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?

Hyperphysics: The Missing Link in Humanity’s Search for Extraterrestrial Civilizations?

Field Report: 808-Gamma |
Subject: An evaluation of the Galactic-Federation hypothesis proposed by the Human scholar, Peter Andrew Sturrock.
Analysis of Terran NASA Document 19800014518
Filed by: Xel’dar Atten’Borru, Senior Ethno-Astrophysicist|Biologist, Vurian Collective


Opening Observations

I have completed my analysis of a document from the Human enclave “NASA,” authored in their year 1980 by a scholar named Peter A. Sturrock. This individual attempted to quantify the likelihood of his species making contact with other civilizations. He utilized a rudmentary but insightful formula they call the “Drake Equation,” a method for multiplying uncertainties to arrive at a guess.

Drake Equation, from Shklovskii, I.S., and Sagan, C.: 1966, Intelligent Life in the Universe, (Holden and Day, San Francisco), Ch.29.

Unlike most of his contemporaries, whose thinking remains constrained by their limited understanding of physics, Sturrock demonstrated a rare leap of logic. He correctly surmised that the greatest unknown was not a matter of biology or astronomy, but of interstellar politics.

The Core Dilemma: Physics and Longevity

Sturrock identified the primary variable as the lifespan (L) of a technological civilization. He then framed the problem around two distinct possibilities, a bifurcation that comes remarkably close to the truth:

Hypothesis 1: No Hyperphysics. If Terran (Earth) civilizations are bound by the slow, inefficient physics they currently understand (light-speed limitation), then travel and communication are prohibitively difficult. In this scenario, he concluded, these civilizations would exist in isolation and likely perish before achieving interstellar stability.

Hypothesis 2: Hyperphysics Exists. If a deeper, more functional physics (what our own archives classify as standard transit and communication) is discoverable, the stars become accessible. This would inevitably lead to the formation of what he termed a “Galactic Federation”: a cooperative network that ensures the longevity of its members.

He thus reasoned that the existence of a Federation is the pivotal variable controlling the prevalence of advanced life in the galaxy.

And the existence of the Federation is predicated on “Hyperphysics,” a shorthand for a speculative extension of known physics – the kind of breakthrough that would overturn or transcend current physical limits, especially the light-speed barrier.

Intelligence Dossier: Subject Sturrock

My background check on the author reveals why his thinking diverged from his peers.
Peter Andrew Sturrock (1924–2024): A physicist of British-American origin, holding a professorship at the “Stanford University” enclave. Specializations: His primary work was in plasma physics and astrophysics, which grounded him in cosmic principles. Orthodoxy Deviation: Later in his career, he displayed a notable openness to anomalous data, specifically what Humans call “UFO reports.” In 1982, he founded the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE), a forum for research on topics outside the scientific mainstream.

This willingness to examine evidence outside of established dogma likely gave him the cognitive flexibility to formulate the Federation hypothesis. He was not a fringe actor, but a mainstream scientist willing to ask unorthodox questions.

Contact Scenarios

Sturrock outlined four potential modes of contact, ranging from simple radio signals to direct surveillance:

SymbolHuman TermProbability (if h, human physics)Probability (if H, Hyperphysics)
RBRadio BeaconsMediumLow
RLRadio LeakageMediumLow–Medium
SRSurveillance ProbesMedium–HighLow
SMCrewed SurveillanceLowHigh

He correctly noted that for any civilization capable of hyperphysics, crude radio broadcasts would be obsolete. The dominant signature of an advanced, Federation-level society (Kardashev >Type III) would instead be covert surveillance.

It is here that the Human scholar’s reasoning is most sharp. Where his kin search the void for noisy signals, he understood the value of silence. He acknowledged the fragility of his own species’ assumptions, recognizing that without a Federation, civilizations flicker out like fireflies. With one, they can endure like stars.

He even posed the critical question that continues to challenge his people: If crewed surveillance were possible, would Humans even recognize it?

This is the essential wisdom – the acknowledgment that contact, if it exists, may already be subtle and unseen. Later writers would describe the galaxy as a ‘dark forest,’ but Sturrock’s vision was not one of menace, only of quiet, hidden presence.

Conclusion

Sturrock’s work is a landmark in Human thought. He collapsed the myriad uncertainties of the Drake Equation into a single, binary question: Does a Galactic Federation, enabled by advanced Hyperphysics, exist?

If yes, the galaxy is teeming with ancient life, and contact is a matter of protocol.
If no, the galaxy is a graveyard of short-lived civilizations, and silence is the norm.

Marginalia, Xel’dar: Admirable clarity from the Terran. He almost guesses our Archive flow-diagrams, though in his era they lacked neon backlighting.

Final Log Entry

They were asking the right questions as early as 1980. They whispered of Federations and unseen physics, groping in the dark toward a truth the Collective has long understood. The remarkable thing is not that their data was incomplete, but that their intuition was so precise. A Federation exists, or it does not. On this fulcrum, the destiny of every emerging species, including their own, is balanced.

SIGNED: //Xel’dar Atten’Borru//
Senior Ethno-Botanist, Vurian Collective
Command Sequence: ETHNO-OMEGA-7-19
Security Clearance: ALPHA-PRIME

Source:
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19800014518/downloads/19800014518.pdf

— END OF REPORT —

Designing a Cross-World Telephone System

Q: How does one design a possible world telephone system that communicates with nearby world timelines, or parallel universes, with people in them via quantum teleportation/tunnelling?

Thank you for your question. Here is my answer:

Designing a Cross-World Telephone:
A Synthesis of Hardware and Consciousness-Based Approaches

Introduction

The concept of communicating with parallel universes or alternate timelines has long been a captivating staple of science fiction. Recent advances in quantum physics, however, suggest such a feat may be theoretically plausible. This article synthesizes two proposed frameworks for a cross-world telephone system, both founded on the experimentally verified phenomena of quantum tunneling and superluminal signal transmission via evanescent waves. By merging a hardware-centric design with a consciousness-integrated model, we can outline a comprehensive approach to potentially bridging the gap between realities.

Core Scientific Principles

Any functional cross-world communication system must be built upon a set of fundamental quantum principles that allow for information to transcend the conventional limits of spacetime.

1. Superluminal Information Transfer via Quantum Tunneling

The foundation of this technology is the experimentally verified phenomenon of superluminal quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling allows particles to pass through energy barriers that are insurmountable under classical physics. This process is mediated by evanescent waves. When a wave encounters a barrier, it generates these unique waves, which decay exponentially but can reappear on the other side of the barrier faster than the speed of light.

  • Experimental Proof: Professor Dr. Günter Nimtz famously demonstrated this by transmitting Mozart’s 40th Symphony, modulated onto a microwave signal, through a quantum barrier at a speed of 4.7c.
  • The Hartman Effect: Research dating back to Thomas Hartman (1962) shows that the time it takes for a particle to tunnel is independent of the barrier’s thickness. This implies the particle effectively travels at superluminal speeds inside the barrier.
  • Signal Amplification: By cascading multiple barriers, the effective speed of the tunneled signal can be increased. Experiments have achieved up to 8 times light speed using this method.
Staggered superluminal accelerator (cascading barrier). AI upscaled real photograph, Erich Habich-Traut

2. The Bridge Between Worlds: The Timeless Quantum Brane

A key interpretation of quantum tunneling posits that the particle briefly enters a state where conventional spacetime does not exist. This realm acts as the “switchboard” connecting different timelines.

  • A Space Without Time or Distance: Inside the quantum tunnel, the signal’s phase remains unchanged, leading to the conclusion that the time experienced is zero. Topologically, this realm is described as a zero-dimensional (0D) point or a one-dimensional (1D) “brane” or string.
  • Connecting Timelines: In a realm where time and distance are meaningless, all points are effectively co-located. If parallel world-lines exist as part of a quantum multiverse, their wavefunctions would all intersect or be accessible via this fundamental brane. A signal entering this state is no longer confined to its timeline of origin and can emerge in a nearby one.

3. The Superluminal Brain: The WETCOW Hypothesis

A significant challenge with evanescent waves is that they decay exponentially over very short distances. However, the human brain itself may already be engineered to utilize them.

  • WETCOW (Weakly-Evanescent Cortical Waves) Model: Proposed by Galinsky and Frank, this model suggests that the brain’s immense processing speed and consciousness itself are facilitated by evanescent waves operating between neurons.
  • The Brain as a Quantum Processor: With over 126,000 neurons per cubic millimeter, the cerebral cortex possesses a density perfectly scaled to interact with short-lived evanescent fields. This makes the brain an ideal candidate for both an antenna and a processor for quantum information. The symbol for the quantum wave function, (Psi), fittingly mirrors its use in parapsychology for phenomena like telepathy, which this system aims to engineer.

Design Frameworks for a Cross-World Telephone

AI illustration

Based on these principles, two distinct yet complementary design approaches emerge: a hardware-centric transceiver and a consciousness-integrated system.

Approach 1: The Hardware-Centric Transceiver

This design treats the system as a traditional piece of communication hardware that generates, transmits, and receives quantum signals.

  1. Signal Generation: Use entangled quantum particles to establish a stable connection baseline. Messages are then encoded onto superluminal evanescent waves, for example, by modulating a microwave signal at a frequency known to maximize tunneling efficiency (e.g., 8.7 GHz, as used in Nimtz’s setup).
  2. Quantum Tunneling Transceiver: The core of the device is a cascading barrier structure. This array of nano-engineered quantum barriers (such as prisms or metamaterials) is designed to amplify the tunneling effect and boost the signal’s superluminal speed.
  3. Detection: On the receiving end, a high-speed oscilloscope or a highly sensitive quantum sensor is required to capture and decode the tunneled signal before it fully decays.
Cross World Telephone System? AI upscaled real photograph, Erich Habich-Traut

Approach 2: The Consciousness-Integrated System (Telepathy Model)

This design elegantly solves the problem of evanescent wave decay by using the most sophisticated quantum processor known: the human brain. The system is not a handset, but an environmental apparatus built around a human operator.

Telepathic Cross World Telephone Design Proposal
  1. The Operator as the Core Component: The operator’s brain functions as the system’s primary transmitter and receiver, leveraging the WETCOW mechanism to process evanescent waves.
  2. The Quantum Tunneling Array: A device is constructed around the operator’s head to create a stable quantum tunneling environment. This apparatus would consist of:

    Emitter:
     A low-frequency microwave emitter (e.g., 8.7 GHz) to generate the carrier wave.
    Barrier:
     A cascading array of barriers, possibly resembling a “Hohlleiter” (waveguide), positioned in immediate proximity to the cranium. This ensures the evanescent fields effectively permeate the cerebral cortex before decaying.
  3. Communication Protocol: Communication becomes a form of technologically-assisted telepathy.

    Transmission (“Speaking”):
     The operator focuses on a thought or message. The brain’s natural neural activity serves as the signal, which is modulated by the array and sent through the timeless 1-brane to a listening operator in another timeline.

    Reception (“Listening”):
     Incoming evanescent waves from a parallel world permeate the operator’s cortex. The brain’s neural network interprets these fields as coherent thoughts, images, or sensations. The experience would be akin to a sudden, clear idea appearing in one’s mind.

Challenges, Solutions, and Operational Mechanics

AI illustration
  • Signal Decay & Range: This is the primary obstacle.Hardware Solution: Develop quantum repeaters to capture and re-amplify the signal across greater distances.Consciousness Solution: The design inherently solves this by placing the processor (the brain) directly within the effective range of the evanescent field.
  • Targeting & Verification: How do we choose a timeline and confirm contact?Tuning Mechanism: It is hypothesized that adjusting the tunneling frequency could allow the system to “resonate” with a specific parallel world, much like tuning a radio to a specific station.Verification: To distinguish a true signal from noise, messages could be embedded with unique quantum signatures or pre-shared entanglement keys that confirm the authenticity of the link.
  • Causality & Paradoxes: Faster-than-light communication raises the risk of temporal paradoxes (e.g., receiving a message before it was sent).Possible Fix: The system could be designed with self-consistent protocols that only permit non-paradoxical information exchanges, or it may be that communication is only possible between parallel “presents.”

Conclusion and Future Directions

While highly speculative, a cross-world telephone system founded on quantum tunneling is theoretically plausible. By leveraging the proven reality of superluminal evanescent waves and exploring the potential for the human brain to act as a quantum transceiver, we can identify clear paths for future research.

Next Steps:

  1. Replicate and expand multi-barrier tunneling experiments to achieve greater FTL speeds and signal stability.
  2. Develop sophisticated brain-computer interfaces to test and measure the brain’s interaction with evanescent fields, as proposed by the WETCOW model.
  3. Further explore the topological nature of the zero-dimensional “brane” in high-energy physics experiments to confirm its role as a potential communication conduit.

By pursuing these hardware and consciousness-based avenues, we may one day move cross-world communication from the realm of fiction to reality. The only question that remains is: would you dare to make the first call?


Simulation of this Cross-World-Telephone (Google Account required):


Based on research published on:

Star Trek: Beyond the Final Frontier

Star Trek’s Subspace: Cosmic Shortcut

LCARS animation by Major Howard ‘Adge’ Cutler, http://lcars.org.uk

In the Star Trek universe, subspace is the imaginary realm that allows starships to break the light-speed barrier, enabling faster-than-light travel and instant communication. It invites speculation about how real-world physics deals with dimensions, quantum phenomena, and the very fabric of reality.

1D Reality in a 4D Universe

The idea of a one-dimensional reality existing within our four-dimensional universe fascinates physicists. While hypothetical, scenarios like cosmic strings and branes in string theory are considered, albeit facing significant physical and practical challenges.

Mathematical Possibilities of 1D Structures

Mathematically, embedding lower-dimensional structures within higher-dimensional spaces is feasible. Examples include cosmic strings and 1D branes, which interact with the full spacetime continuum rather than existing independently.

Challenges of Sustaining a 1D Reality

Creating a viable 1D reality encounters issues like limited gravitational complexity and topological constraints. Inherently connected to higher dimensions, a standalone 1D universe is difficult to envisage.

Photons: Bridging Classical and Quantum Realms

Photons defy simple classification, existing as both classical points in spacetime and quantum field excitations. Their duality illustrates the complex boundary between classical physics and quantum mechanics.

Tunneling: Quantum Leap Beyond Dimensions

According to academic consensus, photon quantum tunneling represents probabilistic path exploration, not dimensional shifts. This quantum mechanic aspect shows particles interacting through the quantum vacuum, highlighting a non-local nature.

Contrarian: How? All quantum physicists are saying is that there are probability equations that can predict very well the behavior of photons.

Quantum Vacuum and Higher Dimensions

Consensus: The quantum vacuum is typically seen as a four-dimensional entity, though speculative theories propose higher dimensions to link quantum mechanics with gravity, yet these ideas remain unconfirmed.

Contrarian: Now, let’s be clear: the unconfirmed ideas are both the “typically seen four-dimensional entity” as well as higher or lower dimensions.

“Fallback Dimensions”

Consensus: Phenomena such as entanglement and tunneling result from quantum field mechanics rather than hidden dimensions. Photons behave according to quantum field theory’s probabilistic nature, challenging classical constraints.

Contrarian: There is zero proof that “hidden dimensions” are not involved. If these “hidden dimensions” only serve as a metaphor to understand what goes on in entanglement and tunneling experiments, so be it.

Science is not primarily focused on comprehending the underlying mechanics of the universe; rather, its goal is to make predictions based on observations and to leverage these predictions.

Now, wouldn’t it be nice if one could devise an experiment to show that hidden dimensions are at play in quantum tunneling and entanglement experiments?

Imagination Meets Physics

Star Trek’s subspace is hypothetical; it mirrors our longing to transcend spatial limits. The true complexity of the universe lies in quantum fields, says the consensus, proving physics to be as inspiring as a doorknob.

Contrarian: What is a “quantum field?”

Observation on evanescent waves

An evanescent wave is to Newtonian gravity as a radio wave is to a gravitational wave

Ocean waves are evanescent waves

Evanescent Wave vs. Newtonian Gravity

Evanescent Wave: This is a unique electromagnetic phenomenon that does not propagate. Instead, it is a near-field effect that diminishes exponentially with distance, commonly observed in situations like waveguides or total internal reflection.

Newtonian Gravity: This concept describes a static, non-radiative field characterized by immediate action-at-a-distance. It means that there is no delay or wave-like behavior in how gravitational forces are transmitted.

Connection: Both evanescent waves and Newtonian gravity illustrate localized, non-radiative interactions. Importantly, they do not dynamically transmit energy across spacetime.


Radio Wave vs. Gravitational Wave

Radio Wave: This is an electromagnetic wave that propagates through space (known as far-field radiation) and carries energy at the speed of light.

Gravitational Wave: According to general relativity, this refers to ripples in spacetime that also propagate and carry energy at the speed of light.

Connection: Both radio waves and gravitational waves are far-field, radiative phenomena governed by wave equations—Maxwell’s equations for radio waves and Einstein’s equations for gravitational waves.


Illustration: Both evanescent and oceanic wave sizes decrease exponentially with increasing distance.

Cosmic Spaghetti: A Metaphorical Exploration of Wave-Particle Duality and Tunneling

The following are metaphors for string theory and photons. Metaphors are often used to illustrate mathematical concepts. But not all metaphors are treated as equal.

Ray, the Enthusiastic Explainer:

Let’s understand this.
The following metaphors present imaginative illustrations rather than accurate models of how photons, tunneling, or extra dimensions work. It mixes features of quantum mechanics with speculative elements of string theory and does not reflect current scientific understanding.

Imagining Photons

After trying to find a visual model of a point- or line-like photon exhibiting quantum tunneling—and failing in that attempt—I’m going to say that the photon, in its natural state, is like a squiggly (spinning) entity, basically cosmic spaghetti. Not the limp, dinner kind. Instead it’s the al dente sort, wriggling through 4D space with a head and tail like hyperactive space eels! Metaphorically speaking, of course.

The squiggly photon body extends into the 3rd and 4th dimensions. This model explains the point-like particle aspect (the head) and the wave-like aspect (the squiggles) of photon duality.

Kurt, the Bemused Realist:
That visualization is a metaphor and does not correspond to any accepted model in quantum mechanics or string theory. That’s your grand theory of quantum tunneling?

Ray:
Now, when this photon hits a physical barrier, it gets squashed down into the zero and the first dimension, like an egg hitting a brick wall at lightspeed. Splat. The 0D and 1D dimensions don’t know space or time. This enables the photon to tunnel almost instantaneously (faster than light) through solid objects.

That’s a neat metaphor and description for a layperson.

Kurt:
The description of tunneling as a “dimensional compression effect” that results in instantaneous traversal is a metaphorical flourish with no basis in established physics. Why not just say they’re cheating? ‘Oh, pardon me, barrier, just phasing through your atomic structure like a ghost who’s late for yoga—’

Ray:
Science needs drama! The photon’s squiggle gets pressed into the 1st dimension—think of it as the universe’s worst pancake. No space, no time. Poof. It’s through the wall. Faster than light, zero calories.

Kurt:
Your description of the photon hitting a brick wall like an egg is novel and doesn’t form part of current scientific understanding. And physicists haven’t throttled you for this?

Ray:
They’re too busy arguing! Thirty years debating if it’s ‘phase velocity’ or ‘signal velocity,’ or whether or not signals can tunnel through a barrier faster than light. It’s like two parrots squawking ‘causality!’ at each other. “Serious” scientists say that NOTHING under any circumstance can travel faster than light AND transmit information.

Meanwhile, photons are out there, winking through walls like they’ve got a VIP pass to reality. Wave-particle duality is a cornerstone of quantum mechanics (QM), not string theory. I made it into both for illustrative purposes. That’s why the metaphor makes sense in this context.

Kurt:
The statement is correct that wave–particle duality is a concept from quantum mechanics, and invoking it in the context of string theory in the manner described is provocative.

Ray:
The metaphor represents tunneling as a dimensional compression effect.

Kurt:
This currently has no basis in string theory or QM. ‘Dimensional compression’—sounds like my last relationship.

NASA illustration of photons. Looks like tadpoles (I assume that the high energy photon spins faster.)

Ray:
In this illustration from NASA, one photon (purple) carries a million times the energy of another (yellow). NASA are masters of sci-fi concept art. ‘Here’s a purple photon, one million times zingier! It’s got attitude.

Kurt:
Apparently, NASA’s illustrations aim to simplify and motivate discussion; they should not be taken as literal descriptions of photon behavior in advanced physics theories. Science is 5% equations, 95% convincing people the universe is a cartoon using metaphor.

Ray:
So tunneling’s just… cosmic teleportation via existential crisis?

Kurt:
Exactly! The photon’s existential dread collapses it into a dot. Who am I? Where is time? And bam—it’s through the barrier. Existentialism: 1, Physics: 0. Because otherwise, we’d be stuck explaining it with math.  And nobody wants that.

Narrator (Deep Voice):
And thus, the mysteries of quantum mechanics remain.
But at least everyone agreed the metaphors needed a raise.

Can information travel faster than light

When there is no time, there is no space (and vice versa). The concept of moving faster than light challenges our understanding of space and time.

…from the photon’s perspective, time does not exist. At the speed of light, time effectively shouts: “HALT!” Whether or not photons actually speak German is irrelevant. Important is: “When there is no time, there is no space.”

Image: hologram of a photon, Univ. of Warsaw

One of Günter Nimtz’s claims regarding tunneling is that the tunneling process occurs faster than light. Most physicists concur with this assertion; for instance, Aephraim Steinberg stated that the results on quantum tunneling are “robustly superluminal.” The contention arises from Nimtz’s suggestion that a signal can be transmitted faster than light, which anyone can hear, thereby challenging the no-communication theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem .

The idea of faster-than-light (FTL) communication is largely considered taboo in physics, attributed to the “Fundamental Fysiks” group from Princeton in the 1970s. This group of hippie “fysicists,” who experimented with psychedelics and magic, developed the “no-communication theorem.”

So, on one hand, physicists agree that particles can quantum-tunnel faster than light, while on the other hand, they maintain that this phenomenon cannot be used to transmit information. Yet, it raises the question: if we can perceive such signals, how does this reconcile with the established limits of communication in physics?

Interestingly, Aephraim Steinberg from the University of Toronto has called quantum tunneling “robustly superluminal”:

He has measured this by using “Larmor clocks,” which is a different way of saying he measured the spin of photons before and after entering the tunnel.

So, he transmitted the spin position of a photon at superluminal speed. How is this not “transmitting information?” He transmitted information about the state of the photon, and measured its change after superluminal travel through the quantum tunnel. Didn’t he violate the no-communication theorem? And why is he allowed to transmit information on the photon spin at superluminal speed, and Nimtz from the University of Cologne can’t transmit AM modulated waves with Mozart?

SIMPLIFIED string theory

For simplification, I have described a photon as a quantum entity, a point, or a 0D (zero dimension) brane. The word “brane” comes from the word “membrane” and the physicists who came up with string theory left out the “mem”. When the photon undergoes tunneling, it behaves like a 1D (one-dimensional) string. A 1D string is a “one-brane” membrane, but the physicists who came up with string theory thought it would sound better to give it a different name. I think.

NerdBoy1392, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

So, in both 0D and 1D contexts, the concepts of time and space, as we know them, do not exist. You need the fourth dimension to have space and time. What I have done here is to illustrate the particle/wave duality.

My simplification has not much in common with “real” string theory. I called it “string” theory because two points (photons) connected by a line look like a string. A string can be a wave. A point is a particle.

Moreover, there is a common assertion that “in quantum mechanics, particles exist in spacetime.” From our perspective, a photon certainly exists in spacetime as it travels from point A to point B.

However, from the photon’s perspective, time does not exist. At the speed of light, time effectively shouts: “HALT!” Whether or not photons actually speak German is irrelevant. Important is: “When there is no time, there is no space.”

This agrees with time dilation at c.

————————

Second opinion: “A Photon’s Point of View”

by Steve Nerlich (PhD), Director, International Research and Analysis Unit, Australia

“A photons view” by Christopher Vitale of Networkologies and the Pratt Institute

“From a photon’s point of view, it is emitted and then instantaneously reabsorbed. This is true for a photon emitted in the core of the Sun, which might be reabsorbed after crossing a fraction of a millimeter’s distance. And it is equally true for a photon that, from our point of view, has traveled for over 13 billion years after being emitted from the surface of one of the universe’s first stars. So it seems that not only does a photon not experience the passage of time, it does not experience the passage of distance either.”
End quote

The photon follows a null geodesic; this is the path that massless particles follow. That’s why it’s called “null”; its interval (its “distance” in 4D spacetime) is equal to zero, and it does not have a proper time associated with it.


Difference of SIMPLIFIED string theory to “real” string theory

In real string theory, any particle, at any time, is a string. In my simplified version, a particle following a null geodesic, not influenced by gravity or fields of any kind, is a 0D (zero dimensional) point.

“Real” string theory vs the simplified version

It is only by interacting with external fields, gravitational, electromagnetic or objects, that the particle (photon) gains the first dimension. The photon is slowed down, and it becomes a “string.” The length of this string is analogous to its deceleration and possible wave “length.”

So, a very high energy-photon, for instance in the gamma ray spectrum, is a relatively short “string,” which translates into a short wavelength. A short string makes short wavelengths.

If the photon is slowed down more, for instance, by hitting the dense atmosphere of a planet, it becomes longer and can express an infrared wavelength. A longer photon string makes longer wavelengths, and it interacts differently with its environment.

QED

A Photon’s Point of View (archive)
https://web.archive.org/web/20240423185232/https://phys.org/news/2011-08-photons-view.html

A Photon’s Point of View
https://phys.org/news/2011-08-photons-view.html

Images
left: Hologram of a single photon, Univ. of Warsaw
https://geometrymatters.com/hologram-of-a-single-photon/