Empirically Confirmed Superluminal Velocities?

EL

(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

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Superluminal science lab kit that falsifies Einstein's speed limit, auctioned at eBay, starting at $10.00................................................................................................................	Mathew Orman	Physics - General Discussion	30	October 24th 03 07:20 AM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction	SDR	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 17th 03 11:35 PM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction	SDR	Physics - General Discussion	4	July 13th 03 03:40 AM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction	SDR	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 13th 03 12:29 AM
NO Dark Matter: Another Confirmed SD Rodrian prediction	SDR	Physics - General Discussion	0	July 12th 03 11:06 PM