
http://tinyurl.com/y92xbre8
... and a few thousands more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_cable

Compare for example RG-58/U and RG-59/U
Both have the same dielectric and the same VF = 0.66.
But the characteristic impedances are 50 ohm and 75 ohm
respectively.
And the geometries are different!

The characteristic impedance depend on the geometry,
the propagation speed does not!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

Information and energy move with the group velocity (GV).
A single pulse is a bit information and move with GV.
And a modulated signal move with GV even if
the phase velocity of the carrier is different.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Lara Ashline]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>> Is signal propagation driven
>> by group velocity or phase velocity ?
>
> Information and energy move with the group velocity (GV).
> A single pulse is a bit information and move with GV.
> And a modulated signal move with GV even if
> the phase velocity of the carrier is different.

It can't be like that. There is no info transfer in either of them. Nor
proper energy. Those arrive from source to the destination still at c. You
have no phase velocity before more of the transmitted modulated waves
arrive at a certain point or a destination.

[Sylvia Else]

<http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~lecturedemonstrations/Composer/Pages/76.18.html>

[Sylvia Else]

On 29/11/2017 3:31 AM, dsep...@austin.rr.com wrote:
> Contradictory electric circuit problem

I note that Seppala has disappeared again without further comment.

Presumably he's busy concocting is next misconceived contradiction proof.

Sylvia.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 06/12/2017 v 22:57 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

I do not object your reasoning about the phase speed.

But there are possibly discussed 2 different things here,
and AFAIK Sylvia was not clear what exactly she was measuring.

1/ Signal phase speed, that has no c limit, as carries no information.

2/ Information propagation speed,
e.g. the speed of a sent pulse or other signal
to be detected, that has c limit.

E.g. in though experiment with a big enough no-dielectric coax,
to neglect matter quantization effects
( You say geometry does not affect the speed )
placed in ionosphere with used frequency near the resonance one,
with n < 1,

the phase speed is > c , while the info speed is not.

So n cannot be the only factor affecting
the info propagation speed along a coax,
but probably the group speed as well.

BTW, according wikipedia, even the group speed
can be higher than c at some special scenarios.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c

( I admit I am not a signal theory expert,
so I know about the group speed
about what is written in its wikipedia article.)

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 06/12/2017 v 23:06 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

This is about what I think about the topic.

But, what about this ?

"Group velocities above c

The group velocity of a wave (e.g., a light beam) may also exceed c in
some circumstances.[14][15] In such cases, which typically at the same
time involve rapid attenuation of the intensity, the maximum of the
envelope of a pulse may travel with a velocity above c. However, even
this situation does not imply the propagation of signals with a velocity
above c,[16] even though one may be tempted to associate pulse maxima
with signals. The latter association has been shown to be misleading,
because the information on the arrival of a pulse can be obtained before
the pulse maximum arrives. For example, if some mechanism allows the
full transmission of the leading part of a pulse while strongly
attenuating the pulse maximum and everything behind (distortion), the
pulse maximum is effectively shifted forward in time, while the
information on the pulse does not come faster than c without this
effect.[17] However, group velocity can exceed c in some parts of a
Gaussian beam in vacuum (without attenuation). The diffraction causes
that the peak of pulse propagates faster, while overall power does not.[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 07/12/2017 v 08:19 Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž napsal(a):

>
> But there are possibly discussed 2 different things here,
> and AFAIK Sylvia was not clear what exactly she was measuring.

I mean,did she measure the phase or group speed ?

Do these 2 differ significantly in value for real coaxes ?

I have to review the link she posted in the other post,
and your links too. Thanks for them.

[Paul B. Andersen]

A coax is only applicable for frequencies where
the TEM mode is the only possible mode, that is
below the cut-off frequencies of higher order TM
and TE modes. For these frequencies the n and thus
the phase velocity v_p are pretty constant, and
the group velocity v_g = v_p.
(If they weren't equal, the coax would be dispersive
and unusable.)

If you write the phase(t,x) = (wt - kx)
then v_p = w/k and v_g = dw/dk
If w = v_p.k is linear, that is v_p constant with respect to k,
then v_g = dw/dk = w/k = v_p

So when we are talking about coax cables, 'propagation speed',
'phase velocity', 'group velocity' and 'signal speed' are all
the same speed, and this speed depends only on the refraction
index of the dielectric, and is independent of the geometry
(the ratio D/d).

So yes, you did object to my reasoning about the phase speed
in a coax, and yes, this was the speed Sylvia measured.

>
> 1/ Signal phase speed, that has no c limit, as carries no information.
>
> 2/ Information propagation speed,
> e.g. the speed of a sent pulse or other signal
> to be detected, that has c limit.

Sure.
But this is irrelevant for our discussion about
the propagation speed in coax cables.

>
> E.g. in though experiment with a big enough no-dielectric coax,
> to neglect matter quantization effects
> ( You say geometry does not affect the speed )
> placed in ionosphere with used frequency near the resonance one,
> with n < 1,
>
> the phase speed is > c , while the info speed is not

A coax with filled with a plasma?
This doesn't make much sense to me, and I
won't bother to speculate how it would behave.

The ionosphere is a very complicated medium.
It is a plasma in a magnetic field. It is
highly dispersive and anisotropic.
So much so that a short pulse may be stretched
out to a long sinus wave with changing frequencies
which follows the magnetic field of the Earth.
"Whistler waves".
https://soundcloud.com/nasa/whistler-waves2

For GPS signals the most prominent effect of
the ionosphere is a delay (caused by v_g < c).
Fortunately, the ionosphere isn't so thick that
the dispersion will spoil the signal.

>
> So n cannot be the only factor affecting
> the info propagation speed along a coax,
> but probably the group speed as well.

Yes, n is the only factor affecting the info propagation
speed along a properly designed coax for the frequencies
below the cut-off frequency of higher order modes.

(Properly designed means that the n of the dielectric
must be constant for the frequencies mentioned above.)

>
> BTW, according wikipedia, even the group speed
> can be higher than c at some special scenarios.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c

Quite.
But a pulse is so strongly attenuated and
the dispersion is probably very high, so it
can't be used for information transmission.

>
> ( I admit I am not a signal theory expert,
> so I know about the group speed
> about what is written in its wikipedia article.)
>


--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

[John Heath]

There is a way for information to travel faster than light in a cable if the photons are pumped into the cable at mid point between Alice and Bob and these photons are entangled. Alice can send Bob , 1 light year away , a message instantaneously simply by collapsing her the entangled photons or not. This will instantaneously effect Bob's information with regards the the to his photons. There is one fly in the soup. Bob can not read the message as it is in a cryptic code. The only one that has the decoding key is Alice which is the vary information she sent to begin with. It is all very confusing. Bob has the information faster than light but he can not read the information until he has Alice's decoding key. You can have the information faster than light but you can not read the information faster than light.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/7/17 8:59 AM, John Heath wrote:
> There is a way for information to travel faster than light in a cable if the
> photons are pumped into the cable at mid point between Alice and Bob and
> these photons are entangled. Alice can send Bob , 1 light year away , a
> message instantaneously simply by collapsing her the entangled photons or
> not.

This does not send information from Alice to Bob. Entanglement is more
complicated than you think, and cannot transmit information faster than c.

Tom Roberts

[Lara Ashline]

John Heath wrote:

>> https://paulba.no/
>
> There is a way for information to travel faster than light in a cable if
> the photons are pumped into the cable at mid point between Alice and Bob

No, it can't. Photons has nothing to do with metal cables, you need
optics. Does not matter, Support 2/4/8/16GB/32GB Micro SD/TF card
(Memories are not included)

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 07/12/2017 v 12:24 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

>>
>> BTW, according wikipedia, even the group speed
>> can be higher than c at some special scenarios.
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c
>
> Quite.
> But a pulse is so strongly attenuated and
> the dispersion is probably very high, so it
> can't be used for information transmission.

"... However, group velocity can exceed c in some parts of a

Gaussian beam in vacuum (without attenuation). The diffraction causes
that the peak of pulse propagates faster, while overall power does not.[18]"

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 07.12.2017 21.44, skrev Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž:
> Dne 07/12/2017 v 12:24 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):
>
>>>
>>> BTW, according wikipedia, even the group speed
>>> can be higher than c at some special scenarios.
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light#Group_velocities_above_c
>>
>> Quite.
>> But a pulse is so strongly attenuated and
>> the dispersion is probably very high, so it
>> can't be used for information transmission.
>
> "... However, group velocity can exceed c in some parts of a
> Gaussian beam in vacuum (without attenuation). The diffraction causes
> that the peak of pulse propagates faster, while overall power does not.[18]"

http://www.ilp.physik.uni-essen.de/vonderLinde/Publikationen/APB96_gouy.pdf
"... Our results do not violate the
theory of special relativity because the group velocity is
the velocity of the peak of the pulse and an intensity
maximum could move faster than c; it does not carry
information."


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[John Heath]

If Bob's and Alice's data is correlated it can be seen that Alice has effected Bob's data as there is less correlation when Alice does not collapses the entangled state. From this Alice did send Bob information faster than light as it can be seen when comparing Alice and Bob's data. The only problem is Bob can not decode the information without Alice's decoding key which ironically is the information Alice sent to Bob. This is classic Quantum Mechanics problem of Bell's inequality.

[John Heath]

A photon is a photon is a photon. It does not care if it is in a vacuum , fibre cable or a copper cable.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 07/12/2017 v 22:12 Paul B. Andersen napsal(a):

I have not said a word about SR violation.

It was just a hint that information usually,
but not always propagate at group velocity,
whatever minor is the exception significance for practical cases.

[Sylvia Else]

Since the measurement events of Bob and Alice have to be space-like
separated if there's to be any possibility of faster than light
information transfer, it follows that the order of those events is frame
dependent.

So there's no way of saying whether Alice sent information to Bob, or
Bob sent information to Alice. That's a good indication that it makes
little sense to talk about the transfer of information in this situation.

Eventually, after a speed-of-light transfer of information, the
correlation can be recognised. That's all we know about what's happening.

Sylvia.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> c/n is the phase velocity, which can be > c.
> The group velocity will be < c.
>
> (In wave guides the phase velocity approaches infinite when
> the frequency approaches the cut-off frequency from above,
> while the group velocity approaches zero.)

But in <p0cas7$gr9$1...@news.albasani.net>, you quoted:

| "... Our results do not violate the
| theory of special relativity because the group velocity is
| the velocity of the peak of the pulse and an intensity
| maximum could move faster than c; it does not carry
| information."

Did you confuse the terms in *this* subthread?


PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist post on the laboratory door
when he went camping?
A: 'Gone fission'.
(from: WolframAlpha)

[Dono,]

Meh, good riddance

[John Heath]

Something tells me I am going to regret this but you are cool so I will go there. Understanding and putting it into words are not the same. If what I say is not making sense then it is me not you that is the problem. A little googling on your part to hear it from someone else will help.

The direction of information depends on who is closest to the source of entangled photons. Alice and Bob are 1 light year apart. The entangled photons source is in the middle. If I move Alice 1 foot closer to the middle then only Alice can send information to Bob. The reason for this is the properties of the 2 entangled photons is undecided in transit. It is only when an entangled photon is disturbed or measured that the photon goes from undecided properties to a real photon with decided properties. This action is called collapse of entanglement. Once collapsed it can not be reversed. At this point the 2 entangled photons are now just regular photons with fixed properties. I know this is a bit much but there is one more detail. Once the entangle state has collapsed the now fixed properties of the 2 photons will be the opposite of each other. If one is polarized X then the other will be polarized Y . This is important to remember. Also that these properties of the 2 photons that is imposed on them by collapsing the entanglement happens instantaneously even if separated by 1 light year in this case.

If you think this is the biggest line of cow poop you have ever heard you would be in good company. Einstein called spooky action. I used to buy it but after seeing how difficult a real Bell test is to do with noise vs data I am leaning towards cow poop for my 2 cents. Onward.

While this is going on a Dr Bell writes a paper on the finer details of this odd business of spooky action at a distance. It had to do with how to tell if it was 2 photons that happen to have the opposite properties or is all this cow poop about entanglement really true? He worked out a way to tell by mixing noise with data. If photon A is the opposite of photon B then 2 polarized sheets set to 0 and 90 degrees have a high correlation. this does not tell us if it is entangled or not as it is classical probabilities of 50 / 50 like flipping a coin. However if you set one polarized to 0 degrees then the other say 30 degrees then classical and entangled correlations part company , Bell's inequality.

With this in mind the correlation between Alice and Bob will go from classical to to Bell's inequality depending on the polarizing sheets being 0 or 30 degrees. The valid point that both yourself and Tom made did not escape my attention. Alice and Bob have agreed ahead of time that Bob's polarity will always be 0 degrees and that Alice will be closer to the source of photons than Bob to set the direction of information. They would do this as their goal is to take best advantage of entanglement to communicate faster than light and prove that they did even if the information can not be decoded until they get together over coffee.

With all this in place and i realize it is a lot Alice can now send Bob a message by flipping her polarization sheet from 0 to 30 degrees sending bob Moris code faster than light. The proof that the information dot there fast than light is in the Alice / Bob data correlation going from classical to non classical probabilities. Bob got the message as it is in his data unfortunately he can not decode the message until he has Alice's data.

This took longer than I thought. Sorry about that. entanglement is not an easy subject to put into words so if it does not make sense it is me not you. Google up a few articles / videos and it will start to fall into place.



Once the ; statew tlmal x

[Sylvia Else]

The entangled photons can be stored by each of Alice and Bob for
arbitrary long periods after they arrive, and Alice and Bob can both
accelerate thereafter in arbitrary directions, before performing any
measurements. Where the source originally was in each original frame can
hardly be expected to have any significance.

> Alice and Bob are 1 light year apart. The
> entangled photons source is in the middle.

Even this is only meaningful if Alice and Bob and the source are at rest
relative to each other. Otherwise "in the middle" is not well defined.

Sylvia.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Den 08.12.2017 01.41, skrev Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> c/n is the phase velocity, which can be > c.
>> The group velocity will be < c.
>>
>> (In wave guides the phase velocity approaches infinite when
>> the frequency approaches the cut-off frequency from above,
>> while the group velocity approaches zero.)

Under "normal" conditions, that is conditions which
are always fulfilled in practical signal transmission,
information and energy are moving with the group velocity,
and the group velocity is always <= c.

This is a fundamental principle in signal transmission theory.

>
> But in <p0cas7$gr9$1...@news.albasani.net>, you quoted:

You didn't read the article I quoted from, did you?

> http://www.ilp.physik.uni-essen.de/vonderLinde/Publikationen/APB96_gouy.pdf > | "... Our results do not violate the

> | theory of special relativity because the group velocity is
> | the velocity of the peak of the pulse and an intensity
> | maximum could move faster than c; it does not carry
> | information."

As shown in the quoted statement above, the authors of
the article claim to have shown that under _very special
conditions_ the group velocity can be > c, but then it
isn't absolutely true that information is transferred
with the group velocity.

But these conditions are so special that they have
no consequences for _practical_ signal transmission.

For all practical purposes, information can still
be considered to move with the group velocity.

>
> Did you confuse the terms in *this* subthread? >
>
> PointedEars
>


--

Paul

https://paulba.no/

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Sylvia Else wrote

The entangled photons can be stored by each of Alice and Bob for arbitrary long periods after they arrive,

Mysticism..... created by trying to utilize an Erroneous architecture of Space Time

https://photos.app.goo.gl/KRhH0NPZGgNhiBSM2
3.71295774e-28 meters

[John Heath]

In the middle not well defined , Hmmm.

I have a 12 inch ruler. What would the middle of a 12 inch ruler be? Let us consider the possibilities. Would it be 5 inches ? Maybe 7 inches ? I am going to throw this out there as a wild guess that the middle of a 12 inch ruler is 6 inches.

How could you respond to a 6 paragraph post in 5 minutes. Out of respect alone you should at lease wait an hour to show some respect. No you could not wait as you want to know what the middle of a 12 inch ruler is. I am going to bed.

[Lara Ashline]

Metals are opaque to photons, my old friend I love you so much.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/8/17 12/8/17 2:53 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Under "normal" conditions, that is conditions which
> are always fulfilled in practical signal transmission,
> information and energy are moving with the group velocity,
> and the group velocity is always <= c.
>
> This is a fundamental principle in signal transmission theory.

While many elementary books claim this, it is not correct. There is a third
velocity associated with propagation in an optical medium, called the front
velocity. This is the speed of the front of a wave, and is the velocity of
modulation and signals.

In a material with anomalous dispersion, in which higher-frequency wave
components travel faster than lower-frequency components, group velocity > c and
phase velocity < c. But front velocity is strictly < c. No material made of
ordinary matter has such dispersion, but it is possible to create meta-materials
that do (over a limited rage of frequencies).

There is a marvelous little applet that demonstrates this (Java required):
http://www.gregegan.net/APPLETS/20/20.html

Tom Roberts

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Friday, 8 December 2017 00:36:53 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:

> So there's no way of saying whether Alice sent information to Bob, or
> Bob sent information to Alice.

And it's impossible for heavier-than-air machines
to fly.

[Sylvia Else]

The middle of a 12 inch ruler is well defined because the ruler itself
defines a unique reference frame.

If you don't have a unique reference frame then it's not so easy.

Sylvia.

[John Heath]

In a lab you do not assume ideal conditions, In a thought experiment you do assume idea conditions. Why are you knit picking over the conditions if it is just a thought experiment. Alice and Bob are equal distance from the center. Move Alice 1 foot closer to the center. Now Alice is closer to the center than Bob. How did you manage to misinterpret this ?

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Saturday, 9 December 2017 01:17:26 UTC+1, Sylvia Else wrote:


> The middle of a 12 inch ruler is well defined because the ruler itself
> defines a unique reference frame.

In Your dreams.

[John Heath]

Light is made of photons yes / no? I will assume you agree. Let us lower the frequency 1 octave from 200 THz to 100 THz. This is called IR radiation. IR is the light that comes out of your remote control to change channels. I have changed the name from light to IR radiation but it is still photons. If we continue to lower the frequency octave by octave and the name will change again from IR radiation to RF radiation. It is still photons. The only thing that is changing is the name we give it for different frequencies. A list of different names for a photon

Radio 10^6 Hz , microwave 10^10Hz , infrared 10^13 Hz , red green blue 10^15 , ultra violet 10^16 Hz , xray 10^18 Hz , gamma 10^21 Hz.

[Lara Ashline]

John Heath wrote:

>> Metals are opaque to photons, my old friend I love you so much.
>
> Light is made of photons yes / no? I will assume you agree. Let us lower
> the frequency 1 octave from 200 THz to 100 THz. This is called IR
> radiation. IR is the light that comes out of your remote control to
> change

Those guys goes through Air, not Metal. Please adjust this minor thing
along your calculations.

[John Heath]

If you put your hand up you can stop light , photons. Your hand will not stop xrays , photons , which is why a hospital will xray your hand to see what is inside. As frequency of a photon goes up it's size goes down. Big photons do not act the same as small photons. It's as simple as that.

[Lara Ashline]

I'll guess all photons are the same, what's different is their
frequencies. However, if your wavelength is so small, going through the
metal, then you need no cable, as they will leak out anyway. In HF a sharp
corner will degrade you signal substantially. Please avoid sharp corners
in your HF circuitry from now on.

[Sylvia Else]

You are seeking to argue that information is transferred, even though
the content cannot be identified until later.

To address my objections relating to the order of events where
space-like separated measurements are involved, you have identified a
special case, and sought to argue that the order of events is defined
even though they are space-like separated.

Even if your special case worked, which I don't concede, it would have
nothing to say about the general case of space-like separated
measurements where the order of measurements is undefined.

It would be odd indeed if information, albeit undisclosed, were
transmitted in your special case, but not in the general case.

Tightly constrained thought experiments can be useful in some
situations, but in this one it's just leading you into error.

Sylvia.

[John Heath]

A little psychology. Who stuck it in your head that you are not good at physics? Go look in the mirror and tell yourself that you are good at physics. "leading you into error" is the best thing you said and a step in the right direction.

You are going to send me a message . The message is " flowers are red ". You are recording photon hit while rotating your polarizing sheet from 0 to 30 degrees to send the message. I record photon hits 1 light year away with a fixed polarizing sheet. There is nothing in my recorded data that says " Flowers are red". There is nothing in your recorded data that says " flowers are red". We get together 6 months later to compare notes by doing a correlation test between your data and my data. If you feel a need to ask how I synchronized the data go back to the mirror , you know the drill. The how will fall into your lap. While comparing data there is a 50 percent correlation. This means no correlation , noise , total rubbish. A little later the correlation jumps to 55 percent but falls back to 50 later. The 55 percent correlation is you sending a message and that message will say " flowers are red ". You must have sent me the message instantaneously one light year away as you need my data to decode "flowers are red " in your data. Thus you can have information faster than light but you can not decode information into meaning faster than light.

[Sylvia Else]

So you're just going to ignore the problem of not being able to say in
which direction the information was transmitted?

The math and experiment say that the measurement results are correlated.
They say nothing about how the universe achieves this, and to talk of
information being transmitted is to go beyond the evidence.

Sylvia.

[John Heath]

The direction of information was made crystal clear. The one that is closes to the entangled photons therefore the one that is collapsing the entangled state of the photons is the one that is sending information.

Beyond the evidence would be my opinion , cow poop , or as Einstein put it spooky action at a distance. My opinion is not relevant. I am just presenting how entanglement can theoretically send information faster than light without bias. You can not have an opinion on a subject until that subject is first understood.

[Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž]

Dne 10/12/2017 v 10:45 John Heath napsal(a):
>
> [...] You can not have an opinion on a subject until that subject is first understood.
>

Many people have their opinion about a subject based on misunderstanding,
specifically about physics.

And even if you are aware of your not understanding,
you can still have an opinion based on your believes about the subject.

People have various opinions
about behaviour of the fireball ( "spherical lightning" ),
without anybody understanding it yet.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

On Sunday, 10 December 2017 11:14:10 UTC+1, Libor 'Poutnik' Stříž wrote:
> Dne 10/12/2017 v 10:45 John Heath napsal(a):
> >
> > [...] You can not have an opinion on a subject until that subject is first understood.
> >
>
> Many people have their opinion about a subject based on misunderstanding,
> specifically about physics.

They can even believe Great Guru.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/10/17 12/10/17 3:45 AM, John Heath wrote:
> The one that is closes
> to the entangled photons therefore the one that is collapsing the entangled
> state of the photons is the one that is sending information.

You do not understand what "information" means. Entangled photons simply cannot
transfer information from one detector to the other. It is only AFTER BOTH
DETECTIONS AND TRANSFER OF RESULTS TO A COMMON LOCATION that the correlation
between the detection results can be observed. That is information, but it
travels <= c from the two detectors to the common location.

The "near" observer may want to send a message to the "far" observer, but is
completely unable to do so, for the simple reason that the "near" detector makes
a RANDOM measurement of the photon from the source, and HAS NO WAY TO AFFECT
THAT RESULT. There is no way to affect either measurement -- "near" gets a
random result, and "far" gets a random result; only after the results are
communicated (<= c) to a common location is it possible to determine that those
RANDOM results are correlated. NEITHER observer influenced those results in any
way, and consequently could not have imposed any information on them.

> I am just presenting
> how entanglement can theoretically send information faster than light without
> bias.

No. You are presenting your MISUNDERSTANDING of quantum entanglement and its
relation to information transfer. Your claims are just plain wrong.

> You can not have an opinion on a subject until that subject is first
> understood.

You need to follow your own dictum. First understand this, then formulate an
opinion -- you did it backwards, as it is QUITE CLEAR that you do NOT understand
either quantum entanglement or what information transfer actually means.

Tom Roberts

[John Heath]

You are splitting hairs again. I send you a file in a cryptic format that requires a copy of my file for correlation to decode. You are saying you did not receive information. There is no file in the universe that will say "flowers are red when compared to my file. Only your file and uniquely your file when compared to my file will say "flowers are red". If you have the only file in entire universe that says "flowers are red" then chances are you received the information "flowers are red".

[John Heath]

I can see a tiny crack for a counter argument. I would like to close that crack.
You received the encryption code information for the "flowers are red" not the literal information"flowers are red". Information can not have different laws of physics depending on encryption information or literal "flowers are red information. The real point is information was gained faster than light be it decoding keys or flowers are red. Check mate and it is considered good form to admit check mate not kick over the chess board with I don't understand this and I don't understand that. It is you that does not understand. It is either toss Einstein in the trash bin or call entanglement cow poop. Do not hide behind encryption information being different from flowers are red information as the content of the information can not effect the laws of physics for the transfer of that information.

[Sylvia Else]

However, generally speaking, you can construct a different file that,
when used with the file Tom received, will yield the message "apples are
blue", so the file Tom received does not contain a specific message. The
message consists of the combination of the two files.

Sylvia.

[John Heath]

No message can be sent as the message received is just noise on it's own. It is only when the senders information is combined with the receiver information that "apples are blue " comes out.

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/10/17 12/10/17 3:27 PM, John Heath wrote:
> On Sunday, December 10, 2017 at 9:52:55 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
>> Entangled photons simply cannot
>> transfer information from one detector to the other.
>

> You are splitting hairs again.

Nope. When the "near" observer CANNOT AFFECT THE RESULT OF HER OWN MEASUREMENT,
it ought to be BLATANTLY OBVIOUS there is no possible way she can send any sort
of information to the other detector via a pair of entangled photons.

> [... clueless blathering about encryption...]

A plaintext message transfers information; an encrypted message does not, unless
the receiver knows how to decrypt it. THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF ENCRYPTION.

[I ignore the single bit of information "A message was sent",
and the bits that can be encoded in its length.]

You REALLY need to learn what the words you use ACTUALLY mean. You are clueless
about what "information" means. And about what "entanglement" means and how it
behaves.

Tom Roberts

[Sylvia Else]

Yes, so the decision about what message is being sent can be made after
the supposedly encrypted message is sent to Tom. You say that message is
just noise on its own. I'd say that the caveat "on its own" is
redundant. The "message" is just noise, pure and simple.

Sylvia.

[John Heath]

Information has nothing to do with the usefulness of that information. It is just a pattern in data period. Physics is not a religion. What in your wildest imagination made you think the laws of physics would change depending on the human subjective opinion of said information.

If entanglement is true then you can theoretically send information faster than light by Bell's inequality as you can change correlation that will be realized in the receiver data instantaneously. The receiver now has the encryption key. It would not lead to flowers are red but he has received the information , encryption code , to decode that at a later date. In short information has nothing to do with what said information is only that it is information.

Can not have an interesting conversation on the finer details of a bell test because I have to stop and explain the fundamentals that you should already know.

[John Heath]

If noise A and noise B equals more noise I would agree. However in this case noise A plus noise B equals "apples are blue". Possibly data would be a better word than noise yes / no ?

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

John Heath

Information has nothing to do with the usefulness of that information. It is just a pattern in data period. Physics is not a religion. What in your wildest imagination made you think the laws of physics would change depending on the human subjective opinion of said information.

If entanglement is true then you can theoretically send information faster than light by Bell's inequality

Utterly nonsensical.
c is the speed of Causality.
Nothing is there to transmit the information.
Total Brain Fart Magic

[Tom Roberts]

On 12/10/17 12/10/17 10:47 PM, John Heath wrote:
> Information has nothing to do with the usefulness of that information.

True. But it must _BE_ information. For information to have been transmitted,
the receiver must know something it did not know before the transmission.

Receiving an encrypted message without knowing the decryption
key does NOT meet the definition of information transfer; but
if the receiver knows the key then it does. (Ignoring the
trivial information contained in its length.)

> What in your
> wildest imagination made you think the laws of physics would change depending
> on the human subjective opinion of said information.

You are fantasizing, and projecting your personal guesses onto me. I never said
or implied anything like that at all. Since you clearly do not know what
"information" means, your guesses are completely and utterly wrong.

> If entanglement is true then you can theoretically send information faster
> than light by Bell's inequality

This is just plain not true for the scenario being discussed [#]: generate an
entangled pair, send them to two detectors, one near and one far, and use the
entanglement to somehow send information from the near detector to the far
detector. That CANNOT HAPPEN, because in order to actually send information, the
near observer would have to AFFECT what the near detector's result is -- the
information to be transmitted must somehow be impressed onto the entangled pair
(really a series of them). But there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to do that -- the near
detector will give a result that depends only on the particles, not on ANYTHING
the near observer can do (without destroying the entanglement).

I have a radio receiver tuned to some station; you also have
a receiver tuned to the same station. How can we possibly use
this to send information between us????? To do that, one of
us needs a transmitter -- two receivers simply cannot do it.
This holds for a transmitter sending us entangled particles,
because ALL WE HAVE ARE RECEIVERS. We each can only detect
what the transmitter sent, and entanglement does not change
this obvious fact.

You REALLY need to learn about the subject before attempting to write about it.
Your GUESSES are wrong.

[#] Indeed for any scenario, entanglement cannot be used
to send information other than along the trajectories of the
particles.

Tom Roberts

[John Heath]

You hand me a blank piece of paper. In a general human sense you have not given me information. You have a point. In physics you can not apply human subjective judgements on what is or is not information as nature herself has no understanding of how to make a distinction between information period vs what those bags of mostly water on earth think is information. How would nature know or care what we think? Maybe data is a better word. A data file that is all zeros does not have a lot of information. As far as the computer is concerned all zeros is valid information treated the same as any file.

Anyways I have some cool physics and the good news for you is it will not be coming from myself. I remember seeing an old video on entanglement that was unique. Unique as they could give a rats ass about Qm . There only goal was proof of locality. Any possible loophole that could screw up was eliminated one by one and described in detail. I manage to dig this video up. Perhaps this debate will proceed faster with this video as a reference.

I present Miss Marissa Giustina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUwCVx8ve7g

[John Heath]

oops that one is guitars

Miss Marissa Giustina

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgoWM4Jcl-s

[Sylvia Else]

On 11/12/2017 8:15 PM, John Heath wrote:

> Anyways I have some cool physics and the good news for you is it will
> not be coming from myself. I remember seeing an old video on
> entanglement that was unique. Unique as they could give a rats ass
> about Qm . There only goal was proof of locality. Any possible
> loophole that could screw up was eliminated one by one and described
> in detail. I manage to dig this video up. Perhaps this debate will
> proceed faster with this video as a reference.

That the universe is non-local (or non-definite) is not in dispute. But
that does not represent a proof of transfer of information faster than
light, no matter how you define information.

Sylvia.