Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

The logic of Causal-Foliated Signaling

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)

  1. Core Axioms
  2. Kinematics and Dynamics
  3. Quantum Rules and Conservation
  4. Experimental Predictions
  5. Test Protocols
  6. 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 capacity C>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.

Bob’s state becomes

ρB′​(V)=TrA​[(ΦA(V)​⊗IB​)ρAB​]=ρB(0)​+εΔρB​(V),

with

ΔρB(V)=TrA ⁣[(NA(V)⊗IB)ρAB].\Delta\rho_B(V)=\mathrm{Tr}_A\!\Big[\big(\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)}\otimes \mathbb{I}_B\big)\rho_{AB}\Big].ΔρB​(V)=TrA​[(NA(V)​⊗IB​)ρAB​].

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

P(y∣V)=Tr[My​ρB′​(V)]=P0​(y)+εΔP(y∣V),ΔP(y∣V):=Tr[My​ΔρB​(V)].

Capacity with weak signaling

Let Alice send a binary symbol X\in\{0,1\} by choosing V\in\{V_0,V_1\}.. Bob measures Y\in\{0,1\}. Define

\delta := P(Y=1\mid V_1)-P(Y=1\mid V_0)=\varepsilon\,\Delta P + O(\varepsilon^2),

with baseline error probability p:=P(Y=1∣V0).

For a binary-input, binary-output channel in the small-signal limit ∣\delta|\ll 1, the Shannon capacity admits the quadratic approximation

C \;\approx\; \frac{\delta^2}{2\ln 2}\,\frac{1}{p(1-p)} \;+\; O(\delta^4), \qquad C>0\ \text{iff}\ \delta\neq 0.

Thus any nonzero \delta (hence any nonzero \varepsilon-order dependence on V) yields a finite C>0.

Role of post-selection

If Bob (or a joint coincidence circuit) post-selects on an outcome window W with success probability pW​, the conditional state is

\rho_{B\!\mid W}(V)\;=\;\frac{\Pi_W\,\rho_B'(V)\,\Pi_W}{\mathrm{Tr}\!\big[\Pi_W\,\rho_B'(V)\big]}, \qquad \Pi_W=\Pi_W^\dagger=\Pi_W^2.

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:

  1. Localization: \mathcal{N}_A^{(V)} is confined to the χ-enabled region (e.g., the QCT gap).
  2. Smallness: \varepsilon is sufficiently small to preserve stability and energy bounds.
  3. 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.

Compact statement

\boxed{ \begin{aligned} &\Phi_A^{(V)}=\Lambda_A+\varepsilon\,\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)},\quad \varepsilon\ll 1,\\ &\rho_B'(V)=\rho_B^{(0)}+\varepsilon\,\Delta\rho_B(V),\quad \Delta\rho_B(V)=\mathrm{Tr}_A\!\big[(\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)}\!\otimes\!\mathbb{I})\,\rho_{AB}\big],\\ &\exists\,M:\ \delta=\varepsilon\,\mathrm{Tr}\!\big[M\,\Delta\rho_B(V_1)\big]-\varepsilon\,\mathrm{Tr}\!\big[M\,\Delta\rho_B(V_0)\big]\neq 0 \\ &\Rightarrow\ C \approx \dfrac{\delta^2}{2\ln 2\, p(1-p)} \;>\;0,\quad C_{\text{eff}}\approx p_W\,C\ \text{(with post-selection)}. \end{aligned}}​​

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:

  1. Localization: any exotic effect is confined strictly to the engineered region (the QCT gap). Outside, normal physics reigns.
  2. Smallness: the effect is tiny - enough to measure, not enough to blow up the system.
  3. 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.

P(i) = |\langle i | \psi \rangle|^2, \quad \sum_i P(i) = 1.

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

P_{\text{loc}}(1) = \frac{p + \varepsilon,\alpha,\sin\phi}{1 + \varepsilon,\alpha,(2p-1)\sin\phi}, \quad P_{\text{loc}}(0)=1-P_{\text{loc}}(1).

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:

\langle P(i) \rangle = \int_{\Sigma_t} P_{\text{loc}}(i, x, t),d^3x.

If the corrections f_i integrate to zero,

\int_{\Sigma_t} f_i(\rho,\chi),d^3x = 0,

then the global Born rule remains exact:

\sum_i \langle P(i) \rangle = 1.

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:

P_{\text{loc}}(i) = P_0(i) + \varepsilon,\Delta P(i,\chi), \quad \sum_i \Delta P(i,\chi) = 0.

Global ensemble still satisfies:

\langle P_{\text{loc}}(i) \rangle = P_0(i), \quad \sum_i \langle P_{\text{loc}}(i) \rangle = 1.

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

j_{\text{sig}}(t) = \kappa,\mathrm{Im}!\big[\Phi_1^*(t),\Phi_2(t)\big],


where \kappa is a coupling constant proportional to the barrier tunneling coefficient. The integrated signal budget over one coherence interval T_c is

Q_{\text{sig}} = \int_0^{T_c} j_{\text{sig}}(t),dt = \kappa \int_0^{T_c} \mathrm{Im}!\big[\Phi_1^</em>(t),\Phi_2(t)\big],dt.


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

\mathcal{E}<em>{\text{NL}} = \langle\psi|H</em>{\text{NL}}|\psi\rangle

satisfies

\mathcal{E}<em>{\text{NL}} \le \delta E</em>{\text{th}},

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,

\Phi = \Phi</em>{\text{CPTP}} \oplus (\Phi_{\text{CPTP}} + \varepsilon \mathcal{N}),

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:

\dot{\rho} = -\frac{i}{\hbar}[H, \rho] + \epsilon, \mathcal{L}<em>{\chi}[\rho],

where

\mathcal{L}</em>{\chi}[\rho]

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:

C_{\mathrm{eff}} > 0, \qquad C_{\mathrm{eff}} \ll C_{\mathrm{classical}}.

5. Physical Example: QCT Barrier Coupling

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
  • Controlled Tsirelson bound violation
  • 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:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light - Without Breaking Physics?

The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void

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

  1. Conduction Mechanisms
  2. Coupling Types
  3. Material Stacks
  4. Operating Regimes
  5. Functional Behavior
  6. Conceptual Shift
    → Amplifying Evanescent Fields
     (a) Recovering Lost Information
     (b) Enabling Phase-Coupled Communication
     (c) Accessing Hidden Quantum Channels

1. Conduction Mechanism

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

LayerQFETQCT
ChannelGaAs, InP, Si, MoS₂Graphene (G₁/G₂)
BarrierOxide (Al₂O₃, HfO₂)h-BN (1–5 nm), atomically flat and lattice-matched to graphene
Operating FieldGate-induced electric fieldInterlayer 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

PropertyQFETQCT
FrequencyTens to hundreds of GHz10–50 THz (practical), up to 150 THz (intrinsic)
CoherenceNone (classical drift)Coherent tunneling resonance, phase-sensitive transport
Energy ScalemeV rangeTens to hundreds of meV (bias-tunable)
Signal TypeCharge currentPhase-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.

Part II. Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS)

  1. Core Axioms
  2. Kinematics and Dynamics
  3. Quantum Rules and Conservation
  4. Experimental Predictions
  5. Test Protocols
  6. Role of the QCT

This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering the Quantum Coupled Transistor

Springtime and New Ideas

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-changing UFO 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.

Black geometric symbol showing two opposing triangles meeting at a central vertical bar.
Represents the Contact Project “Foghorn Emblem” - a stylized icon of communication, resonance, and SETI listening symmetry between transmitter and receiver.
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 a tunneling 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.

Torus PrincipleQCT Analogue
Continuous flow through a voidElectron tunneling through a nanogap
Mutual induction of fieldsCharge and potential coupling between transistors
Inner and outer circulationEmitter–collector feedback loops
Central voidh-BN or vacuum tunneling barrier
Dynamic equilibriumNegative Differential Resistance (bistability, oscillation)

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-Nimtz Connection

In 1993, physicist Aephraim Steinberg and Paul Kwiat and Raymond Chiao timed photons as they tunneled through optical barriers. What they found defied classical intuition: the photons appeared 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.

Around the same time in the 1990s, physicist Günter Nimtz demonstrated that a modulated microwave signal—famously encoding Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 – appeared to tunnel through a pair of prisms faster than light could travel the same distance in air. The result did not violate relativity; rather, it showed that the evanescent field inside a barrier can transmit phase information faster than the group velocity of light.

These laboratory findings inspired the author’s proposal of the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): a graphene–hBN–graphene device designed to probe whether such evanescent coupling can be controlled, amplified, or even used to exchange information between two quantum domains.

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 nodesAlice 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.

ConceptConventional
Quantum Mechanics
Causal-Foliated Coupling
What Bob seesRandom noiseFaint correlations
How Alice affects BobOnly via light-speed classical channelVia superluminal phase coupling through evanescent field
When effect appearsAfter c-delayBefore 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:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors

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.


3. Maigh Cuilinn / Moycullen – The Navigator’s Plain | 53.3389, –9.1792

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.


5. Cong – Plains of Moytura (First Battlefield) | 53.555384, –9.289087

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.

⤓ Download a high-res version of the map


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:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

The Book of Invasions
§55-64: The Tuatha de Dannan

https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/lebor4.html

The Four Jewels of the Tuatha Dé Danann
https://www.maryjones.us/ctexts/jewels.html

The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Forgotten 1986 Night of Aerial Mysteries

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.

Sunday Mirror — Sunday 2nd March 1986
EXCLUSIVE
By MARTIN BRUNT and BILL DAVEY

CHARLES IN UFO RIDDLE
Pilot shocked by close encounter

Prince Charles is at the centre of a bizarre UFO mystery.

The Prince had a close encounter during a flight home from the United States last week.

The pilot of his RAF VC-10 radioed air traffic control to say he had been startled by a "glowing red object" in the sky.

Incredibly, FOUR other aircraft reported sighting the "UFO" over the same stretch of the Irish Sea.

Visit
An immediate investigation was launched — but no trace of the unidentified aircraft has been found.

Other explanations — such as meteors or debris from a satellite — have been ruled out by experts.

Charles was nearing the end of a 12-hour transatlantic flight after a five-day visit to the U.S. when the incident happened.

A source at West Drayton air traffic control near London’s Heathrow airport said: “The object was reported by five different aircraft, including the Prince’s.”

The pilot described seeing a red glowing object. The light from it lit up his cockpit.

“We just don’t know what it was. It’s a complete mystery.”

An air traffic official at Ireland’s Shannon airport said: “The pilot saw a bright flash in the sky. An immediate check was made on all aircraft, but none was missing.”

Whether the pilot saw certainly was not another aeroplane.

A Ministry of Defence spokesman confirmed: “Prince Charles’s pilot did report seeing a bright flash. Experts are satisfied there was no danger to the Prince’s aircraft.”

Philip’s a ‘saucer watcher’
Prince Philip has been a keen UFO follower for the past 30 years.

UFO expert Tim Good, an author and lecturer, said last week: “It may not be pure coincidence. It is likely that any aircraft from outer space that is more advanced than ours would be aware of the Royal flight.”

And former diplomat Gordon Creighton, now a UFO researcher, said: “The Air Ministry has always taken UFO sightings very seriously.”

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 found DEFE/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 full UFO flap.

Interactive map: https://contactproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/1986_UFO_sightings_interactive_cluster_purple.html

Report Summary – 23 February 1986 UFO Events

1. Galway, Ireland (MUFON #82139)

Screenshot of MUFON #82139 database

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, ~11:00 AM local
  • 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.


2. VIP Flight, RAF VC-10 (Prince Charles)

MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 Sunday Mirror & MOD file DEFE31/174/1 (missing sections A-K)

  • 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.


3. Ayrshire/Maybole, Scotland (file DEFE 31/174/1)

MOD file DEFE31/174/1

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:30
  • Description: Glow seen above cloud followed by bright flash and orange vertical trail downward.
  • Observer: Motorist driving near Kilroy, halfway between Ayr and Maybole.
  • Meteorological: Cloud layer at 2,600 ft (Prestwick).
  • Duration: ~0.5 seconds.


4. Kilroy, Scotland (file DEFE 24/1924/1)

MOD file DEFE24/1924/1

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:30
  • Description: Glow above cloud, followed by a bright flash and orange vertical trail.
  • Observer: Stationary outdoors at Kilroy, observed with naked eye.
  • Duration: ~1 second.
  • Direction: Southwest.
  • Reported to: SCATCC (Scottish Air Traffic Control Centre).


5. Cheddar/Wells, Somerset (file DEFE 24/1924/1)

MOD file DEFE24/1924/1

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:30
  • Description: Cube/square-shaped object, bright green with red top.
  • Observer: Civilian on A371 road between Wells and Cheddar.
  • Duration: 4 seconds.
  • Weather: Clear skies, open moors.


6. Swindon, England (file DEFE 31/174/1)

MOD file DEFE31/174/1

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:30
  • Description: Motorist reported a “great green ball of fire” while driving.
  • Observer: Civilian motorist, naked eye.
  • Weather: Cloudy.
  • Notes: Adds to the 20:30 multiple-location cluster across Scotland and England.


7. South Wales, near Pencoed (file DEFE 24/1924/1)

MOD file DEFE24/1924/1 (lower half)

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:30
  • Description: Dome/pear-shaped luminous object, green and white exterior with orange middle.
  • Observer: Motorist on M4 motorway westbound to Pencoed; retired police superintendent.
  • Duration: 5–10 minutes.
  • Notes: Significantly longer than other fireball reports; suggests structured phenomenon rather than a brief meteor.


8. Shrewsbury, England (file DEFE 24/1924/1)

MOD file DEFE24/1924/1

  • Date/Time: 23 Feb 1986, 20:45
  • Description: Round glowing red ball, ~4 ft diameter, with fiery red tail.
  • Observer: Witness in stationary car, Sheinton/Cressage area.
  • Movement: Vertical descent, disappeared behind woods.
  • Duration: ~2 seconds.
  • Weather: Clear sky.


9. Shannon, Ireland (file DEFE 31/174/1)

MOD file DEFE31/174/1

  • 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.

Download the full Black UFO Report summary here as PDF (click).


This article is part of a series, all related to an unexplained sighting I had in 1986 in Ireland:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter

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.

Thanks go to the archivist of the Galway Advertiser.

Headlines

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:

Erich Habich <████████@gmail.com> Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 9:32 PM
To: Rory Sherlock <████████@galway████████████████████.com>, Martin Byrne <████@gmail.com>

Hello Rory,
thank you very much for the information.
5 days ago I actually emailed Martin Byrne asking if he knew about these structures.
Unfortunately he didn't respond. He probably laughed all the way to the pub, since I linked the circles to an UFO sighting.

Maybe Martin Byrne has some information on that?

Just kidding.
Thanks, Eric

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:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

THE BLACK UFO REPORT
UPDATE – 1 Oct 2025

Sunday Mirror article, saved in the MOD UFO files

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 full UFO flap.

Interactive map: https://contactproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/1986_UFO_sightings_interactive_cluster_purple.html

Report Summary – 23 February 1986 UFO Events

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:

  1. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 1: The 1986 Salthill Encounter
  2. The Black UFO Report: Prince Charles, a Jumbo Jet, and a Night of Aerial Mysteries
  3. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 2:  Psychic Mayday from a crashed UFO
  4. UFO over Galway Bay Chapter 3: The Irish Tuatha Dé Danann as Cosmic Visitors
  5. UFO Over Galway Bay Chapter 4: Reverse Engineering The Quantum Coupled Transistor
  6. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT): Amplifying the Void
  7. Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

The Sagan Paradox Chapter 9: GOLDILOCKS IN OUR COSMIC NEIGHBORHOOD

The article moves from the general historical context of SETI to a specific, modern candidate for life, then to a mysterious signal from that candidate, critiquing the scientific response to potential extraterrestrial signals, presenting an alternative theory for the signal, and finally broadening the discussion to the overall limitations of the SETI methodology.

A Sagan-Sized Question

For decades, the search for extraterrestrial life was haunted by a daunting sense of scale. In a 1969 lecture that laid the foundation for modern UFO skepticism, Carl Sagan imagined our cosmic neighbors searching for us by a random principle: sending a spaceship to any old star and simply hoping for the best. More often than not, he assumed, they would find nothing. The universe was a colossal haystack, and intelligent life was a single, lonely needle.

It is a triumph of modern astronomy that this picture has been completely overturned. Today, we know of promising candidates for life-bearing planets right in our cosmic backyard. The proverbial haystack, it turns out, might just be a needle factory.

Proxima b’s orbit is in the habitable zone, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be habitable.

From Random Hopes to Targeted Searches

We are no longer searching blindly. Armed not with metal detectors but with powerful telescopes, we can pinpoint the most likely worlds to harbor life. An intelligent civilization on Earth would not send probes randomly into the void; we would send them to these promising targets. And there are many.

In 2016, astronomers discovered one such target: Proxima Centauri b in the Alpha Centauri system: a potentially habitable planet orbiting the closest star to our sun, a mere 4.2 light-years away. While its parent star’s fierce solar winds make surface picnics unlikely, life could theoretically thrive in subterranean shelters.

In an unrealized project, NASA studied in 1987 the possibility of reaching the orbit of Proxima Centauri b within just 100 years at 4.5% the speed of light. This project was named Longshot, and it was about sending an unmanned probe using nuclear propulsion.

If our initial observations of such a world prove inconclusive in the search for life, what would we do? We would do what we are already doing with Mars: we would send probe after probe until we could be certain. Why would an alien intelligence, having discovered a promising blue dot called Earth, be any different? And from a distance, what do our own Martian space probes look like, if not unidentified flying objects?

Human spacecraft approaches Mars, Enlargement of oil on canvas panel for NASA Headquarters. By Don Davis.

A Tantalizing Whisper from Proxima b

In a remarkable coincidence, just as we began to focus on Proxima b in the search for extraterrestrial life, a potential signal emerged from its direction. In April and May of 2019, the Parkes radio telescope in Australia detected a strange, narrow-band radio emission. Dubbed Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1 (BLC1), initially it was classified as a possible sign from an alien civilization.

Parkes Radio Telescope, by Diceman Stephen West, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The signal’s characteristics were puzzling. Its Doppler shift—the change in its frequency—appeared to be the opposite of what would be expected from the planet’s orbit. Curiously, the signal appeared 10 days after a major solar flare from Proxima Centauri, though no link has been established. The primary investigators were two interns, Shane Smith and Sofia Sheikh. They worked cautiously to rule out terrestrial interference.

Some senior researchers did review the results but found nothing of note.


Long Delay

The BLC-1 signal was first reported publicly 1.5 years after its detection, and only because it was leaked to The Guardian newspaper. The public then had to wait another year for the final results. People were puzzled by the secrecy which fueled speculation.

Delays in announcing a discovery—or non-discovery—within SETI and astronomy are standard practice. Data are not released to the public until they have been verified. For instance, when radio stars were first discovered in 1967, it took two years before the discovery was published. The scientists held on to their data until they found what they considered a plausible natural explanation. The supposed Pulsar mechanism remains a mystery to this day.

This delay practice by SETI can give the impression that data are withheld until “natural explanations” have been found; radio-frequency interference (RFI) is one such explanation.

“Ultimately, I think we’ll be able to convince ourselves that BLC-1 is interference.”

– Andrew Siemion, SETI Principal Investigator for Breakthrough Listen

Within the SETI community, Siemion’s statement exemplifies scientific humility and the cautious process necessary to distinguish genuine signals from interference. Outside SETI, analogous statements can be understood as masking underlying biases or reluctance to accept paradigm-shifting discoveries. This highlights how context influences the interpretation of such remarks.


How long did Earth listen for the BLC-1 signal?

Breakthrough Listen reserved 30 hours on the Parkes telescope to observe Proxima Centauri, but the putative signal was detected during only about three of those hours—roughly 10 % of the total observing time.

During the next six months the team logged another 39 hours of follow-up observations. Out of the 4,320 hours in that half-year, just 0.9 % was spent searching for a repeat—about one-tenth of the effort devoted to the original scan.

The question remains: Was a longer campaign warranted? More generally, aren’t extended observing campaigns in radio-astronomical SETI necessary? We cannot presume that extraterrestrial civilizations broadcast continuous signals; those transmissions may be the only ones we ever detect, and even then only by chance.

BLC-1 has underscored that, when practicable, observations of potential technosignatures should be conducted from at least two different observing sites simultaneously. That this wasn’t done in the case of BLC-1 is inexplicable.

What would be the worst case when announcing the discovery of extraterrestrial technological intelligence?

A mass panic? That later investigations prove the discovery to be wrong and it has to be retracted? Thus discrediting the field of SETI? Or that humankind no longer occupies the pinnacle of evolution in the Cosmos? Would this discovery temper humankinds worst instincts, such as warfare, to the detriment of despotic rulers?


A “Galactic Communications Grid” and BLC-1

At first glance, detecting a narrowband radio signal (e.g., BLC-1) from Proxima Centauri—the star system next door—seems fantastically unlikely. Astrophysicist Jason T. Wright countered that, from an engineering standpoint, Proxima is exactly where we should expect to find such a transmission.

If a galactic communication network exists, Proxima would be the most likely “last mile” transmitter to the Solar System. Instead of every civilization trying to beam powerful, targeted messages to every other star system they want to contact, they would establish a network of communication nodes or relays.


Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”

Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”
In this scenario, Proxima Centauri—the closest star to our Solar System—serves as the logical “cell tower.” A message intended for our region of space would be routed through the galactic network to the Proxima Centauri system. A transmitter located there would then handle the “last mile” broadcast to the Solar System.

These nodes in the Galactic Communications Grid would need to ping each other regularly. But since radio waves travel at the speed of light, a single ping would take over eight years (accounting for the 4.24-light-year distance and signal processing time). Given this limitation, perhaps there’s another way to communicate with extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI)?

The speed of light is fixed for electromagnetic radio waves—but what about physical objects? And I’m not primarily referring to warp technology, but rather to objects that might already be here.


The Trouble with SETI

ET to SETI: can you hear us now?
ET to SETI: can you hear us now?

 SETI’s foundational premise is that extraterrestrial civilizations would likely be light-years away, not operating stealthily in Earth’s atmosphere. The hundreds of thousands of reported UFO sighting are perceived by SETI as being mostly the product of wishful thinking, misinterpretations and fakes.

Because UAPs/UFOs have no confirmed extraterrestrial link, SETI has no scientific basis for allocating resources to them. Consequently, no scientific efforts are undertaken to attempt contact with UAPs by radio or other signalling methods (e.g., lasers).

To qualify as a genuine ETI radio signal, the signal must come from far away and its detection must be reproducible. Otherwise it risks being classified as interference outright.

Highly directional, sensitive radio telescopes are not suited for close-range communication. For this reason, the Contact Project has suggested involving amateur radio operators (hams), whose omnidirectional antennas could be used in communication attempts with UAPs.

SETI with directional AND omnidirectional antennas, for far-and close-range Rx/Tx searches

Scientific Observational Attempts to Detect UAPs/UFOs

Harvard astrophysicist Avi Loeb has been leading the Galileo Project, one branch of his project is the detection of possible radio emissions from UAPs.

With new observatories online Avi Loeb is challenging the scientific establishment by taking UAPs seriously.

https://youtu.be/QYl9d8wjjKM

He sensationally declared he’s looking for intelligent life in deep space, blasting: “I’m interested in intelligence in outer space because I don’t find it very often here on Earth!”

The definition of his job is simple. “What is it to be a scientist?” he asks. “As far as I’m concerned, it’s the privilege of being curious.” It is this foundational principle that now drives one of the most ambitious and controversial scientific endeavors of our time: the Galileo Project. In an age of polarized opinion, the project aims to rise above the noise by focusing on a single, unimpeachable authority. “In science,” he declares, “the arbitrator is the physical reality.”

The project, which is now in full swing in the summer of 2025, was born from a frustration with a scientific community he sees as often too quick to dismiss the unknown. The turning point was the baffling 2017 interstellar visitor, ‘Oumuamua. Its strange, flat shape and its acceleration away from the sun without a visible cometary tail led him to suggest it could be an artifact of an alien technology. The backlash was swift. He recalls a colleague, an expert on rocks, confiding that ‘Oumuamua was “so weird I wish it never existed”—a statement project leader Avi Loeb sees as the antithesis of scientific curiosity.

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 8: The Cosmic Gold Rush

CAUSE FOR OPTIMISM
For generations, the night sky was a canvas of glittering uncertainty. We gazed upon it, pondered our solitude, and whispered the profound question: Are we alone in the habitable universe? For decades, our answers were mere philosophical musings, tethered by limited data and a rather quaint, Earth-centric view of the cosmos. But that era is over. We stand at the precipice of a new understanding, a scientific awakening that paints a truly breathtaking picture of a universe teeming with possibility.

© A real photograph by astrophotographer Jheison Huerta, displayed with permission

Decoding Destiny: Sagan and the Drake Equation’s Dawn

Once, the Drake Equation – our grand cosmic census – was a theoretical construct, its variables educated guesses in the twilight of astronomical knowledge. Carl Sagan first met Drake and his famous Equation in 1961—it constitutes a framework to estimate the number of communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Sagan, then a young graduate student, became a lifelong advocate for the equation’s optimistic interpretations.

Sagan’s Vision Meets Silicon: Certainty Replaces Cosmic Guesses

Based on the Drake equation, Sagan postulated between 1,000 and 1,000,000 communicative civilizations in the Milky Way. Carl Sagan, a visionary, frequently referenced the Drake Equation in his work and often used the original 1961 estimates, peering through the cosmic fog. (But also updated the numbers as new data emerged.) But today, the fog has lifted. The digital revolution, coupled with an explosion in space-faring technology, has ushered in a golden age of discovery, transforming those guesses into empirical certainties.

Exoplanet Explosion: Planets are Everywhere!

The Drake Equation, Copyright by https://sciencenotes.org

Consider the sheer scale. In 1992, the very first exoplanet was found. It was a singular pearl in a cosmic oyster. Now, less than three decades later, missions like Kepler and TESS have opened the floodgates! We’ve tallied nearly 6,000 confirmed worlds (Reference) orbiting distant stars – each a potential cosmic frontier. This staggering avalanche of data tells us something profound: planets are not a rarity; they are the rule. The fraction of stars with planets (fp​) is no longer a hopeful guess of 50%; it’s closer to 100%! Every star you see twinkling above likely harbors its own planetary system.

Cosmic Oases: Billions of Habitable Worlds Beckon

And within these systems, the number of potentially habitable worlds (ne​) is far from a mere statistical blip. Our own Milky Way galaxy alone, that majestic spiral of stars we call home, is now estimated to contain 300 to 500 million potentially habitable planets (Reference). Multiply that by the latest, mind-bending estimate of 2 trillion (or 2000 billion) galaxies (Reference) in the observable universe, and you’re looking at hundreds of billions of billions of cosmic oases!

A Sextillion Planets: Life’s Galactic Revolution

300 to 500 million potentially habitable planets multiplied by 2 trillion galaxies amounts to 600 billion billion to 1000 billion billion habitable planets. In other words, there are 600 qintillion to 1 sextillion potentially habitable planets in the cosmos.

This isn’t just an increase; it’s a galactic revolution in our baseline understanding of where life could arise.

Beyond Homeworlds: Rethinking Civilization’s Lifespan

But here’s where the possibilities truly explode – the “L” factor, the length of time a civilization releases detectable signals. Early calculations often assumed that civilizations were tied to their home world, vulnerable to asteroid impacts, climate change, or even self-destruction. This would lead to a tragically short “L,” perhaps a few thousand years. But for a truly advanced civilization, one that masters stellar energies, perhaps even galactic resources, simply staying put on one fragile world is a cosmic folly.

Cosmic Nomads: Galactic Colonization Extends ‘L’

Single Planet vs Multi System Civilizations

Frank Drake’s original formula makes no allowance for the ability of technological civilizations to colonize other planets or solar systems.

But as soon as another world is colonized, the chance of survival increases. Therefore far more older technical civilizations with space faring capability than Sagan originally assumed may exist.

A short critique of the Drake equation as commonly understood:

L – IS NOT simply the longevity of civilizations! Instead it’s the timespan that a civilization releases simple detectable signals. Earth itself has released easily detectable radio and TV signals for only 40 to 60 years before switching to spread spectrum digital communication, satellite, cable and internet. The signals that Earth is still leaking into space are random and repeating pings and blips from powerful radar, and unintelligible signals from digital sources that blend into the cosmic background noise (CMB).

A civilization with space-faring capability, even one moving at a fraction of light speed, could colonize its entire galaxy in a mere 5 to 50 million years. In the cosmic timescale of billions of years, this is but the blink of an eye!

Blink Of An Eye

Colonization acts as a cosmic insurance policy, diversifying risk and extending the effective “lifetime” of a civilization from millennia to millions, even billions of years. This utterly transforms the “N” in the Drake Equation, suggesting a universe far more populated with ancient, thriving civilizations than we dared to dream. We’re talking about the emergence of Kardashev Type I, Type II, Type III and even Type IV civilizations – those that harness the power of their planet, their star, their galaxy or even the entire universe!

The Great Cosmic Silence: Unraveling the Fermi Paradox

Of course, the cosmic riddle persists: The Fermi Paradox. If the universe is so abundant with life, where is everybody? The silence, the eerie quiet of the cosmos, has led to theories like the “Great Filter” – a bottleneck that prevents life from reaching advanced stages, either in our past (making us incredibly rare) or, more ominously, in our future (a catastrophic universal speed bump). Or perhaps the “Rare Earth Hypothesis,” suggesting our planet’s specific conditions for complex life are extraordinarily unique.

Echoes of Advanced Life? Or a Cosmic Sanctuary Awaits?

But even these daunting questions now inspire a different kind of optimism. Perhaps the “Great Filter” lies behind us, making our existence all the more triumphant. Perhaps extraterrestrial civilizations are so vastly more advanced (Type III-IV) that their communications are simply beyond our current comprehension, a cosmic symphony we lack the instruments to hear.

And maybe the answer to the Fermi paradox is another: THE SANCTUARY HYPOTHESIS- coming soon.

The Sanctuary Hypothesis

The Quest Continues: A Universe Primed for Discovery

The search for ETI is no longer a fringe endeavor; it is a fundamental “market research” initiative into the ultimate cosmic landscape. The data is overwhelmingly in favor of abundance. The universe is a grand laboratory, a vast stage for the emergence of life and intelligence. And as we continue to unlock its secrets, each new discovery amplifies the profound conviction that we are not alone. The grandest adventure of all is just beginning.

“Billions and Billions”: The Catchphrase That Captured the Cosmos

One Sagan: The iconic catchphrase, “billions and billions,” was popularized by comedian Johnny Carson, who hosted The Tonight Show. Carson frequently did affectionate parodies of Sagan, mimicking his voice and intellectual demeanor, and in these skits, he would often quip, “billions and billions!”

This parody was so pervasive and well-loved that it became the phrase most people associated with Sagan, even though he didn’t originally say it that way. Sagan himself acknowledged this humorous invention by Carson and even titled his final book, published posthumously in 1997, Billions and Billions: Thoughts on Life and Death at the Brink of the Millennium, playfully embracing the phrase that had become his popular legacy.

Million to Billion convertor

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 1: The Golden Record

Introduction and Carl Sagan’s Early Work

Artwork inspired by Linda Salzman Sagan’s design for the Pioneer plaque, commissioned by NASA: click here view the original design

Carl Sagan (1934–1996) was an American astronomer, astrobiologist, and author. After NASA was founded in 1958, Sagan became a consultant for the agency. His first job involved planning the explosion of an atomic bomb on the moon, the A119 project. Highly controversial, to say the least. In 1961, at the age of 27, he published a study on the atmosphere of Venus. In 1970 he researched the conditions that could lead to the emergence of life in the cosmos on distant planets. To achieve this, he exposed frequently occurring elements to the UV radiation of a young sun and observed how amino acids, the building blocks of life, were formed from them. Carl Sagan became a full professor at the astronomy department at Cornell University. Around this time, talk shows began inviting him as a popular guest to discuss the possibility of extraterrestrial life.


“Hello, Aliens!”: Voyager Probes Get Sagan’s First Broadcast

In 1972 and 1977, Carl Sagan sent the first messages to extraterrestrials into space on the panels of the space probes Pioneer 10 & 11 and the Golden Record of Voyager 1 & 2.

The gold-plated aluminum cover (L) of the Voyager golden record (R) both protects it from micrometeorite bombardment and also provides a key to playing it and deciphering Earth’s location. NASA

It contains greetings and wishes for peace from the people of Earth in 55 languages. Earthlings extend their friendship, wish happiness and health, and express hope to one day meet their cosmic neighbors. They also express the desire for goodwill and harmony among all beings in the universe.

The greetings are in alphabetical order, from Akkadian (an extinct language for over 2000 years) to Wu Chinese. The inclusion of Akkadian in this earthly record is pretty strange. One day, these transmissions might be intercepted as they pass through space by an alien culture.

Voyager’s ‘Cosmic Map’ Of Earth’s Location Is Hopelessly Wrong

With the help of the included pulsar map, these aliens could potentially find Earth. Pulsars are stars that rhythmically emit radiation, like interstellar lighthouses. We can use them as a cosmic GPS.


Pulsar GPS: Sagan’s Star-Beacon Timecode Reveals 1971 Earth

Over long periods of time, the frequency of a pulsar slows down. Thus the pulsar map designed by scientist Frank Drake and graphic artist Linda Salzman Sagan is not only a determination of the position of our Earth in space, but the map also precisely pinpoints the position of Earth in time: 1971.

What if a prospective alien civilization has or develops the ability to time travel? What would they do with the information provided by our space probes?

Speculation about the subject makes for the greatest sci-fi story ever told. This is particularly true when we consider the included Mesopotamian-language greeting and the Annunaki creation myths—some of which have been popularized by Zecharia Sitchin and others.

Of course, intercepting our space probes is extremely unlikely. It could take millions of years, if at all. But then again, the life expectancy of the Golden Records is 5 billion years.

Aliens recovering the Golden Record

The Mysterious Signal from Proxima Centauri: How Scientists Solved a Cosmic Whodunit

The Discovery That (almost) Fooled Astronomers

In April 2019, astronomers with the Breakthrough Listen project detected something extraordinary: a narrow radio signal at 982 MHz, seemingly emanating from Proxima Centauri, our solar system’s closest stellar neighbor. Dubbed BLC1 (Breakthrough Listen Candidate 1), the signal had all the hallmarks of a technosignature—a potential transmission from an extraterrestrial civilization.

For a brief moment, the world dared to wonder: Had we finally found evidence of alien technology?

But as scientists dug deeper, the truth proved far more mundane—and far more fascinating.

The Case for BLC1 as an Alien Signal

At first glance, BLC1 was the most compelling candidate in the history of the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI):

Precise frequency: The signal was laser-sharp, just a few Hertz wide—something natural astrophysical phenomena can’t produce.

Non-zero drift: Its frequency drifted at 0.03 Hz/s, consistent with a transmitter on a planet like Proxima b.

Localized: It appeared only when the telescope pointed at Proxima Centauri, vanishing during off-source scans.

“The signal appears to only show up in our data when we’re looking in the direction of Proxima Centauri, which is exciting,” Ms. Sheikh said.

The Plot Twist: A Cosmic False Alarm

The Breakthrough Listen team subjected BLC1 to relentless scrutiny—and cracks began to appear.

May 2nd 2019, a possible BLC1 redetection: radio dish is pointed at Proxima b

1. The Drift That Didn’t Fit

If BLC1 came from Proxima b, its frequency drift should have shown:

Cyclical variation (rising and falling as the planet rotated).
Orbital signatures (subtle shifts tied to its 11.2-day year).

Instead, the drift was strangely linear—more like a glitching human device than an alien beacon.

2. The RFI Doppelgängers

Then, researchers found dozens of similar signals at frequencies like 712 MHz and 1062 MHz—all mathematically linked to common radio interference (RFI). These “lookalikes” had the same drift behavior but were unmistakably human-made, appearing even when the telescope wasn’t pointed at Proxima.

BLC1 wasn’t a lone anomaly—it was part of a pattern.

3. The Cadence Coincidence

The final clue? BLC1’s timing matched the telescope’s observing schedule.

On-source (30 min): Signal detectable.
Off-source (5 min): Signal too faint to see.

This created an illusion of localization—like a flickering streetlight that only seems to work when you walk by.

The Verdict: A Cosmic Mirage

After a year of analysis, the team concluded: BLC1 was interference, likely from:

Intermodulation: A “ghost” signal created when two radio waves mixed in faulty electronics.

A malfunctioning device (possibly hundreds of miles from the observatory).

Lessons for the Hunt for Alien Life

BLC1’s rise and fall taught scientists three critical lessons:

Single telescopes are vulnerable to false alarms. Future searches need global networks to cross-check signals.

The search is worth it.

For now, Proxima Centauri’s secrets remain hidden. But the hunt continues.

BLC1 wasn’t aliens—but as SETI enters a new era (with projects like the Square Kilometer Array), we’re better prepared than ever to answer humanity’s oldest question: Are we alone?

Primary Research Papers

These two papers were published concurrently and should be read together for a complete understanding of the BLC1 signal, from its detection to its ultimate classification as interference.

  1. A radio technosignature search towards Proxima Centauri resulting in a signal of interest
    • Authors: Shane Smith, Danny C. Price, Sofia Z. Sheikh, et al.
    • Journal: Nature Astronomy
    • Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01479-w
    • arXiv (free preprint): https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.08007
    • Abstract: This paper describes the overall search for technosignatures from Proxima Centauri and the initial detection of the BLC1 signal. It details the characteristics that made BLC1 an intriguing candidate.
  2. Analysis of the Breakthrough Listen signal of interest blc1 with a technosignature verification framework
    • Authors: Sofia Z. Sheikh, Shane Smith, Danny C. Price, et al.
    • Journal: Nature Astronomy
    • Link to paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-021-01508-8
    • arXiv (free preprint): https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.06350
    • Abstract: This is the companion paper that provides a deep dive into the analysis of BLC1. It outlines the verification framework used and presents the evidence that led to the conclusion that BLC1 was a product of human-generated radio frequency interference.

Additional Resources from Breakthrough Listen

The Breakthrough Listen initiative has also made a wealth of information about BLC1 available to the public.

  • BLC1 – Breakthrough Listen’s First “Signal of Interest”: This is the main resource page from the Berkeley SETI Research Center, providing summaries, links to the papers, data, and other supplementary materials.
  • Breakthrough Initiatives Press Release: This press release gives a good overview of the findings in an accessible format.