Jerry, AM radio stations transmit narrow band information signals every day, just turn on an AM radio and listen. Clearly narrow band signals can carry information. The information in an AM signal is the modulation and propagates at the group speed. This is what I am saying propagates faster than light in the nearfield. In my simulations I generated a random signal by adding two Cosines with different amplitudes and frequencies, which are not harmonic. This modulation is then multiplied with a higher frequency Cosine carrier and the signals are sent 20 cm across space through a light speed transfer function and an electric dipole transfer functon. The envelopes are then detected by dividing by the carrier and the envelopes are compared. The results clearly show that the modulation envelope from the dipole arrives earlier than the light speed propagated envelope. William>WWalker wrote: >> Hi Eric, >> >> Sorry for the confusion. I will try to stick to top posting. >> >> Regarding your question about what carries the information faster than >> light, I can not say for sure, but I suspect it is the virtual photon.The>> only thing I can say for sure is that the envelope of a narrow band >> modulated signal propagates undistortted, faster than light in the >> nearfield of a dipole source. If this is true then Relativity theorywill>> need to be reevaluated. For more information, refer to my other paper: >> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166 > >Being narrow band, the envelope is predictable. The narrower the band, >the further the prediction (i.e. extrapolation) can be carried. (Think >"coherence length".) The more predictable a phenomenon is, the more one >can pretend to know of it (or delude oneself into believing one knows >it) it in advance of its happening. Knowing the date of the next eclipse >is not the same as receiving a signal from the future. > >The phase velocity in a waveguide _always_ exceeds the speed of light in >vacuo. Ask any radar engineer. You have rediscovered a triviality. > >Your useless simulations are all done with steady state. Steady state >carries no information. All information is in transients; non-redundant, >unpredictable transients. If you can show transients propagating faster >than light speed, people will listen. > >Jerry >-- >it reverses the order of the flow of a discussion. >Top posting seems unnatural to most people because >
How to get envelope from AM signal without phase shift
Started by ●March 7, 2010
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
WWalker wrote: (top posting fixed)>>> Rune, >>> >>> No one is interested in your emotional rantings. If you have something >>> intelligent to say about the system in discussion then lets talk. But >>> support your ideas with logic. I have given you logical arguments >>> supporting the superluminal conclusion, which ones can you prove are >> wrong. >>> If you can't then be quiet. Emotional rantings only make you look >> foolish. >> >> You are the one looking foolish up to now. If you want to claim you have >> perpetual motion, you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before > anyone >> will stop laughing. If you want to claim you have infinite gain bandwidth >> product you need an *exceedingly* powerful argument before anyone will > stop >> laughing. If you want to claim you can carry information faster than > light >> you need to a) prove that people like Shannon and others were wrong, and >> that information and energy are not interchangeable terms, or b) that you >> have found a way to carry energy faster than light. So far, all you've > done >> it describe a variety of things that look like the phantom fast moving >> phase effects we all meet quite regularly. When amplitude or phase >> manipulation is really carrying information, its because those things are >> directly related to real energy manipulation. >>> Steve, > > The only thing one has to do to prove that information can be propagated > faster than light, is to simply demonstate it. The simulation below clearly > denonstrates that this is possible. Check it for yourself. Simply copy and > paste it into Mathematica. > > The simulation generates a random modulated 100ns span signal by adding a > 50MHz,1V Peak Cosine to a 22.7MHz, 1.7V peak Cosine. Then the Modulation is > multiplied with 500MHz, 1V peak Cosine carrier. The reference envelope is > extracted by dividing by the carrier. > > The AM signal is then run through the transfer function of a light speed > propagating system [e^(iwr/c)] by adding phase terms (wr/c) to each > harmonic of the signal, where i is the complex number, w is the radial > frequency, r is the distance of field propagation (r=20cm). The envelope of > this light propagated signal is then determined by dividing by a phase > shifted (wr/c) carrier. > > The AM signal is then run through the Magnetic field component transfer > function of an electric dipole antenna with the known transfer function: > [e^(iwr/c)[-kr-i]] by adding phase terms > (wr/c-ArcCos[(-wr/c)/Sqrt[1+(wr/c)^2]]) to each harmonic of the signal. The > envelope of this dipole propagated signal is determined by dividing by a > phase shifted (wr/c-ArcCos[(-wr/c)/Sqrt[1+(wr/c)^2]]) carrier. Plots are > shown for all three signals with their extracted envelopes which align > perfectly with their signal. > > Finally the envelopes are plotted and a zoom of the plot clearly shows that > the information (modulation envelope) arrives earlier than a light speed > propagated signal. By that logic, we can already _travel_ faster than light, and I can prove it -- just watch any episode of Star Trek! But I'm not holding my breath for a scenic tour of Antares. -- Tim Wescott Control system and signal processing consulting www.wescottdesign.com
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
Actually, bottom posting is the preferred method, since a single entry can be read logically in order. I'm top-posting here just because mixing top and bottom is worse than top posting. It seems to me that you're not grasping what people are trying to tell you. Jerry mentioned a relevant article, but I'll post a link for you: http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/54.php Study that carefully, because it describes completely the phenomenon that you're seeing, and it has nothing to do with propagation faster than the speed of light or predicting the future. It is the nature of narrowband signals that they can be predicted in the short term, unless a perturbation arrives. This is what people have been trying to point out to you, and this (or some other phenomenon other than exceeding c) is what you're seeing. You're not the first to be lured down this path and you won't be the last. On 3/23/2010 11:05 AM, WWalker wrote:> Jerry, > > AM radio stations transmit narrow band information signals every day, just > turn on an AM radio and listen. Clearly narrow band signals can carry > information. > > The information in an AM signal is the modulation and propagates at the > group speed. This is what I am saying propagates faster than light in the > nearfield. > > In my simulations I generated a random signal by adding two Cosines with > different amplitudes and frequencies, which are not harmonic. This > modulation is then multiplied with a higher frequency Cosine carrier and > the signals are sent 20 cm across space through a light speed transfer > function and an electric dipole transfer functon. The envelopes are then > detected by dividing by the carrier and the envelopes are compared. The > results clearly show that the modulation envelope from the dipole arrives > earlier than the light speed propagated envelope. > > William > > >> WWalker wrote: >>> Hi Eric, >>> >>> Sorry for the confusion. I will try to stick to top posting. >>> >>> Regarding your question about what carries the information faster than >>> light, I can not say for sure, but I suspect it is the virtual photon. > The >>> only thing I can say for sure is that the envelope of a narrow band >>> modulated signal propagates undistortted, faster than light in the >>> nearfield of a dipole source. If this is true then Relativity theory > will >>> need to be reevaluated. For more information, refer to my other paper: >>> http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/physics/0702166 >> >> Being narrow band, the envelope is predictable. The narrower the band, >> the further the prediction (i.e. extrapolation) can be carried. (Think >> "coherence length".) The more predictable a phenomenon is, the more one >> can pretend to know of it (or delude oneself into believing one knows >> it) it in advance of its happening. Knowing the date of the next eclipse >> is not the same as receiving a signal from the future. >> >> The phase velocity in a waveguide _always_ exceeds the speed of light in >> vacuo. Ask any radar engineer. You have rediscovered a triviality. >> >> Your useless simulations are all done with steady state. Steady state >> carries no information. All information is in transients; non-redundant, >> unpredictable transients. If you can show transients propagating faster >> than light speed, people will listen. >> >> Jerry >> -- >> it reverses the order of the flow of a discussion. >> Top posting seems unnatural to most people because >>-- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
WWalker wrote:> Steve, > > The only thing one has to do to prove that information can be propagated > faster than light, is to simply demonstate it. The simulation below clearly > denonstrates that this is possible. Check it for yourself. Simply copy and > paste it into Mathematica.That's not the only thing. You also have to show that the demonstration is about information. Yours is not.> The simulation generates a random modulated 100ns span signal by adding a > 50MHz,1V Peak Cosine to a 22.7MHz, 1.7V peak Cosine. Then the Modulation is > multiplied with 500MHz, 1V peak Cosine carrier. The reference envelope is > extracted by dividing by the carrier.That is deterministic, not random. Once the waveform starts, you can announce what it will be tomorrow. No information at all! ...> Finally the envelopes are plotted and a zoom of the plot clearly shows that > the information (modulation envelope) arrives earlier than a light speed > propagated signal.You knew -- or should have known -- before submitting anything to mathematical analysis what the outcome would be. There *is* no information. Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
WWalker wrote:> Jerry, > > AM radio stations transmit narrow band information signals every day, just > turn on an AM radio and listen. Clearly narrow band signals can carry > information.The limited bandwidth of AM channels limits their information capacity. Knowing the two-sided bandwidth of such a channel is 5 KHz should tell you that the envelope amplitudes only 100 microseconds apart will be highly correlated. The envelope amplitude 100 microseconds hence will br highly correlated with what it is now. That's prediction.> The information in an AM signal is the modulation and propagates at the > group speed. This is what I am saying propagates faster than light in the > nearfield.You see the same effect with narrow-band signals undergoing anomalous dispersion. The group (but not the energy) velocity exceeds that of light.> In my simulations I generated a random signal by adding two Cosines with > different amplitudes and frequencies, which are not harmonic. This > modulation is then multiplied with a higher frequency Cosine carrier and > the signals are sent 20 cm across space through a light speed transfer > function and an electric dipole transfer functon. The envelopes are then > detected by dividing by the carrier and the envelopes are compared. The > results clearly show that the modulation envelope from the dipole arrives > earlier than the light speed propagated envelope.What is random about something described by such simple mathematics? Jerry -- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
Jerry Avins wrote:> WWalker wrote: >> Jerry, >> >> AM radio stations transmit narrow band information signals every day, >> just >> turn on an AM radio and listen. Clearly narrow band signals can carry >> information. > > The limited bandwidth of AM channels limits their information capacity. > Knowing the two-sided bandwidth of such a channel is 5 KHz should tell > you that the envelope amplitudes only 100 microseconds apart will be > highly correlated. The envelope amplitude 100 microseconds hence will br > highly correlated with what it is now. That's prediction. > >> The information in an AM signal is the modulation and propagates at the >> group speed. This is what I am saying propagates faster than light in the >> nearfield. > > You see the same effect with narrow-band signals undergoing anomalous > dispersion. The group (but not the energy) velocity exceeds that of light. > >> In my simulations I generated a random signal by adding two Cosines with >> different amplitudes and frequencies, which are not harmonic. This >> modulation is then multiplied with a higher frequency Cosine carrier and >> the signals are sent 20 cm across space through a light speed transfer >> function and an electric dipole transfer functon. The envelopes are then >> detected by dividing by the carrier and the envelopes are compared. The >> results clearly show that the modulation envelope from the dipole arrives >> earlier than the light speed propagated envelope. > > What is random about something described by such simple mathematics?See also http://pre.aps.org/abstract/PRE/v65/i3/e036608> Jerry-- Discovery consists of seeing what everybody has seen, and thinking what nobody has thought. .. Albert Szent-Gyorgi �����������������������������������������������������������������������
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
Jerry Avins <jya@ieee.org> wrote:> WWalker wrote:>> The only thing one has to do to prove that information can be propagated >> faster than light, is to simply demonstate it. The simulation below clearly >> denonstrates that this is possible. Check it for yourself. Simply copy and >> paste it into Mathematica.> That's not the only thing. You also have to show that the demonstration > is about information. Yours is not.There are some interesting things that can be done in near field. One is the near field microscope, which can resolve details much smaller than the wavelength of light used. As for information transfer, there are materials with a group velocity higher than C at certain frequencies. In the usual case, you still can't transfer information faster than C through such materials. One reason is that they have strong absorption at that point, but for near field maybe that isn't so bad. In general, though, useful communication is far field. The ability to transfer, say, one bit/second over a short distance, in slightly less the d/c isn't useful. -- glen
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacobsen@ieee.org> wrote:> Actually, bottom posting is the preferred method, since a single entry > can be read logically in order. I'm top-posting here just because > mixing top and bottom is worse than top posting.Personally, I am not against top posting given two conditions: First, and most important, no likely follow-ups should be expected. If someone just says "I agree", or "me, too", then there really isn't much else to say. (Me, three?) Second, is that the normal place for the follow-up material is many pages down. Of course, one should do appropriate snipping, and some people don't do that. If there is no new material in the first few pages, I am likely to just go on to the next post. In the case that someone does need to follow-up such a post, often the best thing is to snip away everything following the new post and reply just to that. That works about as well as anything else, especially if the follow-up isn't really related to the previous post. (Or often it is indirectly related, but that isn't relevant to later posts.) -- glen
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
On 23 Mar, 21:06, Eric Jacobsen <eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote:> Actually, bottom posting is the preferred method, since a single entry > can be read logically in order. � I'm top-posting here just because > mixing top and bottom is worse than top posting. > > It seems to me that you're not grasping what people are trying to tell > you. � Jerry mentioned a relevant article, but I'll post a link for you: > > http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/54.phpNo, this is far simpler than that. Andor's example was a IIR function with poles. Ther is no feedback in the dipole. This thread is about wave physics 101 stuff that anyone messing with array processing or wavefield analysis needs to know. And is expected to know.> You're not the first to be lured down this path and you won't be the last.It's a matter of education. Or lack of such. Below is a crude *simulation* I made for matlab. Call it as FasterThanLightMovie(60,16); % Oblique angle at 60 degrees, % 16 frames in animation and see the simulation I hinted at a couple of days ago: The wave 2D field propagates in the positive direction along the x axis. There are two observations made of the field, one along the propagation axis (the blue graph / line) and one at an oblique angle (the red graph / line). In the upper plot the snapshot along the two lines are plotted. Do note the apparent speed of the zero crossing as it propagates donw the observation throughout a cycle (marked as a circle in the top plot and a cross in the lower plot). It is seen that the apparent speed along the oblique observation is far higher than the true, free field speed at which the wave travels down the x axis. If our friend WW splits up his simulation in monopole sources, he will be able to see exactly the same kind of effect but in a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system. So following WW's logic, all we need to do to obtain faster-than-light communication, is to observe the wave field along an axis oblique to the actual axis of propagation, thus requiring the information to travel a longer distance. Yeah. Right. Again, this is trivial material. It's only a matter of a bare minimum of knowledge about wave physics, simulation design, and data analysis that is needed to fully pull this stuff apart and see what is actually going on. Rune %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% function FasterThanLightMovie(phi,Nframes) Phi = phi/180*pi; xv = [-1:0.01:2]; yv = [-1;3]; xv = reshape(xv,1,length(xv)); Lref = [0:0.01:1]; Loblique = Lref*cos(Phi); c = 3e8; f = 3e8; T = 1/c; tv = (0:Nframes-1)*T/Nframes; for n=1:Nframes clf s = ones(2,1)*sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n) - xv / c)); subplot(2,1,1) plot(Lref,sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n)-Lref/c)),'b') hold on plot(Lref,sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n)-Loblique/c)),'r') plot(c*tv(n),0,'ob') plot(c*tv(n)/cos(Phi),0,'or') ax = axis; plot(ax(1:2),[0,0],'k') subplot(2,1,2) imagesc(xv,yv,s) set(gca,'dataaspectratio',[1,1,1]) set(gca,'ydir','normal') hold on plot([0,1],[0,0],'b','linewidth',2) plot([0,1],[0,tan(Phi)],'r','linewidth',2) plot(c*tv(n),0,'xb','markersize',5,'linewidth',4) plot(c*tv(n),c*tv(n)*tan(Phi),'xr','markersize',5,'linewidth', 4) colormap(gray) drawnow pause(0.3) end end
Reply by ●March 23, 20102010-03-23
On 3/23/2010 4:51 PM, Rune Allnor wrote:> On 23 Mar, 21:06, Eric Jacobsen<eric.jacob...@ieee.org> wrote: >> Actually, bottom posting is the preferred method, since a single entry >> can be read logically in order. I'm top-posting here just because >> mixing top and bottom is worse than top posting. >> >> It seems to me that you're not grasping what people are trying to tell >> you. Jerry mentioned a relevant article, but I'll post a link for you: >> >> http://www.dsprelated.com/showarticle/54.php > > No, this is far simpler than that. Andor's example was a > IIR function with poles. Ther is no feedback in the dipole. > > This thread is about wave physics 101 stuff that anyone > messing with array processing or wavefield analysis needs > to know. And is expected to know. > >> You're not the first to be lured down this path and you won't be the last. > > It's a matter of education. Or lack of such. > > Below is a crude *simulation* I made for matlab. Call it as > > FasterThanLightMovie(60,16); % Oblique angle at 60 degrees, > % 16 frames in animation > > and see the simulation I hinted at a couple of days ago: > The wave 2D field propagates in the positive direction > along the x axis. There are two observations made of > the field, one along the propagation axis (the blue > graph / line) and one at an oblique angle (the red graph / > line). > > In the upper plot the snapshot along the two lines > are plotted. Do note the apparent speed of the zero > crossing as it propagates donw the observation throughout > a cycle (marked as a circle in the top plot and a cross > in the lower plot). It is seen that the apparent speed > along the oblique observation is far higher than the > true, free field speed at which the wave travels down > the x axis. > > If our friend WW splits up his simulation in monopole > sources, he will be able to see exactly the same kind of > effect but in a cylindrical or spherical coordinate system. > > So following WW's logic, all we need to do to obtain > faster-than-light communication, is to observe the > wave field along an axis oblique to the actual axis > of propagation, thus requiring the information to travel > a longer distance. Yeah. Right. > > Again, this is trivial material. It's only a matter of a > bare minimum of knowledge about wave physics, simulation > design, and data analysis that is needed to fully pull > this stuff apart and see what is actually going on. > > Rune > > %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% > function FasterThanLightMovie(phi,Nframes) > Phi = phi/180*pi; > xv = [-1:0.01:2]; > yv = [-1;3]; > xv = reshape(xv,1,length(xv)); > Lref = [0:0.01:1]; > Loblique = Lref*cos(Phi); > c = 3e8; > f = 3e8; > T = 1/c; > tv = (0:Nframes-1)*T/Nframes; > for n=1:Nframes > clf > s = ones(2,1)*sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n) - xv / c)); > subplot(2,1,1) > plot(Lref,sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n)-Lref/c)),'b') > hold on > plot(Lref,sin(2*pi*f*(tv(n)-Loblique/c)),'r') > plot(c*tv(n),0,'ob') > plot(c*tv(n)/cos(Phi),0,'or') > ax = axis; > plot(ax(1:2),[0,0],'k') > > subplot(2,1,2) > imagesc(xv,yv,s) > set(gca,'dataaspectratio',[1,1,1]) > set(gca,'ydir','normal') > hold on > plot([0,1],[0,0],'b','linewidth',2) > plot([0,1],[0,tan(Phi)],'r','linewidth',2) > plot(c*tv(n),0,'xb','markersize',5,'linewidth',4) > plot(c*tv(n),c*tv(n)*tan(Phi),'xr','markersize',5,'linewidth', > 4) > colormap(gray) > drawnow > pause(0.3) > end > endYou sim doesn't run very well under my version of Octave, but the bit about the phase velocity on oblique angles is fundamental. I haven't been able to sort out what WW is doing well enough to know for certain that's the issue, but in his paper the waveforms he compares don't prove anything. I was at least trying to get him to see, as Jerry has been, that if a transient is introduced it'll expose his error. Andor's paper does that marvelously. I was hoping the idea would stick. -- Eric Jacobsen Minister of Algorithms Abineau Communications http://www.abineau.com
