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: When a UFO Sighting Became a Quantum Breakthrough

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 (Video), 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?

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 —

Science Fiction Short Story: The River of Time

What if time isn’t a single, smooth river but a hidden cascade of microscopic “droplets”? Blending hard science with speculative fiction, “The River of Time” follows Dr. Mara Lentz to CERN, where a mysterious program called Chronos may prove that every moment in the universe comes in indivisible ticks.


The river was frozen solid—or so it seemed. Beneath the glassy sheath of ice, water still slid forward, grain by grain, molecule by molecule, each one stealing an instant from the future and secreting it into the past. Dr. Mara Lentz stood on the footbridge and let her gloved fingers tap against the rail, her every heartbeat echoing the tick-tock she had sworn to conquer. In the distance, CERN’s cavernous domes glittered beneath the winter sun like watch gears strewn across the snow. Today, she promised herself, she would decide whether time was prisoner or jailer, river or clock.

Frozen River

The Invitation

A month earlier, the summons had arrived in a yellowed envelope, the handwriting achingly familiar to any physicist.

Mara, If you wish to see how deep the river of time runs—and whether it is made of droplets—come to Geneva. A. E.

Impossible, of course. Albert Einstein had been dead for nearly a century. Yet the looping letters were unmistakable, right down to the playful curl beneath the final E. A prank, she assumed, until the envelope yielded a security badge to CERN and a one-sentence note: “Ask for Chronos.”


Chronos

The man who met her at CERN reception looked nothing like a mythic god and everything like a graduate student in overwashed jeans.

“Call me Noah,” he said, steering her through a maze of elevators that plunged beneath the Earth.

Chronos is more program than person,” he explained. “A string of algorithms built to test the most radical hypothesis on the table—that time itself has a dual identity.

“A wave and a particle?” Mara asked, half-teasing.

Exactly.” Noah’s eyes gleamed in the fluorescent gloom. “Just like light.”

They reached a vault-like door. Above the keypad a single line was etched into steel: FOR AS LONG AS WE HAVE BEEN HUMAN, WE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE TYRANNY AND GRACE OF TIME.

CERN Control Room

Inside, the air thrummed with cooling fans and suppressed excitement. Monitors covered the walls, each looping equations Mara knew as well as her own pulse—general relativity’s smooth curves entwined with quantum mechanics’ jagged spikes.


The Duality

“For a century,” Noah continued, “we’ve known that if you watch an electron’s path, it behaves like a point particle. If instead you watch its spread, it becomes a wave. Wave-particle duality. Our question is whether time plays the same trick.

“What if time flows in indivisible droplets?” she murmured.

Chronons,” Noah supplied. “Each a jump of 10⁻⁴³ seconds—the Planck tick.”


Emergence

  1. At the Planck scale, time does not flow; it hops.
  2. Aggregating trillions of those hops, a seamless current emerges—just as a lake’s surface looks smooth though every molecule jitters.
  3. The arrow of time appears only once enough chronons click in concert.

When fatigue blurred her vision, Mara imagined she could hear them: countless microscopic gears ratcheting reality forward—click … click … click …


The Rift

But the duality, however elegant, sat like an unsolved crime against everything Einstein had bequeathed. Relativity demanded a continuous spacetime; quantum mechanics insisted on discreteness. Chronos promised a bridge but offered no proof.

Tools,” Noah groaned, rubbing bloodshot eyes. “We need instruments slim enough to slip between two ticks, to watch the droplet itself.”

CERN Control Room

“Or,” Mara countered, “we find evidence in the macroscopic world—patterns only quantized time could leave behind.


Einstein’s Ghost

That night, Mara reopened the mysterious envelope. A translucent sheet she’d missed before drifted out, bearing Einstein’s familiar scrawl:

The answer is not in the river or the clock, But in believing they are one; Watch the particle, see the wave— Then look away and they are gone.


The River and the Clock

Back in the vault at dawn, Mara loaded gravitational-wave echoes from merging black holes. Traditional analyses assumed continuous time. She resampled the data at chronon intervals.

CERN Synchro-Cyclotron

A pattern emerged: micro-staccato pauses in the waves, like hidden commas in a cosmic sentence. They repeated every 10⁻⁴³ s.

Noah stumbled in with two coffees. One sloshed onto the floor as he saw the display. “Droplets,” he whispered. “A river of droplets.


Convergence

Word sprinted through CERN, through Caltech, Tokyo, Cape Town. Observatories retuned their algorithms to chronon cadence. Within weeks, corroborating signals poured in. Everywhere physicists looked, the universe ticked like a flawless watch hiding inside a roaring river.


Epilogue

Mara returned to the frozen footbridge. Beneath her boots, the river still looked motionless, an immense silver ribbon. Yet she knew it for what it was: trillions upon trillions of glimmering beads—each an indivisible heartbeat of existence.

The tyranny of time remained—but its grace had multiplied. Every instant was a jewel, perfect and complete, and the future was nothing more than an undiscovered sequence of brilliant ticks.

And somewhere, maybe in the hush between those droplets, she imagined she heard Einstein laugh—soft as snow falling on the river that was also a clock.


Background: Is Time Both a River and a Clock?

A Dual Identity for Time?

What if time behaves just like a particle of light? This radical new idea from the frontiers of physics suggests that our most fundamental reality has a dual identity.

The Birth of the Arrow of Time

The dynamics of a collection of particles gains a direction in time, called the arrow of time, when there are many particles. And this arrow of time is absent for a single particle.

Tyranny and Grace: Time’s Two Faces

For as long as we have been human, we have been subject to the tyranny and grace of time. It is the steady, flowing river of our lives, as Einstein imagined it—a dimension that can be bent and stretched by gravity. It is also the relentless tick-tock of the clock, marching forward one second at a time. But what if both are true? What if time itself leads a double life?

A Quantum Clue to the Puzzle

On the cutting edge of theoretical physics, a fascinating proposition is taking shape. It suggests that time may not be one thing or the other, but could possess a dual nature, an idea borrowed directly from the strange and proven rules of the quantum world. While still speculative, it’s a powerful lens through which scientists are tackling the biggest unanswered questions in the cosmos.

The Lesson of Wave-Particle Duality

The concept hinges on an analogy to one of science’s most famous paradoxes: wave-particle duality. A century of experiments has shown that an entity like an electron or a photon refuses to be pigeonholed. If you design an experiment to track its path, it behaves like a discrete, pinpoint particle. But if you design it to observe its flow, it acts like a continuous, spread-out wave. The nature it reveals depends entirely on the nature of the measurement.

Applying this same principle to time offers a startlingly elegant way to resolve a deep conflict in physics. It would mean that time’s identity is also dependent on context.

Relativity’s Smooth River

At our human scale—the world of falling apples and orbiting planets described by Einstein’s theory of general relativity—time behaves like a continuous wave. It is the smooth, flowing river we all experience, a dimension that warps and bends to create the force we call gravity.

Zooming to the Planck Scale

But if we could zoom down to the impossibly small Planck scale, a fraction of a second so tiny it’s written with 43 zeroes after the decimal point, we might see time’s other identity. Here, it would behave like a particle. In this view, time would not flow but “tick” forward in indivisible, quantized jumps. These hypothetical droplets of time, sometimes called “chronons,” would be the fundamental clockwork of the universe.

Emergent Time: River from Droplets

This isn’t just a philosophical parlor game. The idea aligns with a leading theory known as Emergent Time, part of the grand quest to unite Einstein’s relativity with quantum mechanics. This framework suggests that the smooth river of time we perceive is not fundamental at all. Instead, it *emerges* from the collective behavior of countless discrete, particle-like ticks at the quantum level—much like the smooth, liquid surface of a lake emerges from the chaotic interactions of trillions of individual H₂O molecules.

One Reality, Two Appearances

From this vantage point, there is no paradox. The “particle” nature of time is its true, fundamental identity, while the “wave” nature is what we perceive at our macroscopic scale. It’s one reality that simply appears differently depending on whether you’re looking at the individual pixel or the entire screen.

A Roadmap to a Theory of Everything

We do not yet have the tools to probe reality at such an infinitesimal scale to prove it one way or the other. But the proposition offers a tantalizing path forward. By daring to question the very fabric of our experience, scientists may be on the verge of solving the ultimate puzzle: creating a single, unified theory of everything. The answer may have been hiding in plain sight all along—not in the river or the clock, but in the profound possibility that they are one and the same.


References:


Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013). Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology. Living Reviews in Relativity, 16(1), 5.

https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-5


Caldirola, P. (1980). The chronon in quantum mechanics and the uncertainty relations. Lettere al Nuovo Cimento, 27(8), 225-228.

https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=3791673


Feynman, R. P., & Hibbs, A. R. (2010). Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals. Dover Publications.

https://archive.org/details/quantum-mechanics-and-path-integrals-feynman-hibbs-styer


Huggett, N., & Wüthrich, C. (Eds.). (2013). The Emergence of Spacetime in Quantum Gravity.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259158238_The_emergence_of_spacetime_in_quantum_theories_of_gravity_Introduction


Isham, C. J. (1993). Canonical quantum gravity and the problem of time. In L. A. Ibort & M. A. Rodríguez (Eds.), Integrable Systems, Quantum Groups, and Quantum Field Theories (pp. 157-287). Springer.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-1980-1_6


Lebowitz, J. L. (1993). Boltzmann’s entropy and the arrow of time. Physics Today, 46(9), 32-38.

https://doi.org/10.1063/1.881363


Zeh, H. D. (2007). The Physical Basis of The Direction of Time (5th ed.). Springer.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258275169_The_Physical_Basis_of_the_Direction_of_Time