FTL signaling via frustrated total internal reflection

[Jay-qu]

There is much to speculate about, imagine this experiment gets verified and reproduced, a few years down the track there are going to be loads of phenomenon of this instantaneous teleportation and probably still no explanation for it

every scholar I ask about this at uni is still skeptic and thinks either something has been lost in translation or just plane faked..

I want it to be true, I really do, things would be so much more interesting that way - and my hope of travelling to the other end of the galaxy has re-newed hope

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

There is much to speculate about, imagine this experiment [Nimtz and Stahlhofen “breaking the speed of light” experiment] gets verified and reproduced, a few years down the track there are going to be loads of phenomenon of this instantaneous teleportation and probably still no explanation for it

every scholar I ask about this at uni is still skeptic and thinks either something has been lost in translation or just plane faked..

As we discussed in the news thread “We have broken the speed of light”, Nimtz and Stahlhofen’s experiment, while not yet widely (or, to my knowledge, at all) independently reproduced, isn’t inexplicable in conventional quantum physical terms. People are wise, I think, to take it skeptically until and if it is verified, but I’ve no strong doubt that it will not be.

The effect is not instantaneous – it only removes some, not all of the travel distance and time of a light signal from its trip. While currently a minute fraction of the total signal travel time measured in the experiment, it should be possible in principle to make the ratio of normal to “tunneled” distance smaller, possible enough to produce an effective signal speed of several times the speed of light in vacuum (c) – though, for reasons I’ll speculate on shortly, only over short distances.

Originally Posted by Jay-qu

I want it to be true, I really do, things would be so much more interesting that way - and my hope of travelling to the other end of the galaxy has re-newed hope

I don’t hold much hope that N & S’s technique can be used for space travel or communication.

First, it’s a signaling, not a transportation, phenomenon. Though in principle it should be possible to perform a variation of the experiment with particles other than photons, such as electrons or much more massive protons, increasing their effective speed (which cannot reach, though may be a large fraction of, c) to greater than c, the probabilistic (most of the particles don’t tunnel) nature of the phenomena appears to me to practically rule out the possibility of transporting a large ensemble of particles, such as a human being or a spacecraft, via the phenomena. To be used for space travel, such a system would have to be of the “take me apart to get me there” kind, which is thought by many to be anywhere from impossible to very evil (As Douglas Adams has his characters sing in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide books “If you’ve got to take me apart to get there / I don’t wanna go” ) Accelerating many massive particles to a high enough speed that the phenomena could “multiply” it to greater than c would entail the same terribly propulsion and energy requirements involved in making rockets capable of such speeds.

Another problem relates to signal gain – how much energy must be transmitted for a given amount of energy to be received. Though I neither have made nor am technically capable of a detailed calculation, the probability of a particle quantum tunneling some distance resembles a normal distribution, being large for very short distances and infinitesimally small as the distance becomes great. Refraction and reflection also affect the probabilities, in ways beyond my understanding. In short, the greater the distance tunneled with N & S’s or any other experiment, the lower the ratio of particles in to tunneling particles out. Using, as N & S did, powerful microwave emitters and sensitive detectors over table-top distances, this isn’t a severe issue. For “Tunnel-beaming” a signal interplanetary distances, it would be. I suspect that, as with many similar techniques, this one is a case of “work in principle, but requires the energy equivalent of whole galaxies of mass to transmit/transport modest signals/payloads”, similar to the Alcubierre drive (though distinct from it in having, apperantly, been demonstrated on a very small scale).

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Refraction and reflection also affect the probabilities, in ways beyond my understanding.

This statement is curious, Craig. What leads you to believe that refraction and reflection also affect the probabilities in the FTL scenario?

[alexander]

so Jay, any comments on my code, am i correct in my "what if" thinking or is it totally off?

[Jay-qu]

Yeah I would say your correct insofar that the concept of velocity may need to be redefined. And it will probably be in some quantum-obscure way as to save relativity from needed change. Though as Craig pointed out, its not instant teleportation, just really really fast

[LaurieAG]

The experiment was originally published in 2004 and, while the diagram is the same as the one published in the New Scientist article, the wavelength of the microwave used is 33mm, roughly 1 1/3 inches.

You could use a constant 'moving' wave to identify the best entry angles (i.e. try many different angles) where strong signals are detected in both detectors and fine tune the start point of a 1 cycle 'moving' wave so that the majority of the wave goes across the gap to the second detector while the very last tip of the moving wave hits the back edge of the first prism almost tangentially. Because of the extreme angle of approach, this could be one of the few cases where the tip can rebound around inside the corner edges of the first prism before hitting the first detector.

The repeat rebounds, slowly moving towards their exit angle, would appear just like a 'tunneling' phenomena if it is viewed in respect to the points rebounding on the prisms back surface alone, in isolation from the rebounds ocurring in the rest of the prism. It must be a moving microwave so that both detectors can be triggered at the same instant from one complete moving cycle = 1 Microwave photon Equivalent, as reported in the New Scientist article.

Alternatively, if a continuous moving microwave is used the consolidated strength of microwave Photons hitting the first and second detectors over time should be in direct proportion to their respective frequency of occurrence at the angle being tested. I doubt if the frequency of detected microwaves are equal for both detectors.

A diagram of the original experiment, with correct wave paths would be nice.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by freeztar

This statement is curious, Craig. What leads you to believe that refraction and reflection also affect the probabilities in the FTL scenario?

A couple of reasons lead me to this conclusion.

First, fundamental, informal quantum mechanical optics. When particles interact, their wave functions are modified. Obviously, the probability of detecting a photon in a particular region at a particular time is altered dramatically if a mirror or a lens is placed between its emitter and that region, resulting in interactions between the photon and the reflecting/refracting media.

Second, this arrangement seems critical to the effect N & S are purportedly demonstrating. Without the reflective prisms in the arrangement, the early-arriving photons aren’t detected.

With my informal-at-best understanding of the physics of the experiment, a lot about it is mysterious to me. For example, why is it necessary to have the prisms at all? Why don’t emitted photons tunnel in media with no difference in refractive indexes, resulting in a regular, low-probability “fringe” of faster-than-light detections in practically every experiment involving precise photon travel time measuring experiments.

Like so much of quantum mechanics, the experiment has a weird character to it, reminiscent of the ”sawing a lady in half” stage magic trick. There’s an implication that the experiment somehow “remembers” when the two prisms were placed together to form an optically clear solid, though I’m pretty sure this is an misperception, and the experiment yields the same results whether the prisms were once together, or were always separated. Something about the phase of the light wave and the prisms’ higher-refractive index media – meaning, in particle physics terms, the greater number of virtual interactions between photons and the media’s atom’s electrons – seems critical to the photon “ignoring” the distance between the two prisms.

I’d love to have a better, more formal understanding of the physics involved.

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

The experiment was originally published in 2004 and, while the diagram is the same as the one published in the New Scientist article, the wavelength of the microwave used is 33mm, roughly 1 1/3 inches.

Got any links, Laurie, or even handmade sketches?

Originally Posted by LaurieAG

A diagram of the original experiment, with correct wave paths would be nice.

It surely would be!

I posted a simple, guesswork sketch here, but it’s simple, scaleless, and … guesswork.

PS: if there are no objections, I’ll move discussion of N & S’s experiment to its own thread, linked to from this and other threads that reference it. It’s a bit off the topic of this thread, which was more along the lines of the question of whether massive macroscopic stuff can travel faster than c

[Qfwfq]

Originally Posted by CraigD

It’s a bit off the topic of this thread, which was more along the lines of the question of whether massive macroscopic stuff can travel faster than c

Actually, this thread has touched upon just about any manner in which the title could possibly be construed, Cherenkov, Bell... you name it!

[Jay-qu]

Originally Posted by CraigD

PS: if there are no objections, I’ll move discussion of N & S’s experiment to its own thread, linked to from this and other threads that reference it. It’s a bit off the topic of this thread, which was more along the lines of the question of whether massive macroscopic stuff can travel faster than c

I was unaware 'something' was specific to macroscopic objects

In all seriousness I think a new thread would be a good idea, we havent heard the end of this experiment, not by a long shot

[LaurieAG]

Originally Posted by CraigD

Got any links, Laurie, or even handmade sketches?

PS: if there are no objections, I’ll move discussion of N & S’s experiment to its own thread, linked to from this and other threads that reference it. It’s a bit off the topic of this thread, which was more along the lines of the question of whether massive macroscopic stuff can travel faster than c

Hello CraigD,

The original link is Popular Science - Feature and it has the exact same diagram that appeared in the New Scientist article. I have no objections to a new thread.

One thing that the article doesn't go into is the amplitude of the microwave. Also, there is a great difference (in scale) between a microwave and a photon with respect to their interractions between atoms in the glass and air. It's surprising that they claim both work, but on the same angles?