🔗 www.thewowsignal.news Big things are always happening in the world of Disclosure and Beyond! 👽✨
🛰️ Top Stories This Week: • Dr. Avi Loeb: Did the WOW! Signal come from 3I/ATLAS? • *NASA’s UFO Secrets — What Do They Really Know? • New Whistleblower Dylan Borland testifies in latest Congressional UAP Hearing • Drone Swarm Over Munich forces shutdown of major German airport • New Book Drop! “Take a Haunted Road Trip on Route 66” from UN-X Media • Best-selling Author of “Hush” now available for media interviews!
📸 UFO Photo of the Week: Don’t miss our latest Flying Saucer / UAP capture!
📝 PLUS: Fresh opinion columns from Steve Bassett, Ron James, Lisa Puzo Strickland, Dan Harary, Kosta, and CJ Arabia!
This is a music video. If you want to hear it, please unmute the song… Journey through myth and memory in this re-imagining of the Tuatha Dé Danann’s arrival – the luminous people of Irish legend. Following the Southern Tradition, the music traces their path across a sacred landscape I’ve studied for years – and once, under the Galway sky, even glimpsed a ship upon.
From Poulnabrone Dolmen to Galway Bay, through Moycullen, Lough Corrib, Knockma, and Cong, each site echoes like a note in an ancient song – alive with story, stone, and the shimmer of something beyond time.
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
The theory of Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS) proposes that time contains hidden layers that enable limited faster-than-light coherence between quantum systems. Researchers may soon be using the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) – a dual-graphene nanodevice – to test these effects directly and determine whether they can occur without breaking the known laws of physics.
At its heart, CFS asks a provocative question: What if certain kinds of waves, such as evanescent or near fields, can share phase information faster than light, yet still preserve causality?
If so, spacetime might not be perfectly uniform. It could contain a subtle internal structure – a “layering” of time, where information moves slightly ahead within each layer while remaining consistent across the whole.
In this view, the universe unfolds like the pages of a vast cosmic book: each page turns in perfect order, even if some turn just a little faster than others. CFS offers a refined vision of relativity – one that permits structured superluminal coherence while keeping the story of cause and effect intact.
Part II. Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS)
Core Axioms
Kinematics and Dynamics
Quantum Rules and Conservation
Experimental Predictions
Test Protocols
Role of the QCT
1. Core Axioms
Global Time Foliation: Spacetime possesses a preferred global slicing (cosmic time, defined by timelike vector uᵃ). All signals – luminal and superluminal – are ordered by this foliation.
Enlarged Signal Cone: Beyond the light cone, a broader “signal cone” exists for specific media or fields (χ).
Chronology Protection: Closed signal loops are dynamically forbidden by solvability constraints.
Operational Locality: Standard experiments remain Lorentz-invariant; deviations occur only within enabled media.
Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling
2. Kinematics and Dynamics
Preferred Frame: Aligned approximately with the CMB rest frame.
Signal Field (χ): Couples weakly to EM carriers, widening the causal cone.
Superluminal Characteristics:PDEs in enabled media exhibit propagation outside the g-lightcone.
No-Loop Constraint: Integral conditions prevent time-decreasing causal loops.
3. Quantum Rules and Conservation
We built a tiny region (the QCT gap) where quantum near-fields can be gently shaped so that a barely detectable, faster-than-light pattern shows up in otherwise random data – small enough to keep physics safe, clear enough to test in the lab.
If the compact statement above makes sense to you, then you can expand the redlined Quantum Rules below by clicking on the black ▶ triangles, for a MORE detailed discussion.
For general readers, each section includes a brief explanation (without math) followed by an analogy. Although most people will never have heard of the no-communication theorem (prohibiting faster-than-light communication… by entanglement), it is placed prominently here because of its fundamental importance, and because a controlled relaxation of that rule is explored here.
[click to open] Relaxed No-Communication Theorem: In enabled media, nonlinear/post-selected dynamics allow tiny classical capacity > 0.
Claim (operational): In an enabled medium (e.g., a QCT gap acting as χ-enabled near-field), a weak, localized nonlinearity or explicit post-selection can produce a small but finite classical capacityC>0 between spacelike-separated parties without violating global unitarity or the Born rule.
Setup Let ρAB be a bipartite state shared by Alice and Bob. In standard QM with local CPTP maps and no post-selection, Bob’s reduced state is independent of Alice’s choice:
ρB′=TrA[(ΦA⊗IB)(ρAB)]=ρB, (no-signaling)
In an enabled QCT region, model Alice’s controlled operation as a weakly nonlinear perturbation of a CPTP map:
ΦA(V)(⋅)=ΛA(⋅)+ε\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)}[⋅], 0<ε≪1,[/latex]
<p>where [latex]V is Alice’s control (e.g., interlayer bias), ΛA is CPTP and \mathcal{N}_A^{(V)} is a bounded nonlinear functional active only inside the χ-enabled medium.
If \Delta\rho_B(V_0)\neq \Delta\rho_B(V_1), then Bob’s outcome statistics depend (slightly) on Alice’s choice V, enabling classical communication at order \varepsilon.
For a POVM \{M_y\} on Bob, the detection probabilities are
Because of the normalization by \mathrm{Tr}[\Pi_W\rho_B'(V)], the mapping \rho'_B \mapsto \rho_B^{\mid W} is nonlinear, and the conditioned statistics can acquire a V-dependence even when the unconditioned no-signaling equality holds. In practice, post-selection scales the useful rate by pW:
C_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx p_W , C.
Consistency conditions
To avoid global pathologies:
Localization:\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)} is confined to the χ-enabled region (e.g., the QCT gap).
Smallness:\varepsilon is sufficiently small to preserve stability and energy bounds.
Global unitarity & Born rule: Ensemble dynamics remain CPTP; deviations (if any) are confined to the conditioned, local detector maps (post-selection) or to the weak-nonlinear sector inside the medium.
Here’s a breakdown and fact check of the compact mathematical statement:
The mathematical statement is a representation of a result in quantum information theory, related to the calculation of the capacity of a quantum channel with a small perturbation. It connects the physical description of a quantum channel to the resulting channel capacity, incorporating concepts like state perturbation, distinguishability of output states, and the effect of post-selection. Let's break down each part to verify its components:
Channel and State Perturbation
\Phi_A(V) = \Lambda_A + \epsilon N_A(V), \epsilon \ll 1: This describes a quantum channel \Phi_A acting on a system A. It consists of a dominant, constant part \Lambda_A and a small perturbation \epsilon N_A(V), where \epsilon is a small parameter and V is some controllable parameter of the channel. This is a standard way to represent a slightly modulated or noisy quantum channel. \rho_B'(V) = \rho_B(0) + \epsilon \Delta\rho_B(V): This shows the effect of the channel on part of a larger quantum state. It indicates that the output state of a subsystem B, \rho_B'(V), is a slightly perturbed version of an initial state \rho_B(0). The perturbation \Delta\rho_B(V) is proportional to the small parameter \epsilon. \Delta\rho_B(V) = Tr_A[(N_A(V) \otimes I)\rho_{AB}]: This is the explicit form of the first-order perturbation to the state of system B. It is derived by taking the partial trace (Tr_A) over system A of the action of the perturbative part of the channel on a larger, entangled state \rho_{AB}. This is a standard and correct application of the rules of quantum mechanics.
Distinguishability of States
\exists M: \delta = \epsilon Tr[M\Delta\rho_B(V_1)] - \epsilon Tr[M\Delta\rho_B(V_0)] \neq 0: This is the crucial step for establishing a non-zero channel capacity. It states that there exists a measurement operator (a Hermitian operator) M that can distinguish between the perturbed states corresponding to two different settings of the channel parameter, V_1 and V_0. The quantity \delta represents the difference in the expectation value of the measurement M for the two output states. The fact that \delta \neq 0 is the condition for the two states to be experimentally distinguishable, at least in principle.
Channel Capacity
C \approx \frac{\delta^2}{2\ln{2}p(1-p)} > 0: This is a key result, likely an approximation for the Holevo capacity or a related measure of channel capacity in the limit of small \delta. The capacity C is a measure of the maximum rate at which information can be reliably sent through the channel. The term \delta^2 is expected, as capacity often scales with the square of the distinguishability of the output states for small perturbations. The factor of 2\ln{2} is standard for converting from natural units of information (nats) to bits. The term p(1-p) in the denominator suggests that the capacity is being evaluated for a specific input ensemble, where the two states (corresponding to V_0 and V_1) are used with probabilities p and 1-p. The capacity is maximized when p=1/2, which is a common assumption.
Effective Capacity with Post-Selection
C_{eff} \approx p_W C (with post-selection): This part of the statement describes the effective capacity when post-selection is used. Post-selection is a technique where only a subset of the measurement outcomes is considered, which can sometimes amplify a weak signal. p_W would be the probability of a successful post-selection (the "post-selection probability"). The effective capacity C_{eff} is reduced by this probability because many of the initial states are discarded. This is a well-known trade-off in post-selection schemes: you might get a clearer signal, but you lose a significant portion of your data, thus reducing the overall information transmission rate.
AI fact-check: Conclusion The mathematical expressions are consistent with established principles in quantum information theory. The logic flows correctly from the definition of a perturbed quantum channel to the distinguishability of its output states and finally to an expression for the channel capacity. The inclusion of the effect of post-selection is also standard. Therefore, the math in the compact statement appears to be correct and represents a valid line of reasoning in the context of quantum channel capacity.
QCT: introducing Alice and Bob
QCT: introducing Alice and Bob
In standard quantum theory and information science, Alice and Bob are the classic stand-ins - the “everyperson” experimenters used to illustrate how quantum systems behave when two parties share information.
They first appeared in the early 1970s: Alice wanted to send a message to Bob, while an eavesdropper, Eve, tried to intercept it. The idea caught on, and physicists soon adopted the same names to describe quantum experiments - especially those involving entanglement, teleportation, and the limits of communication.
In quantum mechanics, Alice and Bob usually operate two separate laboratories. They share a pair of entangled particles and perform their measurements independently. Yet even though the results are correlated, neither can use them to send a message faster than light. In standard quantum theory, the local readouts always look like white noise - until they later compare notes and the hidden pattern emerges.
Our twist (only inside the enabled medium): in a very specific, engineered zone - like the h-BN gap of the QCT - tiny, carefully confined nonlinear effects or “keep-only-these-events” post-selection can turn a microscopic part of that noise into a very faint but real signal. It’s still tiny, but it’s no longer white noise.
Everyday analogy: a storm of static on a radio (random), but if you slightly shape the antenna and pick only the right moments, a whisper of a station comes through. The storm is still there, but now a pattern rides on it.
Setup (who does what)
Two parties - Alice and Bob - share a correlated quantum setup. Normally, whatever Alice does locally doesn’t change what Bob sees on his own. Inside the QCT gap, Alice’s control (a tiny, high-speed bias pattern) slightly reshapes the local measurement rules on her side in a way that only matters inside that gap. That tiny reshape can leave a fingerprint on what Bob measures - still noisy overall, but now statistically nudged by Alice’s choice.
Analogy: Alice wiggles a flashlight behind a frosted pane (the tunneling barrier). Bob can’t see the flashlight, but a barely-visible shimmer on his side changes in sync with her wiggle pattern.
Alice and Bob demonstrate the Relaxed No-Communication Theorem with a flashlight analogy
What Bob should see (the smoking gun)
If nothing beyond standard quantum rules is happening, Bob’s data look like random coin flips - no pattern tied to Alice’s choices. If the enabled medium is really doing its job, then buried in Bob’s noisy data is a tiny, repeatable correlation with Alice’s pattern - detectable by cross-checking timestamps, and crucially showing up before any ordinary light-speed signal could arrive (>C).
Analogy: two drummers far apart; if Bob’s mic hears a faint beat aligned to Alice’s rhythm before the sound could travel, something non-ordinary is coupling them.
“Capacity” (how much message fits through)
Think of capacity as how many bits per second you can squeeze through this faint effect.
If the correlation is truly zero, capacity is zero - no message.
If the correlation is tiny but nonzero, capacity is tiny but nonzero - you can send some information (slowly), and that’s already a big deal physically.
Analogy: Alice taps a message through a thick wall. Each tap barely carries across, but with time and patience, a message still gets through to Bob.
Post-selection (keeping only the good frames)
Post-selection means you only keep measurement runs that pass a filter (a “window”). That can make the hidden pattern clearer - but you throw away most data, so your effective rate drops. You gain clarity, lose throughput. It’s a fair trade if the goal is to prove the effect exists.
Analogy: watching a meteor shower but counting only the brightest streaks - you see the pattern more clearly, but you record fewer events per hour.
Consistency conditions (how we avoid paradoxes)
To keep physics sane and causal, we impose three guardrails:
Localization: any exotic effect is confined strictly to the engineered region (the QCT gap). Outside, normal physics reigns.
Smallness: the effect is tiny - enough to measure, not enough to blow up the system.
Global conservation: probabilities and energy balance out when you look at the whole experiment. Local quirks, global bookkeeping.
Analogy: a safe test bench: sparks can fly inside the Faraday cage, but nothing leaks into the room.
[click to open] Global Born Rule Preserved: Local detector responses may deviate slightly.
In standard quantum mechanics, this rule is strictly linear and globally conserved: the total probability across all possible outcomes equals unity, and no operation (local or remote) can alter that normalization. In the Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) framework, however, we distinguish between global conservation and local deviations.
Global conservation: The total probability, integrated over all foliation slices, remains normalized:
\int_{\Sigma_t} \sum_i P(i,t),d^3x = 1,
for every global time slice \Sigma_t defined by the foliation vector u^a.
Local deviations: Within an enabled medium (such as the QCT tunneling gap), the local detector statistics can exhibit small nonlinear shifts in probability weights, while the global ensemble average still obeys the Born rule.
1. Local nonlinear response model Let the unperturbed Born probability be P_0(i) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_i), where \rho is the density matrix and \Pi_i = |i\rangle\langle i| are projectors. In an enabled medium with weak nonlinear coupling \varepsilon, the effective local detector response is:
P_{\text{loc}}(i) = \frac{\operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_i) + \varepsilon,f_i(\rho,\chi)}{\sum_j [\operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_j) + \varepsilon,f_j(\rho,\chi)]}, \qquad 0<\varepsilon\ll 1.[/latex]<br><br>Here [latex]f_i(\rho,\chi) is a small correction term induced by the signal field \chi or the QCT’s evanescent coupling, and the denominator renormalizes the total probability to preserve \sum_i P_{\text{loc}}(i) = 1.
2. Example: two-outcome measurement (binary detector) Consider a two-outcome observable (e.g., “current increase” vs. “no increase”) measured on Bob’s side of a QCT device. Without any nonlinear coupling, P_0(1) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_1) = p, \quad P_0(0)=1-p. With weak nonlinear coupling and a phase-dependent correction f_1 = \alpha,\sin\phi, f_0=-f_1, the local probability becomes
Expanding to first order in \varepsilon: P_{\text{loc}}(1) \approx p + \varepsilon,\alpha,\sin\phi,[1 - p(2p-1)].
The local measurement probability oscillates slightly with the coupling phase \phi (e.g., bias modulation or tunneling resonance in the QCT). Over many runs or when integrated globally, these deviations average out, restoring the Born expectation \langle P_{\text{loc}}(1)\rangle = p.
3. Ensemble (global) restoration Define the ensemble average over foliation slices:
Thus, apparent local deviations are statistical ripples, not violations - akin to phase-correlated fluctuations in a nonlinear optical system.
4. Physical meaning in the QCT In a QCT experiment, the local deviation \varepsilon f_i(\rho,\chi) could manifest as bias-correlated noise or excess counts in femtosecond-scale detectors. However, globally (over longer integration), normalization holds - no energy or probability is created or lost. Hence, the Born rule remains globally preserved, while local detectors may show small, reproducible, phase-dependent deviations in count rates.
Summary equations: Global normalization (Born rule):
\sum_i P(i) = 1.
Local response with small nonlinear or χ-dependent deviation:
Interpretation summary: Local detectors in an enabled QCT region may show small, bias-correlated probability shifts, but global ensemble averages preserve total probability exactly, consistent with the Born rule. This distinction allows weak, testable deviations that could serve as empirical fingerprints of nonlinear or post-selected dynamics - without violating core quantum postulates.
The Born rule - the core “probability adds to 1” rule of quantum mechanics - still holds globally. Locally, inside the gap, detector responses can be slightly skewed (that’s the point), but when you average over everything properly, the standard rules are intact. We’re bending, not breaking.
Analogy: a funhouse mirror that warps your reflection in a corner - but the building’s structural blueprint hasn’t changed.
[click to open] Signal Budget: Conserved Quantity Q_{\text{sig}} Bounds Communication Capacity.
In an enabled medium such as the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT), field interactions can exchange phase information across a tunneling barrier faster than classical propagation. However, this exchange is limited by a conserved scalar quantity called the signal budget, denoted by Q_{\text{sig}}. It measures the total coherent field flux - the maximum “informational charge” that can be exchanged without violating global conservation laws.
Define the local signal flux density j_{\text{sig}}^a associated with phase-coherent field exchange (analogous to a probability or energy current). The total conserved quantity is Q_{\text{sig}} = \int_{\Sigma_t} j_{\text{sig}}^a,u_a,d^3x, where \Sigma_t is a hypersurface of constant global time (the foliation slice), u_a is the local unit normal to that slice (the same foliation vector field defining the preferred frame), and j_{\text{sig}}^a obeys a continuity equation \nabla_a j_{\text{sig}}^a = 0. This implies \frac{d Q_{\text{sig}}}{d t} = 0, so Q_{\text{sig}} is conserved under all local interactions within the enabled region.
Physically, Q_{\text{sig}} quantifies the total coherent correlation energy or phase capacity stored in the evanescent coupling field between nodes (Alice and Bob). It is not identical to electrical charge or photon number; rather, it measures the integrated degree of mutual coherence available for modulation. Any communication process can only redistribute this quantity - never increase it.
The classical (Shannon) communication capacity C achievable through a QCT-based channel is bounded by a monotonic function of the signal budget: C \le f(Q_{\text{sig}}), where f(\cdot) depends on device geometry, decoherence rate, and thermal noise. For small-signal, linear-response regimes, f(Q_{\text{sig}}) \approx \frac{1}{2N_0},Q_{\text{sig}}^2, where N_0 is the effective noise spectral density of the tunneling junction, giving C_{\max} \propto Q_{\text{sig}}^2. Thus, a larger coherent flux yields higher potential capacity, but only up to the point where decoherence breaks phase continuity. Consider two QCT nodes (Alice and Bob) connected only by an evanescent tunneling field. Let \Phi_1(t) and \Phi_2(t) be their instantaneous phase potentials. Define the coherent signal current through the coupling gap as
This represents the total phase-correlated exchange between Alice and Bob within the coherence window and remains constant if both nodes evolve under unitary or weakly dissipative dynamics. Let I_{\text{sig}}(t) = j_{\text{sig}}(t),A be the measurable signal current through effective area A.
The instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio is \text{SNR}(t) = \frac{I_{\text{sig}}^2(t)}{N_0,B}, where B is the bandwidth. Integrating over the coherence window gives the total capacity bound
C \le \frac{1}{2B\ln 2}\int_0^{T_c}\frac{I_{\text{sig}}^2(t)}{N_0},dt = \frac{A^2}{2B\ln 2,N_0}\int_0^{T_c} j_{\text{sig}}^2(t),dt.
By Parseval’s theorem, this integral is proportional to Q_{\text{sig}}^2, giving C \le k_B,Q_{\text{sig}}^2, where k_B is an empirical proportionality constant depending on geometry and temperature. For a numerical example, suppose a QCT pair operates with barrier coupling \kappa = 10^{-3}, coherence amplitude |\Phi_1| = |\Phi_2| = 1, and coherence time T_c = 10^{-12},\text{s}.
Then Q_{\text{sig}} = \kappa \int_0^{T_c} \sin(\Delta\phi),dt \approx \kappa,T_c,\sin\langle\Delta\phi\rangle.
For average phase lag \langle\Delta\phi\rangle = \pi/4,Q_{\text{sig}} \approx 7.1\times10^{-16},\text{s}.
With N_0 = 10^{-20},\text{J/Hz} and B = 10^{12},\text{Hz}, the capacity bound becomes C_{\max} \approx \frac{1}{2B\ln 2}\frac{Q_{\text{sig}}^2}{N_0} \approx 3\times10^2,\text{bits/s}.
Thus, even a femtosecond-scale coherence pulse could, in principle, convey measurable structured information within physical conservation limits.
If two coupling regions exist in parallel, their total signal budgets add linearly: Q_{\text{sig,tot}} = Q_{\text{sig}}^{(1)} + Q_{\text{sig}}^{(2)}, but the corresponding capacities add sublinearly due to interference: C_{\text{tot}} \le f(Q_{\text{sig,tot}}) < f(Q_{\text{sig}}^{(1)}) + f(Q_{\text{sig}}^{(2)}).[/latex] <br><br>This expresses the finite capacity of coherence: coherence can be shared but not freely amplified. In summary, [latex]Q_{\text{sig}} is a conserved scalar representing total coherent field flux through the enabled medium. It defines the maximum communication budget of the system, C \le f(Q_{\text{sig}}), ensuring that any increase in measurable capacity draws from the available Q_{\text{sig}}. The principle guarantees causality and thermodynamic consistency even for superluminal phase coupling: information exchange remains bounded by a conserved signal quantity.
We treat the available coherence (the orderly part of the near field in the gap) like a budget. You can redistribute it to make a message, but you can’t create more from nothing. More budget → potentially higher reliable rate, until noise and heat say “stop.”
Analogy: a battery for a whisper-thin laser pointer: you can blink a code, but the total blinks are limited by the battery.
[click to open] Confined Nonlinearity: Pathologies avoided by confinement + energy bounds.
In nonlinear or post-selected quantum systems, unrestricted feedback between state and measurement can easily lead to paradoxes: superluminal signaling, violation of the Born rule, or even logical inconsistencies such as closed causal loops. To remain physically consistent, any deviation from linear quantum evolution must be strictly confined - localized within a finite, energy-bounded region of spacetime, and coupled to the external environment only through channels that preserve global unitarity. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) provides such a natural boundary. The nonlinear term emerges only within the enabled medium - the tunneling gap or χ-field domain - where evanescent phase coupling and Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) permit weak self-interaction. Outside that zone, standard linear quantum mechanics holds exactly.
Formally, let the full system evolution operator be written as \mathcal{U}(t) = \mathcal{T}\exp!\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}!\int (H_0 + \varepsilon,H_{\text{NL}}),dt\right], where H_0 is the standard Hermitian Hamiltonian, H_{\text{NL}} is a bounded nonlinear contribution, and \varepsilon \ll 1 is an activation parameter that vanishes outside the QCT region. The confinement condition is \operatorname{supp}(H_{\text{NL}}) \subseteq \Omega_{\text{QCT}}, meaning the nonlinear interaction is spatially restricted to the enabled medium \Omega_{\text{QCT}}. Global unitarity is preserved if the commutator [H_{\text{NL}},H_0] has compact support and the nonlinear energy density
where \delta E_{\text{th}} is the local thermal fluctuation scale. This ensures that nonlinear feedback cannot self-amplify beyond physical noise limits.
Operationally, confinement implies that the map \Phi: \rho \mapsto \rho' is weakly nonlinear only within the χ-enabled subspace
\mathcal{H}<em>{\chi},
while it remains completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) on the complement. Mathematically,
with \mathcal{N} representing the confined nonlinear correction. Because \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 at the QCT boundary, no nonlinearity propagates beyond the gap. This prevents global inconsistencies and enforces causal closure: superluminal phase effects may exist within the local foliation but cannot form closed signaling loops or propagate arbitrarily.
Thermodynamically, the confinement of nonlinearity ensures that energy extraction from the vacuum is impossible. The active NDR region acts as a controlled feedback element that can amplify evanescent fields but always within the constraint P_{\text{out}} \le P_{\text{in}} + \Delta E_{\text{stored}}. Any transient gain is compensated by local field storage, maintaining overall energy balance. Thus, the system behaves as a nonlinear resonator enclosed within a conservative boundary.
In the Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) framework, this spatial and energetic confinement guarantees stability: nonlinear dynamics modify local statistics without altering global unitarity. The QCT becomes an energy-bounded nonlinear island embedded in a linear quantum continuum.
Pathologies such as runaway amplification, superdeterminism, or acausal feedback are automatically excluded because the nonlinear domain is finite, dissipatively coupled, and globally renormalized. In essence, the QCT acts as a sandbox where limited nonlinearity can exist, testable but safely quarantined within the rules of quantum thermodynamics.
The QCT’s h-BN gap acts like a Faraday cage for quantum weirdness - a tiny sandbox where the usual rules can bend safely without breaking. Inside this sealed zone, the device can amplify and recycle energy just enough to reveal faint superluminal patterns, but strict thermal and energy limits keep it from running away.
Analogy: It’s like building a firewalled amplifier: it can whisper across the void, yet never burns through the laws of physics that contain it.
[click to open] Thermo Bounds (Gain vs. Noise Temperature)
Every active quantum device is ultimately constrained by thermodynamic consistency. Even when the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) operates in a nonlinear or Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) regime, its total gain cannot exceed the limit set by its effective noise temperature and available signal budget. The Thermo Bound expresses this limit: amplification and coherence transfer in the enabled medium must obey the fluctuation–dissipation principle, ensuring that no configuration of the device can extract net free energy or violate the Second Law.
At equilibrium, the spectral power density of fluctuations across the tunneling gap is S_V(f) = 4k_B T_{\text{eff}} R_{\text{eq}}(f), where T_{\text{eff}} is the effective temperature of the coupled junction and R_{\text{eq}}(f) is the dynamic resistance, which can become negative under NDR bias. When the QCT provides small-signal gain G(f), the fluctuation–dissipation theorem demands that the product of gain and noise temperature remain bounded: G(f) T_{\text{eff}} \ge T_0, where T_0 is the physical temperature of the environment. This ensures that any local amplification necessarily introduces compensating noise, keeping the entropy balance non-negative.
The quantum analogue of this constraint arises from the commutation relations of the field operators. For any amplifier acting on bosonic modes \hat a_{\mathrm{in}} and \hat a_{\mathrm{out}}, the canonical commutation must be preserved, i.e. [,\hat a_{\mathrm{out}},,\hat a_{\mathrm{out}}^{\dagger},]=1.
A standard phase-insensitive input–output model is \hat a_{\mathrm{out}}=\sqrt{G},\hat a_{\mathrm{in}}+\sqrt{G-1},\hat b_{\mathrm{in}}^{\dagger},\qquad [,\hat b_{\mathrm{in}},\hat b_{\mathrm{in}}^{\dagger},]=1, which implies a minimum added noise.
In the QCT, this noise corresponds to the stochastic component of the tunneling current induced by thermal and quantum fluctuations of the evanescent field. The effective gain–noise trade-off can be written as G_{\text{QCT}} = 1 + \frac{P_{\text{out}} - P_{\text{in}}}{k_B T_{\text{eff}} B}, subject to P_{\text{out}} \le P_{\text{in}} + k_B T_{\text{eff}} B, where B is the bandwidth. This inequality expresses the thermodynamic ceiling on coherent amplification.
In practice, as bias across the h-BN barrier is increased, the NDR region enables energy re-injection into the evanescent mode, effectively amplifying the near field. However, this gain is self-limiting: once the local noise temperature rises to T_{\text{eff}} = T_0 + \Delta T_{\text{NDR}}, the system reaches thermal steady state. Further increase in bias dissipates additional energy as heat rather than increasing coherence. Hence, the thermal noise floor acts as a natural brake, stabilizing the system against runaway amplification.
The Thermo Bound can thus be summarized as a conservation law linking information gain, energetic input, and entropy production: \Delta I \le \frac{\Delta E}{k_B T_{\text{eff}} \ln 2}. This inequality defines the ultimate efficiency of any QCT-based communication channel or causal-foliated signaling experiment: the information rate achievable per unit energy expenditure cannot exceed the entropy cost of maintaining coherence.
From a broader perspective, the Thermo Bound is the thermal counterpart to the signal budget constraint. While Q_{\text{sig}} bounds the total coherent flux, T_{\text{eff}} bounds the usable amplification within that flux. Together, they define the operational window of the QCT as a quantum-resonant but thermodynamically closed system. No energy is created or lost beyond the permitted exchange with the environment, and the overall entropy change remains non-negative: \frac{dS_{\text{tot}}}{dt} = \frac{P_{\text{in}} - P_{\text{out}}}{T_0} \ge 0.
In essence, the Thermo Bound ensures that the QCT functions as a thermodynamically compliant quantum amplifier - capable of phase-coherent gain and superluminal coupling within its enabled region, yet always constrained by the underlying energy–entropy balance that preserves global causality and physical law.
If you try to amplify the near field in the gap, you also raise its effective noise temperature. There’s a trade-off: more gain means more noise. Nature enforces this balance so you can’t get free energy or unlimited, crystal-clear amplification.
Analogy: turning up a guitar amp: louder signal, but also more hiss. At some point, extra volume just adds noise and heat.
[click to open] Minimal Model: Nonlinear Detector/Amplifier Dynamics in Enabled Media
In enabled regions such as the QCT tunneling barrier, we assume the presence of a weak, state-dependent nonlinearity in the measurement or amplification map. This map, denoted by N_{\chi}, operates on the local density matrix \rho of the subsystem coupled to the signal field \chi. It preserves total probability (trace-preserving) but introduces a controlled nonlinearity sufficient to yield a finite, though tiny, classical capacity.
1. Definition N_{\chi}(\rho) = \frac{A_{\chi} \rho A_{\chi}^{\dagger}}{\mathrm{Tr}(A_{\chi} \rho A_{\chi}^{\dagger})}, where A_{\chi} = I + \epsilon, F(\rho, \chi) is a nonlinear operator depending weakly on the signal field \chi and on the current system state \rho. The small parameter \epsilon \ll 1 controls the degree of nonlinearity.
The normalization in the denominator enforces \mathrm{Tr}[N_{\chi}(\rho)] = 1, ensuring that the map is trace-preserving and physically consistent.
2. Linear Limit
When \epsilon = 0, the model reduces to standard quantum measurement: N_{\chi}(\rho) \to \rho' = \frac{M \rho M^{\dagger}}{\mathrm{Tr}(M \rho M^{\dagger})}, where M is the measurement operator (POVM element). Thus, the nonlinear model is a minimal extension of standard quantum mechanics.
3. Effective Dynamics
For weak nonlinearity, the map induces an effective evolution equation:
represents a nonlinear functional coupling the system’s state to the signal field.
This term can be modeled phenomenologically as: \mathcal{L}_{\chi}[\rho] = f(\chi),(\rho^2 - \rho,\mathrm{Tr}[\rho^2]), introducing state-dependent gain or attenuation that vanishes for pure states (\rho^2 = \rho).
4. Information Capacity
The key result is that post-selected or nonlinear detection can yield a small but finite classical capacity C_{\mathrm{eff}} across what would otherwise be an entanglement-only (no-signaling) channel:
C_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx p_{W}, C, where p_{W} is the success probability of the nonlinear post-selection window, and C is the capacity of an idealized signaling channel.
This corresponds to a tiny but measurable deviation from strict no-communication behavior in enabled media:
In a Quantum Coupled Transistor, the two graphene layers act as locally coherent detectors connected via a quantum barrier. The effective signal field \chi(t) represents the evanescent phase potential across the h-BN tunneling region. The nonlinearity enters through the voltage-dependent barrier transparency: T_{\chi}(V) = T_{0} \exp[-\alpha (1 - \beta V + \epsilon, \Phi_{\chi}(\rho))], where \Phi_{\chi}(\rho) is a weak feedback term coupling the local wavefunction coherence to the field state. Such feedback modifies the tunneling probability nonlocally but conserves global unitarity.
6. Conservation and Stability
To prevent runaway amplification, the nonlinear term satisfies a conservation constraint: \mathrm{Tr}[\rho,\mathcal{L}_{\chi}[\rho]] = 0, ensuring that total probability and energy remain constant to first order in \epsilon. This keeps the dynamics self-consistent and bounded - avoiding superluminal paradoxes while permitting sub-observable, coherent signal transfer.
7. Interpretation
The result is a minimally modified quantum rule: the detector response is slightly nonlinear and state-dependent, creating a small deviation from the strict no-communication theorem while retaining Born-rule normalization globally. In enabled regions (e.g., h-BN barrier fields, post-selected coincidence circuits), the interaction behaves as if phase information can tunnel through the quantum void - carrying a tiny, finite classical signal across spacelike separation, without breaking unitarity or global causality.
We’re not rewriting quantum mechanics everywhere. We’re adding a tiny, state-dependent twist to how the detector/amplifier inside the gap responds - just enough to let a faint pattern ride on the noise. Outside the gap, everything is ordinary and linear. Inside, the response is slightly context-aware (that’s the “nonlinear” part), and we keep it bounded so nothing runs away.
Analogy: a microphone with a subtle built-in compressor only active in a tiny sweet spot - most of the time it’s transparent, but in that spot it shapes the signal just enough to be heard.
4. Experimental Predictions
Mild frame anisotropy: signal velocity depends on alignment with uᵃ
Evanescent → propagating conversion under QCT bias modulation
Delay scaling with junction bias, not barrier thickness
5. Test Protocols
Two-Lab QCT Test: Bias modulation at node A produces correlated response at node B outside light cone.
Moving-Frame Swap: Repeated in relative motion to test preferred-frame alignment.
Evanescent Injection: Below-cutoff waveguide coupled into QCT gap to detect phase-modulated recovery.
6. Role of the QCT
The QCT’s femtosecond tunneling and NDR behavior create a confined nonlinearity necessary for controllable superluminal coherence. Causality is maintained through the no-loop constraint, ensuring global order.
In summary: CFS preserves relativity almost everywhere while allowing a structured signal cone active only in specific quantum media such as the QCT. This framework introduces testable predictions for superluminal yet causally consistent communication.
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
Comparison, specifications, and a comparison of the quantum field effect transistor(QFET)to the quantum coupled transistor (QCT)
Early design study, the novel Quantum Coupled Transistor, resembling a mirrored point contact transistor from 1947
Part I. Comparative Framework: QCT vs. QFET
Conduction Mechanisms
Coupling Types
Material Stacks
Operating Regimes
Functional Behavior
Conceptual Shift → Amplifying Evanescent Fields (a) Recovering Lost Information (b) Enabling Phase-Coupled Communication (c) Accessing Hidden Quantum Channels
1. Conduction Mechanism
A Quantum Field-Effect Transistor (QFET) modulates the potential in a quantum well or two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) channel through an electric field. Conduction still occurs through a continuous semiconductor layer such as GaAs, InP, or MoS₂.
In contrast, the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) contains no continuous conductive channel. Two graphene layers are separated by an insulating h-BN barrier, and current flows only through quantum tunneling, not drift or diffusion.
In simple terms:
QFET: electrons move through a channel.
QCT: electrons appear through a barrier.
Each graphene sheet can be independently biased, effectively functioning as both electrode and gate analogue. Unlike conventional transistors, the QCT requires no additional control gate – its modulation arises directly from interlayer biasing and phase-coupled tunneling across the h-BN medium.
2. Coupling Type
In a QFET, coupling is electrostatic. The gate field modifies the carrier concentration in the channel, altering current flow. In a QCT, coupling is quantum-mechanical, relying on wavefunction overlap across the barrier. The signal path is therefore:
QFET: electric field → charge density → current
QCT: field phase → tunneling resonance → tunneling probability
The QCT does not merely modulate how much current flows; it determines whether two quantum states can interact at all.
3. Material Stack
Layer
QFET
QCT
Channel
GaAs, InP, Si, MoS₂
Graphene (G₁/G₂)
Barrier
Oxide (Al₂O₃, HfO₂)
h-BN (1–5 nm), atomically flat and lattice-matched to graphene
Operating Field
Gate-induced electric field
Interlayer bias plus plasmonic field modes
QCT Graphene/h-BN/Graphene sandwich
While a QFET uses a gate dielectric to control the flow of carriers, the QCT uses the barrier itself as an active quantum medium.
4. Operating Regime
Property
QFET
QCT
Frequency
Tens to hundreds of GHz
10–50 THz (practical), up to 150 THz (intrinsic)
Coherence
None (classical drift)
Coherent tunneling resonance, phase-sensitive transport
Energy Scale
meV range
Tens to hundreds of meV (bias-tunable)
Signal Type
Charge current
Phase-coupled field (plasmon–phonon mode)
The QCT operates in a high-frequency, coherent regime where quantum phase relationships become the dominant control parameter.
5. Functional Behavior
Functionally, the QCT behaves less like an on-off switch and more like a resonant coupler or quantum mixer. By tuning the interlayer bias and the relative twist angle of the graphene sheets, the device can:
Selectively couple specific frequency bands (as in a terahertz heterodyne mixer)
Amplify coherence across the tunneling barrier
Serve as an ultrafast, low-noise quantum tunneling modulator
6. Conceptual Shift
The Quantum-Coupled Transistor represents a fundamental change in device philosophy: from controlling charge within matter → to controlling coherence between quantum states.
It is, in essence, a transistor reimagined as a quantum bridge – not a valve for electrons, but a tunable conduit for quantum phase.
Amplifying Evanescent Fields
Evanescent modes decay exponentially with distance, yet they carry critical phase information. In the QCT, amplifying these modes can extend coherence and reveal otherwise hidden channels of information transfer.
(a) Recovering Lost Information
Evanescent components encode high-spatial-frequency (fine-detail) information – Fourier components that fade rapidly. Amplifying them restores detail that would otherwise blur beyond the barrier.
(b) Enabling Phase-Coupled Communication
Across the h-BN barrier, the QCT signal is not a propagating current but a phase-locked near-field coupling. Amplifying this mode:
Strengthens modulation of tunneling probability
Increases signal-to-noise ratio for coherent effects
Potentially enables information transfer via phase coherence rather than direct current flow
(c) Accessing “Hidden” Quantum Channels
Evanescent fields represent the overlap between classical and quantum domains – traces of virtual photons, plasmonic tunneling, and nonlocal correlations. Amplifying them accesses these “hidden” channels, enabling interaction through non-radiative fields.
Mechanism: In the QCT, Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) or quantum feedback re-injects energy into the tunneling modes, sustaining evanescent coupling instead of allowing decay.
Essentially, amplifying the evanescent field means amplifying the void itself – reinforcing the invisible bridge where information resides but energy does not flow.
These properties suggest that the QCT is not merely a device but a testbed for deeper questions about quantum coherence and information flow – leading directly to the framework of Causal-Foliated Signaling.
Where would we be without a proper order of things, eh? Chronology matters. There’s a rhythm to these experiences – about two weeks apart, like the quiet beat of an unseen clock somewhere behind the world. Each event linked like pearls on a string, sequenced by something larger than chance.
Log: Jan – Mar 1986 (~ 2 week sequence)
Jan 14: A lucid dream of the Challenger disaster. Jan 28: The Challenger exploded, confirming the dream. Feb 10-12: A vision of a cosmic torus; a glimpse into the structure of the universe. Feb 23: A life-changingUFO sighting over Galway Bay Mar 9: Received a “Psychic Mayday,” a distress signal from an unknown consciousness.
The story didn’t begin with the UFO. That was only the flash at the surface.
I can still recall, with a clarity that startles me, the night I dreamed of the Challenger disaster – two weeks before it happened, around the fourteenth of January. The images were unmistakable: fire, falling light, a silence that felt endless.
Then came January 28 1986. The dream stepped into daylight. The shuttle broke apart above Florida, and for a moment the whole planet seemed to hold its breath.
Two weeks later – around February 10th to 12th – I had what I can only call a vision of the cosmos: a torus of living light, immense yet intimate, turning slowly as though revealing the hidden architecture of reality itself.
Not spherical as Einstein imagined, but toroidal: a horn‑torus, a donut universe. And two weeks after that, on February 23rd, came the UFO over Galway Bay.
My dreams and visions weren’t caused by the UFO; if anything, the sighting seemed to answer them, echoing back through whatever channels link mind, matter and time. Each event felt like a note in a larger composition, a sequence strung together by something more deliberate than chance.
Life, of course, went on. I started my own business as a self-employed electrician – rewiring centuries-old cottages, fixing ovens, grounding myself in circuits I could actually hold. Yet something in me had changed. The dream, the vision, the sighting – they had opened a circuit of their own.
The Torus‑Pearlstring Proposal
In the months that followed, I rented an IBM wheelwriter to capture the flood of thoughts, diagrams, and theories that filled my head. I titled the resulting manuscript The Torus–Pearlstring Proposal.
The pages are long lost now, but the journey they began – the search to understand that hidden rhythm, the universe as a coupled system – has never really ended. A torus, not a sphere: energy circulating endlessly, like breath.
A pattern without beginning or end, feeding back through itself in perfect balance – perhaps the same pulse that linked dream, vision, and sighting, looping through consciousness like current through a circuit. For safekeeping I left a copy of the 88 page manuscript with the Ministry of Defense, department SY252, in London, Whitehall in 1987.
If I can ever retrieve it remains to be seen.
The Foghorn Emblem – Contact Project Symbol
One of the diagrams in that manuscript was peculiar: a minimalist black-and-white graphic of three geometric shapes on a white background: two opposing triangles meeting at a vertical bar.
The Foghorn Emblem – Contact Project Symbol
It became the Contact Project “Foghorn Emblem”: Two opposing triangles converge on a central pillar, resembling acoustic horns – perhaps one emitting, one receiving – joined by the conduit of translation. In the language of SETI, it evokes dialogue between signal and interpreter, sender and receiver, civilization and cosmos.
It evokes a cosmic foghorn, a beacon of patterned intent calling through the static of space. It represents the symmetry of sender and receiver, the moment when listening becomes dialogue.
It resembles a voltage-surpressing TVS diode and the symbol for a gate valve.
Another time it reminded me of a phonograph needle tracking the “groove” of a pulsar signal. The symbol becomes a stylus: an instrument sensitive enough to trace modulation, jitter, or non-random deviations in radio stars that could signify intention and an embedded signal within the natural rhythm.
From Point Contact to Quantum Coupling
If energy could circulate endlessly within a torus, then perhaps consciousness did the same – looping through matter, thought, and time in a self-sustaining flow. What if this rhythm could be modeled, even mimicked, in miniature?
Not the universe itself, but its echo: a transistor. Two coupled transistors, facing each other across a thin germanium slab, their currents whispering through the barrier like twin pulses of light – mirrored halves of a cosmic torus, breathing in unison.
Classical to Quantum Transition
The 1947 point‑contact transistor marked the fragile dawn of modern computing. That first functional transistor, built at Bell Labs in 1947, marked the birth of the information age – the moment electrons began to speak intelligibly through human design.
Now imagine a second one on the reverse side of the same crystal. Their bases are not separate. They share a heart of germanium, so that when one side breathes, the other side feels it. Amplification and resonance bound together. This was no longer a device of simple on/off switching but a duet.
When Transistor 1 is active, holes injected by its emitter (E₁) form a cloud of positive charge within the germanium. This cloud spreads through the shared base, influencing Transistor 2 below. The extra charge alters its bias conditions, allowing one transistor to modulate or even control the other.
This coupled behavior – one amplifier shaping another – is the essence of the design.
Then came the question that changed everything: what if that germanium block were divided by the thinnest imaginable void – a quantum gap small enough for tunneling?
The Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT)
By splitting the base with a nanometer-scale barrier, the two halves become physically separate yet quantum-mechanically connected. The bridge between them is no longer conductive matter, but atunneling junction – a semiconductor–gap–semiconductor structure capable of Negative Differential Resistance (NDR).
The operation of the upper transistor instantly alters the tunneling probability below, coupling the two at femtosecond speeds. In essence, an active quantum device has been embedded at the heart of the transistor pair.
In October 2025, a new realization emerged: replace germanium with graphene, separated by hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN). The QCT thus becomes a quantum membrane – a bridge of probability rather than metal, where conduction occurs through resonance, not contact.
In such a device, matter behaves less like circuitry and more like a standing wave – a field conversing with its own reflection.
Sandia’s 1998 Quantum Transistor vs 1986 Galway UFO Design
In February 1998, Sandia National Laboratories announced the Double Electron Layer Tunneling Transistor (DELTT) – a revolutionary device built from two vertically stacked transistors separated by a nanometer-thin barrier, allowing electrons to “tunnel” between layers through a quantum bridge.
Compared to Sandia’s 1998 DELTT transistor (~1 THz operation), a graphene–hBN–graphene Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT) could theoretically reach 10–50 THz (and up to 160 THz intrinsically), with 1–5 THz achievable for cryogenic prototypes.
The Torus and the Transistor
The torus and the QCT share a deep symmetry: both circulate energy through a void, sustained by resonance and feedback.
In the torus, energy never escapes; it circulates, held in balance by feedback. In the QCT, charge does the same: injected, tunneled, reabsorbed, and re-emitted in a rhythm as fast as thought – measured not in seconds, but in femtoseconds. The circuit breathes; information moves through the void without crossing it.
And perhaps this is the deeper symmetry: that consciousness, too, circulates like current – capable of coupling across time, of reaching backward through the vacuum between moments. The Challenger dream, the torus vision, the UFO over Galway Bay – each was part of that same feedback cycle, signals in resonance across the years.
Superluminal Echo: The Steinberg Connection
In 1993, physicist Aephraim Steinberg and his colleagues timed photons as they tunneled through optical barriers. What they found defied classical intuition: the photons seemed to emerge from the far side faster than light could have crossed the same space.
The effect, called the Hartman Effect, implied that the photon’s wavefunction was not confined by the barrier at all – it extended through it, its phase evolving nonlocally, as if the particle were already aware of its destination.
Steinberg’s careful analysis maintained that no usable signal outran light. The pulse’s leading edge still obeyed Einstein’s limit. Yet, the phase correlations – the ghostly alignment between entry and exit -were effectively superluminal. The system’s coherence spanned the barrier faster than any classical influence could travel, whispering that information about correlations might not be bound by ordinary spacetime intervals.
The Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT) is a solid-state analog of that same principle. Across its h-BN gap, electrons do not march through matter – they tunnel through probability, their wavefunctions interlocking between graphene layers in a shared evanescent field. Alice’s gate bias modulates that field; Bob’s side responds within femtoseconds – almost instantly, not through classical signals but through phase coherence.
This is Steinberg’s tunneling photon turned electronic – a field coherence that outpaces light yet preserves causality. In an active, nonlinear QCT (biased, resonant, alive,) those same correlations could, in principle, become controllable, carrying information through the void itself.
In that sense, the QCT becomes a technological metaphor for my 1986 experience:
Not prophecy, but phase coherence across the boundary of time – a superluminal echo, awareness tunneling through the same quantum void that electrons now traverse.
Toward Experimental Verification: The QCT as a Causal Foliation Test Device
In theoretical terms, the QCT embodies a tangible platform for Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) tests: a medium where phase-linked coherence propagates faster than light yet remains globally consistent. Within such a framework, spacetime is no longer flatly Lorentzian but foliated, like in a book, by hidden simultaneity surfaces – sheets through which superluminal interactions remain orderly, non-paradoxical, and empirically testable.
Causal Foliated Signaling: like folios in a book
The Test Setup
Two QCT nodes – Alice and Bob – are fabricated as mirrored graphene–hBN–graphene stacks, each with independent bias control and ultrafast detection. The gate bias on Alice’s side, V1(t), is driven by a pseudorandom terahertz modulation. Bob’s side, isolated and shielded, measures its own tunneling current, I2(t), with femtosecond precision.
The Hypothesis: Causal-Foliated Coupling (CFS)
If conventional quantum theory holds, Bob’s readings remain statistically random. But if causal-foliated coupling exists – if the evanescent field itself carries structured information – then Bob’s signal will show faint but reproducible cross-correlations synchronized to Alice’s modulation, preceding the classical light-travel delay.
CFS introduces a hidden global time structure (“foliation”) in spacetime. Within that structure:
Certain fields (like the QCT’s evanescent tunneling field) can exchange phase information superluminally.
These exchanges occur along the foliation, preserving causal order globally, even though they appear faster than light locally.
In simpler terms:
There is an underlying “now” in the universe – a hidden simultaneity – along which quantum coherence can propagate.
Concept
Conventional Quantum Mechanics
Causal-Foliated Coupling
What Bob sees
Random noise
Faint correlations
How Alice affects Bob
Only via light-speed classical channel
Via superluminal phase coupling through evanescent field
When effect appears
After c-delay
Before c-delay (aligned with foliation)
Causality preserved?
Yes (strictly)
Yes (globally ordered by hidden foliation)
Rotating the QCT apparatus relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB) rest frame would test for anisotropy – the telltale fingerprint of a preferred cosmic foliation. Such an outcome would imply that phase information, not energy, can traverse spacetime faster than light – that the universe permits order across the void, so long as it respects the hidden rhythm of its own higher geometry.
The Closing Symmetry
At the cosmic scale, the torus is the universe breathing through itself. At the quantum scale, the QCT is electrons tunneling through themselves. And across time, perhaps consciousness does the same – looping through the void in superluminal resonance, where tomorrow can whisper into yesterday, and the dream becomes the experiment.
Loops through the Void
Loops through the void – divided yet continuous, speaking across the gap. Both embody the paradox of separation as communication – the same principle that allowed a future event to echo backward into a dream, and a vision to crystallize, decades later, as a transistor that remembers the shape of the cosmos.
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
What began as a fleeting, personal encounter over the Claddagh soon unfolded onto a much larger canvas. That Sunday morning UFO sighting – a silent, hovering craft above Galway Bay – did not dissolve into forgetfulness; it seemed instead to point backward and forward at once – into the oldest invasion stories of Ireland, and into future echoes of cosmic alignment.
The Southern Route Reimagined
The Salthill sighting felt uncannily like a verification of the old southern tradition: the “Shining Ones,” the Tuatha Dé Danann, arriving in flying ships at Galway Bay, advancing up the River Corrib, and assembling at Cong for the First Battle of Moytura. Each landmark on their route resonated with my own memory of that morning: the Claddagh as chosen beachhead, Maigh Cuilinn as the navigator’s plain, Lough Corrib consecrated to Manannán, Knockma as beacon-hill, and Cong as ritual battlefield. My sighting seemed to re-illuminate the myth: otherworldly vessels descending in controlled formation, their presence etched into cairns, circles, and place-names.
The Arrival of the Tuatha Dé Danann: imagination, melody and song.
Ancient Echoes, Modern Forms: The Arrival of the Tuatha Dé Danann
Almost a decade later, the Claddagh beach became stage once more. The Solas Atlantis project (1993–94) inscribed medicine wheels and planetary symbols into the sand, geoglyphs oriented like ancient monuments. Where my sighting had opened a personal portal, these art-rituals made the connection communal.
The largest wheel, dedicated to Jupiter, became the emblem of the 1995 Galway Arts Festival, echoing both the Tuatha’s cosmic treasures and the skies I had watched in 1986.
The Comet and the Gods
At that very time, fragments of Comet Shoemaker–Levy 9 collided with Jupiter. For six days the world’s astronomers watched fire bloom in the giant planet’s atmosphere.
Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9, taken on May 17, 1994, NASA, ESA, and H. Weaver and E. Smith (STScI)
The synchronicity was breathtaking: as Galway artists marked Jupiter on the Claddagh, the real Jupiter bore scars from a cosmic bombardment unseen in human history. Myth, memory, and astronomy aligned: my sighting of an unknown craft, the Tuatha’s descent in cloud-ships, the comet’s fall on Jupiter – all variations of the same story: beings and bodies arriving from beyond, leaving marks on land and sky.
Credit: NASA, ESA, E. Karkoschka (University of Arizona), and G. Bacon (STScI)
A Living Continuum
The southern route of the Tuatha Dé Danann, my 1986 encounter, the Solas Atlantis geoglyphs, and the Shoemaker–Levy comet together form a living continuum. Galway Bay is not just a backdrop, but a threshold: a place where past and future, earth and cosmos, myth and event all intersect.
The manuscripts describe the Tuatha Dé Danann arriving in “ships that flew through the air,” a phrase that resonates uncannily with modern visions of spacecraft. They brought with them shining artifacts of immense power – tools or technologies that early chroniclers could only describe as magical treasures. Their arrival story functions as a mythic technology-transfer: beings descending from above, demonstrating feats of construction and energy beyond the scope of any human community of the time.
The Arrival of the Tuatha Dé Danann – Southern Tradition (Galway → Cong)
(Interactive map)
✣☘︎A Mythic Itinerary ☘︎✣
1. Poulnabrone Dolmen – Portal of the Ancestors | 53.0426, –9.1373
While not strictly part of the route, the great portal tomb of Poulnabrone on the Burren anchors the Tuatha’s arrival in deep time. Such monuments were seen as doorways to the Otherworld– a hidden continuum adjacent to known spacetime – fitting symbols for a people said to descend from the sky.
Dating to around 4200–3800 BC, Poulnabrone housed collective burials, linking the Tuatha tradition with Ireland’s oldest monuments.
2. Galway Bay / Claddagh – Landing Site | 53.269037, –9.056382
The fleet of the Tuatha Dé Danann made a controlled descent into Galway Bay, with the Claddagh serving as their chosen beachhead.
Then they performed the ritual burning of their ships, symbolically severing ties to the Otherworld and marking their irrevocable settlement. From this vantage one can see both the cairn-dotted landscape of the Burren and the ancient stone forts of the Aran Islands, a symbolic bridge connecting the urban present with the monumental past.
The Tuatha Dé Danann then advanced inland in formation, following the River Corrib.
The plain honors Cuileann, star‑reader and pathfinder, who guided the newcomers inland. Cairns and tombs along the route memorialize this act of celestial navigation, each monument a waypoint that anchored their passage in both earth and sky.
By following the rivers and lakes, the Tuatha Dé Danann secured mobility, supply lines, and defensible positions.
4. The Passage Inland – River Corrib and Lough Oirbsean | ~53.45, –9.33
The fleet advanced inland into the lake Oirbsean (Lough Corrib), consecrated to Manannán mac Lir.
Their voyage was a strategic military advance, marking their transformation from otherworldly invaders into a sovereign power claiming the very arteries of the land. The shores of Lough Corrib are dotted with cairns, crannogs, and megaliths – prehistoric staging points.
Knockma (Cnoc Meadha) as Signal Hill | 53.48186, –8.96054
The imposing limestone mass of Knockma rises along their route, crowned with ancient cairns that mark it as a natural command post – a hilltop beacon and observation point.
In later folklore it became the seat of Fionnbharr, king of the fairies, yet in the ancient astronaut perspective it evokes an elevated station from which the newcomers might have surveyed or directed their activities.
The culmination of the Tuatha Dé Danann’s advance is at Cong, the narrow neck between Lough Corrib and Lough Mask, remembered as the battlefield of Moytura. Here they met the Fir Bolg, and legend situates their great war upon these plains.
According to tradition, the First Battle of Moytura unfolded here: Nuada lost his arm, and King Eochaid of the Fir Bolg was slain, sealing the Tuatha Dé Danann’s victory and their claim upon the land.
Archaeological echoes at Cong
Glebe Stone Circles (~53.538, –9.296): a rare cluster of Bronze Age rings west of Cong, echoing assembly and ritual space in the mythic battlefield zone. Ballymacgibbon Cairn (~53.530, –9.280): vast unopened passage grave, linked to the slain of Moytura. Ecohy’s Cairn (Carn Eochaid) (~53.568, –9.270): said to be the burial mound of King Eochaid.
A Landscape Reforged
What emerges is a cognitive map transformed into a sacred grid. Galway Bay, Corrib, Knockma, and Cong become stages in a procession of beings from beyond. Their story sanctifies the land, but it also encodes memory of technology and power beyond ordinary human means. Whether remembered as gods, fairies, or ancestors, the Tuatha Dé Danann fit within the wider pattern of ancient astronaut lore: those who descended from the skies, forged landscapes into symbols, and left behind monuments too great to forget.
Myth and Mystery: The Arrival of the Tuatha Dé Danann
The story of the Tuatha Dé Danann arriving in ships that landed on a mountain is most prominently featured in the Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of the Taking of Ireland). This collection of poems and prose recounts the mythical origins of the Irish people.
According to these accounts, the Tuatha Dé Danann – a race of god-like beings with mastery over magic and craftsmanship – arrived in Ireland under a shroud of mystery. The texts describe them coming in “dark clouds” or “flying ships,” which enveloped the land in shadow for three days. The striking image of a people making their initial appearance on a mountaintop enhances the mythical nature of their arrival.
Reclamation, Not Refuge
Their journey is best understood as a reclamation of ancestral lands rather than a flight to asylum. Some scholarly interpretations draw parallels between the story of the Tuatha Dé Danann and the biblical narrative of the Israelites returning from exile.
Epilogue — The Prophecy of Return
The lasting folklore of the Tuatha Dé Danann is that they will return. Folk prophecy even speaks of a final battle – an apocalyptic confrontation in which they will emerge victorious.
Whether seen as gods, fairies, or cosmic visitors, the Tuatha remain figures of both memory and anticipation: messengers from beyond, whose story continues to shape the land and imagination.
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
My 1986 UFO Dream Gave Me Crash Coordinates. 31 Years Later, I Went to Greenland to reconnect.
Two weeks after my sighting and the journal headlines I had a strange dream. The memory of it has never felt like my own. It feels borrowed, imprinted on my mind one night in 1986. It began not as a dream, but as a violent awakening into another place.
I found myself on the bridge of a ship not of human design.
Dream reconstruction
Around me, a frantic crew moved with a desperate, failing grace. The air was thick with a cacophony of shrieks that I understood not with my ears, but with my soul: they were terrified. Through a viewport, I saw a sea of ice churning below, rushing toward us. In the chaos, my eyes locked onto a single point of clarity: a digital display, flickering with a sequence of numbers.
They were the last thing I saw before a final, violent lurch plunged everything into darkness.
I awoke with a gasp in my own bed, the digits seared into my memory. Before they could fade, I scrawled them onto a notepad. For two days, they stared back at me, a meaningless string of numbers. But a thought began to form in my mind. The numbers weren’t random. They were a location.
Discovering Disko Island: From Dream to Destination
At the public library, an old atlas confirmed my suspicion. My fingers traced the lines to a desolate patch of icy water off the coast of Greenland, near a place called Disko Island.
“Disko Island,” I thought, a smile touching my lips. “A bit on the nose, isn’t it?” The idea that my dream was some kind of psychic mayday from a crashed UFO seemed utterly ridiculous, but the chain of events was too compelling to ignore. I hadn’t “known” that the coordinates pointed to a location in the Arctic Circle. Despite this, what I had seen from the alien bridge were Arctic waters. This made sense.
In the following days I filed the experience away, a fascinating but seemingly unsolvable mystery.
For thirty-one years, that knowledge festered. A splinter in my mind. What really happened that night? Was it a warning? A memory? An echo of a tragedy that bled through space and time into my sleep?
Turning Curiosity into Action: The Journey to Greenland
In 2017, I finally had the opportunity to know. After a redundancy I was given a severance cheque. I used part of it to travel to Greenland, to the edge of the world, to confront the ghost that had haunted me for decades. My search started from a distance, poring over satellite images, hunting for any anomaly, any scar on the seabed that could betray a secret. The best I could do however, was to scour the coastline of Disko Island.
Disko Island: the discovery of the shipwreck of the steam whaler Wildfire from 1868, by Erich Habich-Traut
But the sea holds its secrets close. The true coordinates, the point of impact from my dream, are out in the crushing deep. A place where oceanographic data is a modern myth and the icy darkness swallows all light. It’s down there, a place I can point to on a map but can never reach by myself.
The author (right) before the dive to the shipwreck from 1868
I discovered a ship along the coastline of Disko Island, but it wasn’t the vessel I had hoped to find. Instead, I uncovered an even deeper mystery. I journeyed to Greenland for answers, yet only encountered a cold, silent confirmation that something waits in the abyss. My experience taught me that we shouldn’t fear the unknown, but embrace it with hope and curiosity.
And it knows I have its address.
Some may now say that this is the Holy Grail. I have waited 39 years to talk about this. Are you ready?
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
This is an investigation into unexplained aerial phenomena (UAP) that occurred on February 23, 1986, when Prince Charles was allegedly aboard a plane that had a close encounter. The Sunday Mirror ran a story about this at the time. The palace never made any admission. I found eight corroborating MOD UFO files.
The reason I investigated this, is that I had a significant UFO sighting on the same day. From memory, I recalled seeing a magazine headline about a UFO flap two weeks later, but I could never find any proof that the magazine or the article actually existed. Instead, a week ago (2025), I found confirmation of the UFO flap in Ministry of Defence files – something that never made it into the mainstream news.
THE BLACK UFO REPORT
The title “Black UFO Report” is derived from the color of the MOD file addressing the probable Prince Charles flight, partially redacted and sealed until 2071.
The Sunday Mirror of 2 March 1986 reported that Prince Charles’s RAF VC-10 had a close encounter with a glowing red object over the Irish Sea on 23 February 1986 during his flight home from the United States. (Click the image for the full text of the article).
Royal jet, jumbo, and motorists caught in night of mystery lights
Sunday 23 February 1986 — In 1986 the skies over Britain and Ireland turned into a scene from Close Encounters.
At about 7.37pm, the RAF jet carrying Prince Charles home from California was suddenly flooded with a blinding red glow over the Irish Sea. The cockpit lit up like day. Other aircraft confirmed they saw it too.
Then, at 8.30pm sharp, witnesses from Scotland to Somerset reported brilliant green and orange fireballs tearing across the heavens. One motorist swore he saw a cube-shaped UFO, another observer, a retired police superintendent in South Wales, said it hovered for ten minutes.
By 9.50pm, an American 747 near Shannon told controllers their cockpit was bathed in a mysterious flash of light.
And earlier still, at 11am in Galway, a man said a huge, silent craft hovered over the bay in broad daylight before vanishing without a trace.
Experts muttered about a “super meteor” – yet no such fireball was logged by astronomers.
What is certain: a Prince, a jumbo, and dozens of ordinary Britons all witnessed strange lights in the sky on the same day.
The Black UFO report
The phrase “Black UFO Report” comes from the distinctive black-marked MOD file possibly linked to the Prince Charles incident, which remains partially redacted and closed until 2071.
In the released MOD papers this document sticks out, because it’s a negative print, indicating that it had been microfilmed. I believe this document is linked to the Prince Charles VC10 encounter, as it references an airline pilot at Shannon who had a similar experience to the VC10 pilot, according to the Sunday Mirror.
In the report the sections A to K are missing.
The UFO reporting chain (according to Manual of Air Traffic Services MATS Part 1):
Reporting chain
The reporting chain graphic explains the black UFO report. The 747 Crew sighting is included via LATCC. Above that, the VC10 crew report is redacted until 2071, presumably because one Very Important Passenger could be identified on that flight. That’s why only sections L-R are visible. Sections A-K, which would have included the place of observation (VC10 cockpit?) and the detailed description (?), are missing.
Evidence Collection
The authors UFO sighting, MUFON 82139
In searching for evidence – beyond the Sunday Mirror tabloid story – that my own UFO sighting on 23 February 1986 was part of a UFO flap, I submitted several FOI requests regarding Irish and British UFO reports from that day. And, to my surprise, I got lucky! (Link to interactive map of all the sightings.)
The British National Archives responded with the Ministry of Defense UFO files DEFE/24/1924/1. Independently I also foundDEFE/31/174/1. Based on their response and the other archival findings, I was able to reconstruct the entire day, including the notable Prince Charles flight. (A full listing with references is given towards the end of this report.)
✈️ Prince Charles’s Flight reconstruction per United Press International archive Aircraft: RAF Vickers VC10 “Queen of the Skies” Date: Sunday, 23 February 1986 Approx. Departure in California: 01:30 PST Flight time: ~10:30h Sunset in Ireland: about 18:02 GMT Over the Irish Sea: ~19:37 GMT (UAP illuminates cockpit) Arrival in UK: ~20:00 GMT (per UPI report)
Document Analysis
HOWEVER, the information released via the Freedom of Information request in the MOD documents is incomplete because: “…the document contains the names and addresses of members of the public … Release could lead to press intrusion into their lives. This exemption will remain in place for 84 years (until) …2071.” …said the Email I received from the National Archives.
Therefore, the released MOD papers provide only a partial view of the 23 February 1986 events. Several reports appear in summary form, but critical details are absent, particularly in the so-called “black UFO report,” which survives only as a negative microfilm copy. Strikingly, this document begins at section L, omitting sections A–K where the original sighting description, location, and movements would normally be recorded. This omission, combined with the MOD’s Freedom of Information response confirming that DEFE/31/174 remains closed until 2071 under Section 40 (personal data), strongly suggests that the withheld material includes the full testimony of the RAF VC-10 crew and possibly corroborating accounts from the American 747 near Shannon.
Press vs. Official Record
In contrast, the Sunday Mirror article of 2 March 1986 – almost certainly based on an insider leak – contained far richer detail, citing multiple aircraft and the MOD’s own inquiry. The imbalance between what the press reported and what the archives reveal underscores both the sensitivity of the case and the deliberate withholding of information tied to high-profile witnesses.
The following table compares what’s known from the Sunday Mirror article (via a press leak) vs. the official MOD documentation:
Source
What is Reported
What is Missing / Withheld
Sunday Mirror (2 Mar 1986)
• Prince Charles’s RAF VC-10 crew saw a red glowing object light up the cockpit.• Four other aircraft also reported the same UFO over the Irish Sea.• MOD launched immediate investigation; no missing aircraft found.• Experts ruled out meteors or space debris.• Official quote: “It’s a complete mystery.”
• No names of pilots/airlines.• No times or positions of the other four aircraft.• No ATC transcripts or technical details.
MOD File (DEFE 31/174/1 extract)
• A Lyneham Ops sighting report filed.• Remarks: “An American 747 captain reported similar sighting near Shannon, Ireland. Object/apparition lit up his flight deck. LATCC have knowledge of this particular incident.”
• The 747’s original report (captain’s statement, ATC log) is not included.• No flight number, crew names, or airline identified.• Likely withheld under FOI Section 40(2) (personal data exemption).
MOD FOI Response
• Confirms DEFE 31/174 is partly closed until 2071.• Cited Section 40(2) FOI exemption (Data Protection Act).• Withheld data includes names/addresses of witnesses (both public and MOD staff).
• Any documents containing personal identifiers (pilots, airlines, MOD staff) remain unreleased.• This almost certainly includes the Shannon 747 report and possibly additional aircraft reports (VC10).
It appears the press had the full narrative.
Event Summary – 23 February 1986 UFO Events On the 23 February 1986 nine unusual reports swept across Britain and Ireland – amounting to a previously unreported fullUFO flap.
Description: Large structured UFO came into view from behind houses during uphill walk near Salthill/Claddagh. Hovered silently over Galway Bay, then disappeared after brief re-observation.
Observer: Erich Habich-Traut (submitted later to MUFON).
Notes: Only daylight structured craft sighting of the day; distinct from evening fireball events.
Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 19:37Z (reconstructed flight path, Irish Sea)
Description: Bright red luminous object illuminated cockpit. Reported by Prince Charles’s pilot, confirmed by multiple other aircraft over the Irish Sea.
Observer: RAF VC-10 crew on board VIP flight returning from Palm Springs, California.
Notes: Marker placed at 19:37Z position along reconstructed PSP → RAF Brize Norton track. Royal VIP involvement makes this event uniquely significant.
Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 21:50Z (per MOD file receipt)
Description: American 747 captain reported cockpit suddenly illuminated by a brilliant apparition.
Observer: Airline crew near Shannon.
Notes: MOD time may reflect report filing, not the actual sighting. High reliability due to experienced airline witnesses.
Timeline of 23 Feb 1986 UFO flap In Ireland/England
Epilogue & Conclusion
The evening reports between 20:30 and 21:50 on 23 February 1986 could, in theory, be explained by a superbolide meteor: a 1–3 m object fragmenting at ~50 km altitude, producing a fireball visible across ~800 km. Yet no such event appears in scientific or astronomical archives, and aside from mentions in the MOD UFO files, the Northern UFO News and the Sunday Mirror, it left no official trace – no meteor bulletin, no press coverage of a continent-brightening event.
No official meteor record exists.
What stands out most is the five concurrent reports at 20:30 – from Scotland, England, and Wales – describing very different objects: fleeting flashes and trails, a cube-shaped luminous form, a green fireball, and a multicolored dome that lingered for minutes. These accounts resist being collapsed into a single meteor explanation.
Crucially, the Galway daylight sighting (11:00) and the VIP VC10 encounter over the Irish Sea (19:37) do not fit a meteor narrative, and the 747 cockpit illumination near Shannon further complicates the picture. While some accounts resemble fireball activity, the overall pattern suggests something more complex: a linked sequence of distinct aerial anomalies involving civilian, military, and royal actors. This makes the events of 23 February 1986 one of the most unusual and significant aerial mysteries of the decade.
The true story of a man who went up a hill and came down a mountain.
The Salthill UFO encounter occurred on a cold Sunday morning in Galway, 23 February 1986. When I first recorded the event in 2016, I believed it was the only time I had witnessed something that did not belong in our skies. Later, however, I realized that was not the case. The sighting unfolded in Salthill, but the object itself hovered out over the Claddagh.
An Unexpected Adventure
The 1986 experience kicked off an unexpected adventure, one that took me from the hills of Salthill to the icy shores of Greenland.
Life in Galway was simple. For me, one of the greatest pleasures was walking along the coastal promenade, “the prom,” as everyone called it. My neighbours in Fairlands Park had a boisterous ten-month-old puppy named Rocky, and I often took him out to burn off some of that boundless energy.
That morning was a fine one. Although a cold spell persisted, the sky was a wide blue expanse, bright with sun and dotted with a few clouds. The grass in the field was still covered in a crisp layer of frost. The air was invigorating and fresh.
“Come on, Rocky,” I said, tugging at his leash. “Let’s get a move on before the weather changes its mind.”
It was about eleven o’clock when we began making our way up the hill on Dalysfort Road toward Salthill Beach.
The sky and the weather in Ireland are notoriously changeable, so I examined the sky to check for any signs of rain. As I tilted my head back, scanning the clouds, something caught my eye.
The Cigar-Shaped Object
Reconstruction
Framed perfectly between the rooftops of a row of houses a solid, grey, cigar-shaped object hung silently in the air. It was utterly still. Rocky, meanwhile, was far more interested in a promising-looking patch of grass.
I didn’t have my 35mm camera with me, a fact I regretted for years.
The object seemed to hover a mile or two away, just above the rooftops. Time seemed to freeze. I stood motionless for what felt like an eternity – though it was probably only about 30 seconds – fixing it in my sights. It didn’t move. I contemplated it, searching for a “rational” explanation.
I thought to myself that, had I not been walking with Rocky, it might have looked strange to any onlookers: a man suddenly stopping dead in the middle of the road to stare at the sky. But with a dog, that was normal. Dogwalkers stopped in their tracks all the time. Rocky, meanwhile, kept tugging at his leash.
“It looks like a Zeppelin,” I finally murmured to myself, dismissing the idea that I was seeing a UFO.
I continued walking, keeping the object in sight. But due to the change in perspective, a house and some trees slid in front of it, temporarily, for few seconds, blocking my view.
Naturally, I expected the object to reappear on the other side as we cleared the obstruction.
But it didn’t. The patch of sky where it should have been was empty. The object was gone.
Searching for Answers
“Hold on a minute,” I said, turning around. Rocky looked up at me, confused. I walked back to the exact spot where I’d first seen it. Nothing. The sky was just sky. A slow-moving blimp would still be there, or at least nearby. This was just… gone.
It had vanished in a matter of seconds. I paced back and forth in disbelief, willing it to reappear where it was before. But no cigar. Rocky whimpered impatiently. Finally, we carried on.
Western House corner store, Salthill
Down at the Salthill promenade, we turned left at the Western House corner store. The green across the road buzzed with activity. In spring 2016 a full-blown festival was underway. At the seafront, I scanned the wide-open sky one more time. Clear.
Seeking Witnesses
A question crossed my mind: could others have seen the same object as me? I overcame my naturally shy nature to quiz a few people milling about:
“Have you just seen a blimp or any balloons in the sky here?” It felt like being a market researcher. I just got shrugs and headshakes in response
Then I spotted my friend, Jim, who owned the local amusement arcade. “Jim, good to see you!” I shouted over the noise of a live band. “What’s all this then?”
“College Week, Eric!” he grinned. “Or Rag Week, depending on how much of a mess they make. You look like you’ve seen a ghost.”
“Not a ghost,” I said, lowering my voice. “More like… a blimp? Did you see anything up there in the sky? Big, grey, cigar-shaped?”
Jim laughed. “The only thing I’ve seen in the sky is my profits from the slot machines. You’ve been working too hard, mate.” He gave me a funny look, and we left it at that. College week carried on and came to a close on the 1st of March.
Galway Advertiser archive, 27th February, 1986 pg. 21: “COLLEGE Week is in full swing at the moment. Tonight is a fancy dress Rock ‘n Roll night at Leisureland with John Keogh and Full Circle.“
From this, we know College week 1986 ran from Sunday, February 23, to Saturday, March 1, 1986. There are no other records for the timing of College Week in 1986.
About two weeks later, I went on another walk to Salthill promenade. I went inside Western House corner store to buy cigarettes. Scanning the magazine rack, a headline jumped out:
“UFO flap reported over Irish Sea”
My heart pounded. I grabbed the magazine and read the article on the spot. It turned out I wasn’t the only one who had seen something strange that week. (If anyone knows what magazine this may have been, please let me know.)
It was a small piece of a much larger puzzle.
Parallel Sightings at about the same time
Thirty years later I began writing about this encounter. I searched online for any verification that I hadn’t dreamed the whole episode. So, in 2016 I found these pieces of information:
“Charles in UFO Riddle” On 23rd February 1986, according to the Sunday Mirror, Prince Charles was flying over the Irish Sea in a RAF VC-10, returning from the USA. The pilot reported a glowing red object to Shannon air traffic control that had lit up the cockpit. The Ministry of Defence confirmed there was no danger. Other aircraft in the area reported the same object.
Miles Johnston, an investigator in Belfast, allegedly saw a red fireball with a tail over the Irish Sea on 23rd February and reported it to Armagh Observatory. This account appears in “Northern UFO News, number 118” from 1986. In this publication the editor Jenny Randles expresses doubt at the Sunday Mirror reporters.
I have not found any record of Miles Johnstons report to Armagh Observatory (yet).
In his book “Extra-Terrestrials Among Us,” George Clinton Andrews recounts the Prince Charles incident. Prince Charles is quoted as saying, “I felt I was in the presence of something outside our knowledge or control.” The book cites the Sunday Mirror article as a source.
For a full update on sightings on the 23. Feb 1986 in Ireland and England jump to the BLACK UFO REPORT! There are 6-7 officialy documented sightings from the MOD UFO desk on that night!
Different phenomena
My own sighting from 11:00 in Galway, Eire is not the same phenomenon reported later that night. They are separate events, occurring on the same date – 23 February 1986. What the Ministry of Defence UFO files (DEFE 31/174/1 & DEFE24/1924/1) do confirm is that other sightings were indeed logged that day, reported by airline crews, motorists, and air traffic controllers across the UK and Ireland. Actually, there were over 8 independent reports.
Thirty Years Later
I had banished this memory for nearly 30 years. In 2016 I reengaged and reconstructed what I had seen that day in 1986, close to Mutton Island in Galway.
Reconstruction MUFON #82139, the Mutton Island lighthouse is in the background.
I reported the UFO to MUFON (Case #82139) and tried to recall every detail. Studying Google Maps, I noticed odd circles on Claddagh Beach. They reminded me of the X‑Files episode “Biogenesis.” Wait, hadn’t I seen these before, in 1999?
Discovery of the Claddagh Circles
Top: Claddagh circles, Bottom: still photo from X-Files “Biogenesis”
Indeed, I had photographed one for my website Virtual Galway and asked locals about them – no one knew.
Photograph taken from Claddagh beach in 1999.
How strange. Since no one knew what these were, I wondered if these circles were perhaps a new type of “permanent crop circle” – remnants of the 1986 sighting. I felt very hopeful. The mystery of these circles lingered in my mind. Their perfect geometry and unexplained origin seemed almost otherworldly, as if they were a message left behind.
A Possible Archaeological Connection
After some research they began to remind me of the Miami circles, remnants of prehistoric roundhouses discovered in Florida. Eager to get to the bottom of this, I contacted the archaeological department at the University of Galway. I wondered if perhaps there was some overlooked archaeological significance.
Within two hours Dr. Sherlock (that’s really his name), the Director of the Galway Archaeological Field School, responded: the circle structures were designed by Martin Byrne and Padraig Conway as part of the ‘Solas Atlantis Galway 1993’ art project. I thanked Dr. Sherlock and added that I had already contacted archaeologist Martin Byrne five days earlier. In my message, I even joked that Martin was probably laughing all the way to the pub, since I had linked the circles to a UFO sighting:
I wrote that email in jest. How could Martin have any information on unidentified flying objects, right? Surely, there was no connection between an art installation and any cosmic conundrum. But I would soon discover that this spot had a mythology of strange sightings. Curiosity turned into anticipation as I waited for Martin’s reply, wondering if there might still be a hidden story behind the art.
The Artist Responded
Then, the creator of the circles, Martin Byrne, got back to me. He had named the circles “Solas Atlantis,” apparently from Old Irish solas (“light, brightness”), related to solus (“light”) in Latin. The translation therefore is “Light from Atlantis”.
Martin said that this was an environmental art project, loosely inspired by Native American medicine wheels, Irish megalithic art, and the proposed sewage plant on Mutton Island. The artwork was a dialogue between the ancient and the modern, the natural and the constructed.
The position and direction from which I saw the “Salthill UFO” in 1986.
The intersection of art, and my own experience was becoming increasingly compelling, drawing me further into the web of Galway’s mysteries.
Connecting Art and Myth
What Martin Byrne didn’t mention explicitly was the connection of his art installation to the origin story of the Irish people: the legend of the Tuatha Dé Danann. These were not mere mortals but old pagan gods, recast as magical heroes by medieval monks in the Irish origin story, the Lebor Gabála Érenn (The Book of Invasions).
The Legend of the Tuatha Dé Danann
Two traditions describe their arrival: by the Northern or the Southern route. I focus on the Southern route, with the landing at Galway, as it aligns with my UFO sighting – unlikely as that may sound. The Southern version was especially popular in the 18th and 19th centuries, supported by antiquarians who recorded local folklore. Sir William Wilde, father of Oscar Wilde, described the Southern route extensively in his 1867 book Lough Corrib: Its Shores and Islands. The tales painted vivid pictures of ships emerging from the clouds, mysterious artifacts, and beings beyond comprehension.
Present Day: A Mythic Landing Site
As I explore these legends, I can’t help but draw parallels to what I had witnessed. The line between myth and memory feels thinner than ever.
The reconstructed position of the UFO was the Claddagh, near the site of Martin Byrne’s “Solas Atlantis” geoglyphs.
Could it be that the legends preserve some distant truth? The convergence of my sighting, the site of the circles, and the mythic landing place seems almost too coincidental. I see the landscape itself as a tapestry, woven from stories, memories, and mysteries waiting to be uncovered.
Gods from the Sky
The Tuatha Dé Danann came in great ships like clouds, that flew through the air, bringing magical treasures: a sword of light, a healing stone, and more. They were God-like beings, “the shining ones”, immune to ageing and sickness, with the abilities of healing and shape-shifting. They brought civilization, arts and advanced skills to Ireland.
Was it over Galway Bay, that the mythological Tuatha Dé Danann arrived in dark cloud ships, (maybe burned some of them), and then landed on a mountain further inland?
Illustration of Zeppelin shaped UFOs arriving over Galway Bay, Mutton Island Lighthouse
The position of my 1986 sighting – over the Claddagh, near Byrne’s Solas Atlantis – makes me wonder. The border between what I have seen and what the legends describe feels blurred, as if the past and present were in quiet conversation across Galway Bay.
To follow the trail of the Shining Ones, we must turn from Salthill’s vanished sky-ship to the Southern route of legend – Galway Bay to Cong, where myth and mystery converge.
If you prefer, you can skip ahead to Chapter 3:
UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
The title “Black UFO Report” is derived from the color of the MOD file addressing the Prince Charles sighting, partially redacted and sealed until 2071. ⤓ Download the full report here as PDF⤓ (click).
Evidence Collection
In searching for evidence – beyond the Sunday Mirror tabloid story – that my own UFO sighting on 23 February 1986 was part of a UFO flap (as I recalled from a magazine headline), I submitted several FOI requests regarding Irish and British UFO reports from that day. And, to my surprise, I got lucky! (Link to interactive map of all the sightings.)
The British National Archives responded with the Ministry of Defense UFO files DEFE/24/1924/1 and DEFE/31/174/1. Based on their response and other archival findings, I was able to reconstruct the entire day, including the notable Prince Charles flight. And I found an additional 7 sightings listed in the MOD UFO files! (A full listing with references is given towards the end of this report.)
✈️ Prince Charles’s Flight reconstruction per United Press International archive Aircraft: RAF Vickers VC10 “Queen of the Skies” Date: Sunday, 23 February 1986 Approx. Departure in California: 01:30 PST Flight time: ~10:30h Sunset in Ireland: about 18:02 GMT Over the Irish Sea: ~19:37 GMT (UAP illuminates cockpit) Arrival in UK: ~20:00 GMT (per UPI report)
Document Analysis
HOWEVER, the information released via the Freedom of Information request in the MOD documents is incomplete because: “…the document contains the names and addresses of members of the public … Release could lead to press intrusion into their lives. This exemption will remain in place for 84 years (until) …2071.”
The following table compares what’s known from the Sunday Mirror article (via a press leak) vs. the official MOD documentation:
Source
What is Reported
What is Missing / Withheld
Sunday Mirror (2 Mar 1986)
• Prince Charles’s RAF VC-10 crew saw a red glowing object light up the cockpit.• Four other aircraft also reported the same UFO over the Irish Sea.• MOD launched immediate investigation; no missing aircraft found.• Experts ruled out meteors or space debris.• Official quote: “It’s a complete mystery.”
• No names of pilots/airlines.• No times or positions of the other four aircraft.• No ATC transcripts or technical details.
MOD File (DEFE 31/174/1 extract)
• A Lyneham Ops sighting report filed.• Remarks: “An American 747 captain reported similar sighting near Shannon, Ireland. Object/apparition lit up his flight deck. LATCC have knowledge of this particular incident.”
• The 747’s original report (captain’s statement, ATC log) is not included.• No flight number, crew names, or airline identified.• Likely withheld under FOI Section 40(2) (personal data exemption).
MOD FOI Response
• Confirms DEFE 31/174 is partly closed until 2071.• Cited Section 40(2) FOI exemption (Data Protection Act).• Withheld data includes names/addresses of witnesses (both public and MOD staff).
• Any documents containing personal identifiers (pilots, airlines, MOD staff) remain unreleased.• This almost certainly includes the Shannon 747 report and possibly additional aircraft reports (VC10).
It appears the press had the full narrative.
The Black UFO report
In the released MOD papers one document sticks out, because it’s a negative print, indicating that it had been microfilmed. I believe this document is linked to the Prince Charles VC10 encounter, as it references an airline pilot at Shannon who had a similar experience to the VC10 pilot, according to the Sunday Mirror.
The only weird thing is, in the report the sections A to K are missing. And how does this relate to the MOD file which includes the Sunday Mirror article?
The UFO reporting chain (according to Manual of Air Traffic Services MATS Part 1):
Reporting chain
The reporting chain graphic explains the black UFO report. The 747 Crew sighting is included via LATCC. But the VC10 crew report is redacted until 2071, presumably because one Very Important Passenger could be identified on that flight. That’s why only sections L-R are visible; A-K, which would have included the place of observation and the description, are missing.
Event Summary – 23 February 1986 UFO Events
So, here’s an interactive map of 23 February 1986, showing the total series of 9 unusual reports sweeping across Britain and Ireland – amounting to a previously unreported fullUFO flap.
1. Galway, Ireland (11:00)screenshot of MUFON #82139 database Large structured UFO hovered silently over Galway Bay in daylight before vanishing. Only clear daytime structured craft sighting of the day.
2. VIP Flight, RAF VC-10 (19:37, Irish Sea) from MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 Sunday Mirror & MOD file DEFE31/174/1 (missing sections A-K) Prince Charles’s crew saw a red luminous object light up the cockpit, confirmed by other aircraft. Unique event with royal VIP involvement.
3. Ayrshire/Maybole, Scotland (20:30) from MOD file DEFE31/174/1 Motorist observed a glow above cloud, bright flash, and orange vertical trail downward. Brief meteor-like duration of ~0.5 seconds.
4. Kilroy, Scotland (20:30) from MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 Stationary observer saw glow, flash, and orange vertical trail toward the southwest. Event lasted ~1 second; reported to Scottish ATC.
5. Cheddar/Weus, Somerset (20:30) from MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 Civilian reported a bright green cube-shaped object with red top lasting 4 seconds. Observed clearly under open moorland skies.
6. Swindon, England (20:30) from MOD file DEFE31/174/1 Motorist saw a “great green ball of fire” while driving under cloudy skies. One of several reports forming the 20:30 cluster.
7. Pencoed, South Wales (20:30) from MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 (lower half) Retired police officer reported dome/pear-shaped object with green, white, and orange hues. Visible for 5–10 minutes, unusually long for a meteor.
8. Shrewsbury, England (20:45) from MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 Witness in car observed a glowing red ball with fiery tail descend vertically. Lasted ~2 seconds before vanishing behind woods.
9. Shannon, Ireland (21:50, filed) from MOD file DEFE31/174/1 747 captain reported cockpit suddenly illuminated by a brilliant apparition. MOD record may reflect filing time, not sighting time; reliable airline crew witness.
Timeline of 23 Feb 1986 UFO flap In Ireland/England
Epilogue & Conclusion
The evening reports between 20:30 and 21:50 on 23 February 1986 could, in theory, be explained by a superbolide meteor: a 1–3 m object fragmenting at ~50 km altitude, producing a fireball visible across ~800 km. Yet no such event appears in scientific or astronomical archives, and aside from mentions in the MOD UFO files, the Northern UFO News and the Sunday Mirror, it left no official trace – no meteor bulletin, no press coverage of a continent-brightening event.
No official meteor record exists.
What stands out most is the five concurrent reports at 20:30 – from Scotland, England, and Wales – describing very different objects: fleeting flashes and trails, a cube-shaped luminous form, a green fireball, and a multicolored dome that lingered for minutes. These accounts resist being collapsed into a single meteor explanation.
Crucially, the Galway daylight sighting (11:00) and the VIP VC10 encounter over the Irish Sea (19:37) do not fit a meteor narrative, and the 747 cockpit illumination near Shannon further complicates the picture. While some accounts resemble fireball activity, the overall pattern suggests something more complex: a linked sequence of distinct aerial anomalies involving civilian, military, and royal actors. This makes the events of 23 February 1986 one of the most unusual and significant aerial mysteries of the decade.
This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:
UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
To provide the best experiences, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
We use cookies to optimize our website and our service.
Functional
Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.