Graviphoton

Some more web reference for source material that is related Faster-than-light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaAs with the Alcubierre drive, travelers moving through the wormhole would not locally move faster than light which travels through the wormhole alongside ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster_than_light_travel - 100k - Cached - Similar pages Take a leap into hyperspace - fundamentals - 05 January 2006 - New ...5 Jan 2006 ... New Scientist Space uncovers the curious tale of the rocket driven ... the speed of light could be several times faster than we experience. ... space.newscientist.com/article/mg18925331.200-take-a-leap-into-hyperspace.html - 73k - Cached - Similar pages Faster than the speed of light - 01 April 1995 - New ScientistSo if light can travel faster than light, shouldn't it be possible to send .... The angles of incidence for both photon tracks are arranged to be the same, ... http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg14619714.200-faster-than-the-speed-of-light.html - 64k - Cached - Similar pages Me: The new physics provides a world not permitted by Einstein, even though his theories allowed them. Einstein personally believed that nothing could travel faster than ''c'', and since we know through quantum actions to move at superluminal speeds, like a photon, then certain information has been proven to move faster than light.

Caps, Its a general misunderstanding by treating information, tha tangible and the non as something all vey different. Matter and energy are not only forms of disortions, they are also bound information. A photon, for instance, cannot dissappear from the universe, not only because its energy cannot be destroyed, but because the information is contains cannot simply be diminished. Here is the ref. Could Time Travel Actually Be Possible? Updated: 05:51, Thursday August 16, 2007 Scientists claim to have broken the ultimate speed record - by making photons travel faster than light. Exceeding the speed of light, 186,000 miles per second, is supposed to be completely impossible. Einsteins mistake, was that he considered ''c'' as the ultimate speed, of anything. Now with relativity explaining spacetime is in fact the same thing as matter-energy, and with spacetime rushing away dragging its creases (matter) with it as v>c, then it must be concluded that relativity is not only wrong, but it is inconsistant with quantum mechanics. I'll be back in two hours friends. Hold back too many questions.

Agreed, finally. The superluminal phase of velocities and signals, of certain types, cannot be concluded evidently to move at superluminal speeds or not, as of yet.

Klaynos Did i say that? Insane 1/ graviphoton, layout your claims, point and all in a nice ordered manner, Let's start with this. What part of the OP's claims are not ordered? Or nice for that matter?

Actually, i think going over the points in the system i have provided, would keep it clearer, and also would refresh and perhaps make clearer what is meant.

I've been trying to tell people round here that under special conditions, the photon can travel faster than light. Not only can Hawking make them move faster than light using the uncertainty principle, two German scientists a few years witnessed a photon travel at superluminal speeds.

This, i would like to keep.

Cites, sure Aharonov, Y., D.Z. Albert, and S.S. D'Amato. 1985. Multiple-time properties of quantum-mechanical systems. In Physical Review D 32:1975-1984. Aharonov, Y., D. Albert, A. Casher, and L. Vaidman. 1987. Surprising Quantum Effects. In Phys. Lett. A. 124:199-203. Aharonov, Y. and. L. Vaidman. 1990. Properties of a quantum system during the time interval between two measurements. In Physical Review A 41:11-20. Bergenheim, M., H. Johansson, B. Granlund, and J. Pedersen. 1996. Experimental Evidence for a Synchronization of sensory Information to Conscious Experience. In Toward a Scientific Basis for Consciousness. S. R. Hameroff, A. W. Kaszniak. and A. C. Scott. (Eds.). The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 303-310. Cramer, J. G. 1983. Generalized absorber theory and the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox. In Physical Review D 22:362-376. Cramer, J. G. 1986. Transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics. In Reviews of Modern Physics 58:647-687. Libet, B., E. W. Wright, B. Feinstein, and D. K. PearlK. 1979. Subjective Referral of the Timing for a Conscious Sensory Experience. In Brain 102:193-224. Penrose, R. 1994. Shadows of the Mind. Oxford University Press, New York, p. 387. Oh the tunelling? You will find reference to that in: ''Parallel Universes, 1985'' Fred Wolf

Klaynos I did indeed make a mistake in my previous conclusions. The theory was, in definition, progressive, and not unfied. I guess it still isn't, but i have a few more treats in store. The problem you are making, is that because I DID them wrong, makes the theory wrong. I have shown it is not wrong, modified the equations slightly, even adding new ones, and still reach a final, greater conlusion. Also, if there is anything in the posts that seem mathematically undefined, please cite them for me, so i can explain them. And the math is usuable, because it is a protoscience.

I'll look it out tomorrow. Promise. Proof: How about the fact that you never observe the outside world, but it is some projection or illusory of the mind? It's not enough to say that we experience the objective, no matter what form, because in the end, we don't ever observe objective world, but a world possibly almost identical to it, created by an internal structure: The subjective. This CANNOT be refuted, without resigning thoughts to grandure and dillusional inspiration.

Enjoy this then EntanglementThe essence of quantum entanglement (as exhibited in things like EPR ... it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. ... http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath174.htm - 7k - Cached - Similar pages ''Nevertheless, it remains true that no superluminal transfer of information is implied. This is actually one of the most interesting features of this analysis, because it shows that in some circumstances our classical understanding demands that superluminal communication "must have occurred" in order to give the observed results, even though in fact there is no *effective* transfer of information at all. See Quantum Entanglement and Bell's Theorem for a more detailed discussion of these issues.'' Which seems to be circular logic. Just because it is not implied, does not mean it cannot be implied. Bell's Theorem only holds true if the universe is non-local, and believe it or not, there is no |absolute| proof to suggest it is. So the theory stands. So by definition also, you are perhaps proposing the advanced mathematical Transactional interpretation is fundamentally wrong about its superluminal waves of information? Also, which comes to mind, is information tunelling. A real used premise in physics. If a photon can tunel through spacetime moving at superluminal speeds, then so must the notion of innformation tunneling processes.

How did i come to the same conclusion? I ended up with new math, and new concepts on a single universal mind????????? This is not the same as before, even though it must contain the things i spoke about before, just to keep it generally understood. Now stop annoying me. And if you could read the math, you would understand their implications. But i am guessing you cannot, so why make these claims on not only modfied equations, but entirely new ones as well?

Ooohhh... Yourdad... i'll need to digest all of this mate

Not only have i introduced several new concepts, they ultimately tied into the conclusions i needing to bring forth first, to help understanding, because this shit aint easy to talk about. This is my final model, and in my eyes, is a new thread deriving new logic entirely. So NO. (And i corrected the math) I haven;t seen anyone propose a mistake in them yet

Just physics for you. An observation made on the external world, can only be made in real time. If the very notion of our beings are improbable, such as the statistical improbable nature of life occuring in these statistical averages in the state vector of the universe, then in reference, the thoughts we conjure up about the outside world, remains totally improbable as well. Just logic here. As for thoughts and emotions not existing in spacetime, read Goswami's book, ''How Consciousness Creates Reality.'' And you will also find reference to this in Mind into Matter, Dr Wolf

Thoughts are improbable, whilst speeds are of the by-product of the improbable, whilst energy exists as something which requires the two. This as i am sure you will know as the Observer Effect. In other words, the thoughts we have exist niether in real space, or imaginary time, when in reference to observing a system, displaying improbable actions which are evidently, probable. The electrochemical activity, is just a conduit for this information.

Entanglement can be seen as an evidence of superluminal waves of information. It stands to reason as an evidence, since such concepts are used daily in physics. [quant-ph/0702208] A proposed superluminal S-field mediating ...A proposed superluminal S-field mediating quantum entanglement ... as we would expect for a field that would impart entanglement related information. ... arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0702208 - 5k - Cached - Similar pages [PDF] Proposed experiment on the continuity of quantum entanglementFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML (Holland [4], p. 476). On the other hand, there are many reports. arguing against superluminal information. transmission through quantum entanglement by ... arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0405155v1.pdf - Similar pages And you can't say ''no information is moved.'' A peice of information could whiz right round the universe which has a radius of [math]10^{26}[/math], and still reach its destination, well before we (even if we could) measure any movement at all.

Well, you can standardize, under the understanding, that everything you observe, is in fact just forms of information. The matter, energy, are all types of information. Beyond this, is an imaginal realm of phantom energy, which obviously constitutes thoughts, emotions and even improbable speeds... ironically... something i am debating right now. And information inside the head, is partly material, by the way.

Not about information transfer, that was, until the entanglement was discovered mathematically. Einstein actually used the premise of a local universe to explain non-superluminal information, did you know? Non-local the jury is still out? I recently have been speculating the universe could be both, local and non. This has allowed scientists to speculate these wave v>c, we call Echo and Offer State Vectors.

Let me give you a few things to think about, when considering a soul/spirit, in reference to thermodynamical laws. If consciousness has an energy, this energy will be in a ground state; the increase of knowledge is an increase of entropy, and this is show we either (come to remember an outcome), or if you like, (the gaining of knowledge from the outside) - and this all requires the presence of an energy, since energy and time are closely related... In fact, without either, the other would cease to exist. Since consciousness requires a physical coil to become independent in thought, and since matter is somehow the same thing as its diffused cousin (energy), it's not so difficult to understand that consciousness too requires energy. An atom will radiate, dissipate or transfer energy - but energy cannot at any time disappear: This is because of the conservation law of matter-energy - the firs law of thermodynamics. The energy of consciousness shouldn't be any different to the energy of an atom; its electronic inhabitant. The electromagnetic field may well intimately interact with the field of consciousness, as electromagnetic forces carry information and self around the body. Tracking the field of consciousness might be difficult however, because we are not sure what it consists of. It might be however, made up of electromagnetic waves, as found in Biofields within matter. If 'life' creates this field of consciousness, then we should expect a change in death: The energy of consciousness must 'move out' of the physical coil it once inhabited, and it can only do this by either radiating, dissipating or by transferal. The energy source, or soul of a human being at death, cannot spontaneously flow into the body of another. This has simularistic overtones to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from one body into a warmer body. Even though this might be just another fancy way of describing consciousness, we cannot fail to see that if it has an energy, it must follow similar rules to thermodynamics, if it is a physical energy. For a while, i was could not make up my mind whether the energy of consciousness was a factor of a physical field, or a by-product of a virtual field. In any case, i now believe it is both, due to the connections between matter-energy and time-awareness. I am simply applying quantum rules in places not normally considered it can be applied. If conscious energy radiates from the body at the point of death, we might be able to measure this energy, using resonance scanners. If it dissipates, we might be able to measure a weight of difference within the dead corpse - (in fact, this idea has already been used extensively by a Dr. David Jones concerning the physical soul) - and if the energy transfer’s, we would need to ask exactly where it is being transmitted. Some might opt. for the spiritual answer, by involving a process of rebirth - (the co-called afterlife existence). If the energy of consciousness is not a physical force, it would be very difficult, if not, impossible to suggest thoughts on its nature after death. There would be absolutely no way to tell whether it would abide to the conventional laws of thermodynamics; though, the idea would in itself be consistent with quantum mechanical interpretations, since everything must follow quantum rules. However, not every cornerstone principle is necessarily ''kept'' by the presence of consciousness, such as David Z. Albert's discovery of 'secret knowledge', which states we can be aware of our own positions and paths simultaneously, defying the classical boundaries of the uncertainty principle - or also known as 'the principle of indeterminism.' Perhaps one day we might be able to detect the presence of a physical force leaving the body at death > otherwise, then consciousness exist soley a non-physical force, and is bound by the matter in inhabits. Something quite sad and depressing arises from this chain of thought; after all, the idea we continue after death is comforting and reassuring...

Yes, well that maybe because these superluminal time waves i speak of, are unique, when concerning non-local effects. Perhaps this is the only type of wave under such a mechanism allows it move so. There was, indirect experimental evidence, such as quantum entanglement at very massive distances found in mathematical solutions of spin-singlets. Sorry, my computer is slow tonight... anyway... what else would be proposed? As i believe, hidden variables are considered, very uncertain to be correct, so what are we implying? That no matter what the distance between the two photons, they are essentially the same? For that to be remotely true, distance can't exist... which is proposterous. Not only that, but the two obvious photons produced from a single source, would need to be in definition, really only one photon. And, if the resolution is made at spooky distance, then thissurely is evidence alone.

I don't normally reply like this, but this is a load of bullshit. Sorry.

Wrong. Evidence is some work that may contribute to a proof of a theory. Indeed, if it is proven, all the evidence is weighed up. Hypothetical is just a statement, saying it is an incomplete theory, which i have already stated. And it's not actually a misconception of science media. Dr Goswami, Penrose, Wolf among other scientists, take the notion of faster-than-light information seriously, and is even the cornerstone of time waves in the famous and highly regarded, 'Transactional Interpretation.'