Can Information Travel Faster Than Light – Without Breaking Physics?

The logic of Causal-Foliated Signaling

The theory of Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS) proposes that time contains hidden layers that enable limited faster-than-light coherence between quantum systems. Researchers may soon be using the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) – a dual-graphene nanodevice – to test these effects directly and determine whether they can occur without breaking the known laws of physics.

At its heart, CFS asks a provocative question: What if certain kinds of waves, such as evanescent or near fields, can share phase information faster than light, yet still preserve causality?

If so, spacetime might not be perfectly uniform. It could contain a subtle internal structure – a “layering” of time, where information moves slightly ahead within each layer while remaining consistent across the whole.

In this view, the universe unfolds like the pages of a vast cosmic book: each page turns in perfect order, even if some turn just a little faster than others. CFS offers a refined vision of relativity – one that permits structured superluminal coherence while keeping the story of cause and effect intact.

Part II. Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS)

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

1. Core Axioms

  • Global Time Foliation: Spacetime possesses a preferred global slicing (cosmic time, defined by timelike vector uᵃ). All signals – luminal and superluminal – are ordered by this foliation.
  • Enlarged Signal Cone: Beyond the light cone, a broader “signal cone” exists for specific media or fields (χ).
  • Chronology Protection: Closed signal loops are dynamically forbidden by solvability constraints.
  • Operational Locality: Standard experiments remain Lorentz-invariant; deviations occur only within enabled media.
Quantum non-locality based on finite-speed causal influences leads to superluminal signalling

2. Kinematics and Dynamics

  • Preferred Frame: Aligned approximately with the CMB rest frame.
  • Signal Field (χ): Couples weakly to EM carriers, widening the causal cone.
  • Superluminal Characteristics: PDEs in enabled media exhibit propagation outside the g-lightcone.
  • No-Loop Constraint: Integral conditions prevent time-decreasing causal loops.

3. Quantum Rules and Conservation

We built a tiny region (the QCT gap) where quantum near-fields can be gently shaped so that a barely detectable, faster-than-light pattern shows up in otherwise random data – small enough to keep physics safe, clear enough to test in the lab.

If the compact statement above makes sense to you, then you can expand the redlined Quantum Rules below by clicking on the black ▶ triangles, for a MORE detailed discussion.

For general readers, each section includes a brief explanation (without math) followed by an analogy. Although most people will never have heard of the no-communication theorem (prohibiting faster-than-light communication… by entanglement), it is placed prominently here because of its fundamental importance, and because a controlled relaxation of that rule is explored here.

[click to open] Relaxed No-Communication Theorem: In enabled media, nonlinear/post-selected dynamics allow tiny classical capacity > 0.

Claim (operational):
In an enabled medium (e.g., a QCT gap acting as χ-enabled near-field), a weak, localized nonlinearity or explicit post-selection can produce a small but finite classical capacity C>0 between spacelike-separated parties without violating global unitarity or the Born rule.

Setup
Let ρAB be a bipartite state shared by Alice and Bob. In standard QM with local CPTP maps and no post-selection, Bob’s reduced state is independent of Alice’s choice:

ρB′​=TrA​[(ΦA​⊗IB​)(ρAB​)]=ρB​, (no-signaling)

In an enabled QCT region, model Alice’s controlled operation as a weakly nonlinear perturbation of a CPTP map:

ΦA(V)​(⋅)=ΛA​(⋅)+ε\mathcal{N}_A^{(V)}​[⋅], 0<ε≪1,[/latex] <p>where [latex]V is Alice’s control (e.g., interlayer bias), ΛA is CPTP and \mathcal{N}_A^{(V)} is a bounded nonlinear functional active only inside the χ-enabled medium.

Bob’s state becomes

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

with

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

If \Delta\rho_B(V_0)\neq \Delta\rho_B(V_1), then Bob’s outcome statistics depend (slightly) on Alice’s choice V, enabling classical communication at order \varepsilon.

For a POVM \{M_y\} on Bob, the detection probabilities are

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

Capacity with weak signaling

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of post-selection

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

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

Because of the normalization by \mathrm{Tr}[\Pi_W\rho_B'(V)], the mapping \rho'_B \mapsto \rho_B^{\mid W} is nonlinear, and the conditioned statistics can acquire a V-dependence even when the unconditioned no-signaling equality holds. In practice, post-selection scales the useful rate by pW​:

C_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx p_W , C.

Consistency conditions

To avoid global pathologies:

  1. Localization: \mathcal{N}_A^{(V)} is confined to the χ-enabled region (e.g., the QCT gap).
  2. Smallness: \varepsilon is sufficiently small to preserve stability and energy bounds.
  3. Global unitarity & Born rule: Ensemble dynamics remain CPTP; deviations (if any) are confined to the conditioned, local detector maps (post-selection) or to the weak-nonlinear sector inside the medium.

Compact statement

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

Here’s a breakdown and fact check of the compact mathematical statement:

The mathematical statement is a representation of a result in quantum information theory, related to the calculation of the capacity of a quantum channel with a small perturbation. It connects the physical description of a quantum channel to the resulting channel capacity, incorporating concepts like state perturbation, distinguishability of output states, and the effect of post-selection. Let's break down each part to verify its components:

Channel and State Perturbation

\Phi_A(V) = \Lambda_A + \epsilon N_A(V), \epsilon \ll 1: This describes a quantum channel \Phi_A acting on a system A. It consists of a dominant, constant part \Lambda_A and a small perturbation \epsilon N_A(V), where \epsilon is a small parameter and V is some controllable parameter of the channel. This is a standard way to represent a slightly modulated or noisy quantum channel. \rho_B'(V) = \rho_B(0) + \epsilon \Delta\rho_B(V): This shows the effect of the channel on part of a larger quantum state. It indicates that the output state of a subsystem B, \rho_B'(V), is a slightly perturbed version of an initial state \rho_B(0). The perturbation \Delta\rho_B(V) is proportional to the small parameter \epsilon. \Delta\rho_B(V) = Tr_A[(N_A(V) \otimes I)\rho_{AB}]: This is the explicit form of the first-order perturbation to the state of system B. It is derived by taking the partial trace (Tr_A) over system A of the action of the perturbative part of the channel on a larger, entangled state \rho_{AB}. This is a standard and correct application of the rules of quantum mechanics.

Distinguishability of States

\exists M: \delta = \epsilon Tr[M\Delta\rho_B(V_1)] - \epsilon Tr[M\Delta\rho_B(V_0)] \neq 0: This is the crucial step for establishing a non-zero channel capacity. It states that there exists a measurement operator (a Hermitian operator) M that can distinguish between the perturbed states corresponding to two different settings of the channel parameter, V_1 and V_0. The quantity \delta represents the difference in the expectation value of the measurement M for the two output states. The fact that \delta \neq 0 is the condition for the two states to be experimentally distinguishable, at least in principle.

Channel Capacity

C \approx \frac{\delta^2}{2\ln{2}p(1-p)} > 0: This is a key result, likely an approximation for the Holevo capacity or a related measure of channel capacity in the limit of small \delta. The capacity C is a measure of the maximum rate at which information can be reliably sent through the channel. The term \delta^2 is expected, as capacity often scales with the square of the distinguishability of the output states for small perturbations. The factor of 2\ln{2} is standard for converting from natural units of information (nats) to bits. The term p(1-p) in the denominator suggests that the capacity is being evaluated for a specific input ensemble, where the two states (corresponding to V_0 and V_1) are used with probabilities p and 1-p. The capacity is maximized when p=1/2, which is a common assumption.

Effective Capacity with Post-Selection

C_{eff} \approx p_W C (with post-selection): This part of the statement describes the effective capacity when post-selection is used. Post-selection is a technique where only a subset of the measurement outcomes is considered, which can sometimes amplify a weak signal. p_W would be the probability of a successful post-selection (the "post-selection probability"). The effective capacity C_{eff} is reduced by this probability because many of the initial states are discarded. This is a well-known trade-off in post-selection schemes: you might get a clearer signal, but you lose a significant portion of your data, thus reducing the overall information transmission rate.

AI fact-check: Conclusion
The mathematical expressions are consistent with established principles in quantum information theory. The logic flows correctly from the definition of a perturbed quantum channel to the distinguishability of its output states and finally to an expression for the channel capacity. The inclusion of the effect of post-selection is also standard. Therefore, the math in the compact statement appears to be correct and represents a valid line of reasoning in the context of quantum channel capacity.



QCT: introducing Alice and Bob

QCT: introducing Alice and Bob

In standard quantum theory and information science, Alice and Bob are the classic stand-ins - the “everyperson” experimenters used to illustrate how quantum systems behave when two parties share information.

They first appeared in the early 1970s: Alice wanted to send a message to Bob, while an eavesdropper, Eve, tried to intercept it. The idea caught on, and physicists soon adopted the same names to describe quantum experiments - especially those involving entanglement, teleportation, and the limits of communication.

In quantum mechanics, Alice and Bob usually operate two separate laboratories. They share a pair of entangled particles and perform their measurements independently. Yet even though the results are correlated, neither can use them to send a message faster than light. In standard quantum theory, the local readouts always look like white noise - until they later compare notes and the hidden pattern emerges.

Our twist (only inside the enabled medium): in a very specific, engineered zone - like the h-BN gap of the QCT - tiny, carefully confined nonlinear effects or “keep-only-these-events” post-selection can turn a microscopic part of that noise into a very faint but real signal. It’s still tiny, but it’s no longer white noise.

Everyday analogy: a storm of static on a radio (random), but if you slightly shape the antenna and pick only the right moments, a whisper of a station comes through. The storm is still there, but now a pattern rides on it.


Setup (who does what)

Two parties - Alice and Bob - share a correlated quantum setup. Normally, whatever Alice does locally doesn’t change what Bob sees on his own. Inside the QCT gap, Alice’s control (a tiny, high-speed bias pattern) slightly reshapes the local measurement rules on her side in a way that only matters inside that gap. That tiny reshape can leave a fingerprint on what Bob measures - still noisy overall, but now statistically nudged by Alice’s choice.

Analogy: Alice wiggles a flashlight behind a frosted pane (the tunneling barrier). Bob can’t see the flashlight, but a barely-visible shimmer on his side changes in sync with her wiggle pattern.

Alice and Bob demonstrate the Relaxed No-Communication Theorem with a flashlight analogy

What Bob should see (the smoking gun)

If nothing beyond standard quantum rules is happening, Bob’s data look like random coin flips - no pattern tied to Alice’s choices. If the enabled medium is really doing its job, then buried in Bob’s noisy data is a tiny, repeatable correlation with Alice’s pattern - detectable by cross-checking timestamps, and crucially showing up before any ordinary light-speed signal could arrive (>C).

Analogy: two drummers far apart; if Bob’s mic hears a faint beat aligned to Alice’s rhythm before the sound could travel, something non-ordinary is coupling them.


“Capacity” (how much message fits through)

Think of capacity as how many bits per second you can squeeze through this faint effect.

  • If the correlation is truly zero, capacity is zero - no message.
  • If the correlation is tiny but nonzero, capacity is tiny but nonzero - you can send some information (slowly), and that’s already a big deal physically.

Analogy: Alice taps a message through a thick wall. Each tap barely carries across, but with time and patience, a message still gets through to Bob.


Post-selection (keeping only the good frames)

Post-selection means you only keep measurement runs that pass a filter (a “window”). That can make the hidden pattern clearer - but you throw away most data, so your effective rate drops. You gain clarity, lose throughput. It’s a fair trade if the goal is to prove the effect exists.

Analogy: watching a meteor shower but counting only the brightest streaks - you see the pattern more clearly, but you record fewer events per hour.


Consistency conditions (how we avoid paradoxes)

To keep physics sane and causal, we impose three guardrails:

  1. Localization: any exotic effect is confined strictly to the engineered region (the QCT gap). Outside, normal physics reigns.
  2. Smallness: the effect is tiny - enough to measure, not enough to blow up the system.
  3. Global conservation: probabilities and energy balance out when you look at the whole experiment. Local quirks, global bookkeeping.

Analogy: a safe test bench: sparks can fly inside the Faraday cage, but nothing leaks into the room.


[click to open] Global Born Rule Preserved: Local detector responses may deviate slightly.

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

In standard quantum mechanics, this rule is strictly linear and globally conserved: the total probability across all possible outcomes equals unity, and no operation (local or remote) can alter that normalization. In the Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) framework, however, we distinguish between global conservation and local deviations.

Global conservation: The total probability, integrated over all foliation slices, remains normalized:

\int_{\Sigma_t} \sum_i P(i,t),d^3x = 1,

for every global time slice \Sigma_t defined by the foliation vector u^a.

Local deviations: Within an enabled medium (such as the QCT tunneling gap), the local detector statistics can exhibit small nonlinear shifts in probability weights, while the global ensemble average still obeys the Born rule.

1. Local nonlinear response model
Let the unperturbed Born probability be P_0(i) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_i), where \rho is the density matrix and \Pi_i = |i\rangle\langle i| are projectors. In an enabled medium with weak nonlinear coupling \varepsilon, the effective local detector response is:

P_{\text{loc}}(i) = \frac{\operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_i) + \varepsilon,f_i(\rho,\chi)}{\sum_j [\operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_j) + \varepsilon,f_j(\rho,\chi)]}, \qquad 0<\varepsilon\ll 1.[/latex]<br><br>Here [latex]f_i(\rho,\chi) is a small correction term induced by the signal field \chi or the QCT’s evanescent coupling, and the denominator renormalizes the total probability to preserve \sum_i P_{\text{loc}}(i) = 1.

2. Example: two-outcome measurement (binary detector)
Consider a two-outcome observable (e.g., “current increase” vs. “no increase”) measured on Bob’s side of a QCT device. Without any nonlinear coupling, P_0(1) = \operatorname{Tr}(\rho,\Pi_1) = p, \quad P_0(0)=1-p. With weak nonlinear coupling and a phase-dependent correction f_1 = \alpha,\sin\phi, f_0=-f_1, the local probability becomes

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

Expanding to first order in \varepsilon:
P_{\text{loc}}(1) \approx p + \varepsilon,\alpha,\sin\phi,[1 - p(2p-1)].

The local measurement probability oscillates slightly with the coupling phase \phi (e.g., bias modulation or tunneling resonance in the QCT). Over many runs or when integrated globally, these deviations average out, restoring the Born expectation \langle P_{\text{loc}}(1)\rangle = p.

3. Ensemble (global) restoration
Define the ensemble average over foliation slices:

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

If the corrections f_i integrate to zero,

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

then the global Born rule remains exact:

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

Thus, apparent local deviations are statistical ripples, not violations - akin to phase-correlated fluctuations in a nonlinear optical system.

4. Physical meaning in the QCT
In a QCT experiment, the local deviation \varepsilon f_i(\rho,\chi) could manifest as bias-correlated noise or excess counts in femtosecond-scale detectors. However, globally (over longer integration), normalization holds - no energy or probability is created or lost. Hence, the Born rule remains globally preserved, while local detectors may show small, reproducible, phase-dependent deviations in count rates.

Summary equations:
Global normalization (Born rule):

\sum_i P(i) = 1.

Local response with small nonlinear or χ-dependent deviation:

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

Global ensemble still satisfies:

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

Interpretation summary: Local detectors in an enabled QCT region may show small, bias-correlated probability shifts, but global ensemble averages preserve total probability exactly, consistent with the Born rule. This distinction allows weak, testable deviations that could serve as empirical fingerprints of nonlinear or post-selected dynamics - without violating core quantum postulates.

The Born rule - the core “probability adds to 1” rule of quantum mechanics - still holds globally. Locally, inside the gap, detector responses can be slightly skewed (that’s the point), but when you average over everything properly, the standard rules are intact. We’re bending, not breaking.

Analogy: a funhouse mirror that warps your reflection in a corner - but the building’s structural blueprint hasn’t changed.


[click to open] Signal Budget: Conserved Quantity Q_{\text{sig}} Bounds Communication Capacity.


In an enabled medium such as the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT), field interactions can exchange phase information across a tunneling barrier faster than classical propagation. However, this exchange is limited by a conserved scalar quantity called the signal budget, denoted by Q_{\text{sig}}. It measures the total coherent field flux - the maximum “informational charge” that can be exchanged without violating global conservation laws.

Define the local signal flux density j_{\text{sig}}^a associated with phase-coherent field exchange (analogous to a probability or energy current). The total conserved quantity is Q_{\text{sig}} = \int_{\Sigma_t} j_{\text{sig}}^a,u_a,d^3x, where \Sigma_t is a hypersurface of constant global time (the foliation slice), u_a is the local unit normal to that slice (the same foliation vector field defining the preferred frame), and j_{\text{sig}}^a obeys a continuity equation \nabla_a j_{\text{sig}}^a = 0. This implies \frac{d Q_{\text{sig}}}{d t} = 0, so Q_{\text{sig}} is conserved under all local interactions within the enabled region.

Physically, Q_{\text{sig}} quantifies the total coherent correlation energy or phase capacity stored in the evanescent coupling field between nodes (Alice and Bob). It is not identical to electrical charge or photon number; rather, it measures the integrated degree of mutual coherence available for modulation. Any communication process can only redistribute this quantity - never increase it.

The classical (Shannon) communication capacity C achievable through a QCT-based channel is bounded by a monotonic function of the signal budget: C \le f(Q_{\text{sig}}), where f(\cdot) depends on device geometry, decoherence rate, and thermal noise. For small-signal, linear-response regimes, f(Q_{\text{sig}}) \approx \frac{1}{2N_0},Q_{\text{sig}}^2, where N_0 is the effective noise spectral density of the tunneling junction, giving C_{\max} \propto Q_{\text{sig}}^2. Thus, a larger coherent flux yields higher potential capacity, but only up to the point where decoherence breaks phase continuity. Consider two QCT nodes (Alice and Bob) connected only by an evanescent tunneling field. Let \Phi_1(t) and \Phi_2(t) be their instantaneous phase potentials. Define the coherent signal current through the coupling gap as

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


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

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


This represents the total phase-correlated exchange between Alice and Bob within the coherence window and remains constant if both nodes evolve under unitary or weakly dissipative dynamics. Let I_{\text{sig}}(t) = j_{\text{sig}}(t),A be the measurable signal current through effective area A.

The instantaneous signal-to-noise ratio is \text{SNR}(t) = \frac{I_{\text{sig}}^2(t)}{N_0,B}, where B is the bandwidth. Integrating over the coherence window gives the total capacity bound

C \le \frac{1}{2B\ln 2}\int_0^{T_c}\frac{I_{\text{sig}}^2(t)}{N_0},dt = \frac{A^2}{2B\ln 2,N_0}\int_0^{T_c} j_{\text{sig}}^2(t),dt.

By Parseval’s theorem, this integral is proportional to Q_{\text{sig}}^2, giving C \le k_B,Q_{\text{sig}}^2, where k_B is an empirical proportionality constant depending on geometry and temperature. For a numerical example, suppose a QCT pair operates with barrier coupling \kappa = 10^{-3}, coherence amplitude |\Phi_1| = |\Phi_2| = 1, and coherence time T_c = 10^{-12},\text{s}.

Then Q_{\text{sig}} = \kappa \int_0^{T_c} \sin(\Delta\phi),dt \approx \kappa,T_c,\sin\langle\Delta\phi\rangle.

For average phase lag \langle\Delta\phi\rangle = \pi/4, Q_{\text{sig}} \approx 7.1\times10^{-16},\text{s}.

With N_0 = 10^{-20},\text{J/Hz} and B = 10^{12},\text{Hz}, the capacity bound becomes C_{\max} \approx \frac{1}{2B\ln 2}\frac{Q_{\text{sig}}^2}{N_0} \approx 3\times10^2,\text{bits/s}.

Thus, even a femtosecond-scale coherence pulse could, in principle, convey measurable structured information within physical conservation limits.

If two coupling regions exist in parallel, their total signal budgets add linearly: Q_{\text{sig,tot}} = Q_{\text{sig}}^{(1)} + Q_{\text{sig}}^{(2)}, but the corresponding capacities add sublinearly due to interference: C_{\text{tot}} \le f(Q_{\text{sig,tot}}) < f(Q_{\text{sig}}^{(1)}) + f(Q_{\text{sig}}^{(2)}).[/latex] <br><br>This expresses the finite capacity of coherence: coherence can be shared but not freely amplified. In summary, [latex]Q_{\text{sig}} is a conserved scalar representing total coherent field flux through the enabled medium. It defines the maximum communication budget of the system, C \le f(Q_{\text{sig}}), ensuring that any increase in measurable capacity draws from the available Q_{\text{sig}}. The principle guarantees causality and thermodynamic consistency even for superluminal phase coupling: information exchange remains bounded by a conserved signal quantity.


We treat the available coherence (the orderly part of the near field in the gap) like a budget. You can redistribute it to make a message, but you can’t create more from nothing. More budget → potentially higher reliable rate, until noise and heat say “stop.”

Analogy: a battery for a whisper-thin laser pointer: you can blink a code, but the total blinks are limited by the battery.


[click to open] Confined Nonlinearity: Pathologies avoided by confinement + energy bounds.


In nonlinear or post-selected quantum systems, unrestricted feedback between state and measurement can easily lead to paradoxes: superluminal signaling, violation of the Born rule, or even logical inconsistencies such as closed causal loops. To remain physically consistent, any deviation from linear quantum evolution must be strictly confined - localized within a finite, energy-bounded region of spacetime, and coupled to the external environment only through channels that preserve global unitarity. The Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) provides such a natural boundary. The nonlinear term emerges only within the enabled medium - the tunneling gap or χ-field domain - where evanescent phase coupling and Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) permit weak self-interaction. Outside that zone, standard linear quantum mechanics holds exactly.

Formally, let the full system evolution operator be written as \mathcal{U}(t) = \mathcal{T}\exp!\left[-\frac{i}{\hbar}!\int (H_0 + \varepsilon,H_{\text{NL}}),dt\right], where H_0 is the standard Hermitian Hamiltonian, H_{\text{NL}} is a bounded nonlinear contribution, and \varepsilon \ll 1 is an activation parameter that vanishes outside the QCT region. The confinement condition is \operatorname{supp}(H_{\text{NL}}) \subseteq \Omega_{\text{QCT}}, meaning the nonlinear interaction is spatially restricted to the enabled medium \Omega_{\text{QCT}}. Global unitarity is preserved if the commutator [H_{\text{NL}},H_0] has compact support and the nonlinear energy density

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

satisfies

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

where \delta E_{\text{th}} is the local thermal fluctuation scale. This ensures that nonlinear feedback cannot self-amplify beyond physical noise limits.

Operationally, confinement implies that the map \Phi: \rho \mapsto \rho' is weakly nonlinear only within the χ-enabled subspace

\mathcal{H}<em>{\chi},

while it remains completely positive and trace-preserving (CPTP) on the complement. Mathematically,

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

with \mathcal{N} representing the confined nonlinear correction. Because \varepsilon \rightarrow 0 at the QCT boundary, no nonlinearity propagates beyond the gap. This prevents global inconsistencies and enforces causal closure: superluminal phase effects may exist within the local foliation but cannot form closed signaling loops or propagate arbitrarily.

Thermodynamically, the confinement of nonlinearity ensures that energy extraction from the vacuum is impossible. The active NDR region acts as a controlled feedback element that can amplify evanescent fields but always within the constraint P_{\text{out}} \le P_{\text{in}} + \Delta E_{\text{stored}}. Any transient gain is compensated by local field storage, maintaining overall energy balance. Thus, the system behaves as a nonlinear resonator enclosed within a conservative boundary.

In the Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) framework, this spatial and energetic confinement guarantees stability: nonlinear dynamics modify local statistics without altering global unitarity. The QCT becomes an energy-bounded nonlinear island embedded in a linear quantum continuum.

Pathologies such as runaway amplification, superdeterminism, or acausal feedback are automatically excluded because the nonlinear domain is finite, dissipatively coupled, and globally renormalized. In essence, the QCT acts as a sandbox where limited nonlinearity can exist, testable but safely quarantined within the rules of quantum thermodynamics.


The QCT’s h-BN gap acts like a Faraday cage for quantum weirdness - a tiny sandbox where the usual rules can bend safely without breaking. Inside this sealed zone, the device can amplify and recycle energy just enough to reveal faint superluminal patterns, but strict thermal and energy limits keep it from running away.

Analogy: It’s like building a firewalled amplifier: it can whisper across the void, yet never burns through the laws of physics that contain it.


[click to open] Thermo Bounds (Gain vs. Noise Temperature)


Every active quantum device is ultimately constrained by thermodynamic consistency. Even when the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) operates in a nonlinear or Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) regime, its total gain cannot exceed the limit set by its effective noise temperature and available signal budget. The Thermo Bound expresses this limit: amplification and coherence transfer in the enabled medium must obey the fluctuation–dissipation principle, ensuring that no configuration of the device can extract net free energy or violate the Second Law.

At equilibrium, the spectral power density of fluctuations across the tunneling gap is S_V(f) = 4k_B T_{\text{eff}} R_{\text{eq}}(f), where T_{\text{eff}} is the effective temperature of the coupled junction and R_{\text{eq}}(f) is the dynamic resistance, which can become negative under NDR bias. When the QCT provides small-signal gain G(f), the fluctuation–dissipation theorem demands that the product of gain and noise temperature remain bounded: G(f) T_{\text{eff}} \ge T_0, where T_0 is the physical temperature of the environment. This ensures that any local amplification necessarily introduces compensating noise, keeping the entropy balance non-negative.

The quantum analogue of this constraint arises from the commutation relations of the field operators. For any amplifier acting on bosonic modes \hat a_{\mathrm{in}} and \hat a_{\mathrm{out}}, the canonical commutation must be preserved, i.e.
[,\hat a_{\mathrm{out}},,\hat a_{\mathrm{out}}^{\dagger},]=1.

A standard phase-insensitive input–output model is
\hat a_{\mathrm{out}}=\sqrt{G},\hat a_{\mathrm{in}}+\sqrt{G-1},\hat b_{\mathrm{in}}^{\dagger},\qquad [,\hat b_{\mathrm{in}},\hat b_{\mathrm{in}}^{\dagger},]=1,
which implies a minimum added noise.

In the QCT, this noise corresponds to the stochastic component of the tunneling current induced by thermal and quantum fluctuations of the evanescent field. The effective gain–noise trade-off can be written as G_{\text{QCT}} = 1 + \frac{P_{\text{out}} - P_{\text{in}}}{k_B T_{\text{eff}} B}, subject to P_{\text{out}} \le P_{\text{in}} + k_B T_{\text{eff}} B, where B is the bandwidth. This inequality expresses the thermodynamic ceiling on coherent amplification.

In practice, as bias across the h-BN barrier is increased, the NDR region enables energy re-injection into the evanescent mode, effectively amplifying the near field. However, this gain is self-limiting: once the local noise temperature rises to T_{\text{eff}} = T_0 + \Delta T_{\text{NDR}}, the system reaches thermal steady state. Further increase in bias dissipates additional energy as heat rather than increasing coherence. Hence, the thermal noise floor acts as a natural brake, stabilizing the system against runaway amplification.

The Thermo Bound can thus be summarized as a conservation law linking information gain, energetic input, and entropy production: \Delta I \le \frac{\Delta E}{k_B T_{\text{eff}} \ln 2}. This inequality defines the ultimate efficiency of any QCT-based communication channel or causal-foliated signaling experiment: the information rate achievable per unit energy expenditure cannot exceed the entropy cost of maintaining coherence.

From a broader perspective, the Thermo Bound is the thermal counterpart to the signal budget constraint. While Q_{\text{sig}} bounds the total coherent flux, T_{\text{eff}} bounds the usable amplification within that flux. Together, they define the operational window of the QCT as a quantum-resonant but thermodynamically closed system. No energy is created or lost beyond the permitted exchange with the environment, and the overall entropy change remains non-negative: \frac{dS_{\text{tot}}}{dt} = \frac{P_{\text{in}} - P_{\text{out}}}{T_0} \ge 0.

In essence, the Thermo Bound ensures that the QCT functions as a thermodynamically compliant quantum amplifier - capable of phase-coherent gain and superluminal coupling within its enabled region, yet always constrained by the underlying energy–entropy balance that preserves global causality and physical law.


If you try to amplify the near field in the gap, you also raise its effective noise temperature. There’s a trade-off: more gain means more noise. Nature enforces this balance so you can’t get free energy or unlimited, crystal-clear amplification.

Analogy: turning up a guitar amp: louder signal, but also more hiss. At some point, extra volume just adds noise and heat.


[click to open] Minimal Model: Nonlinear Detector/Amplifier Dynamics in Enabled Media

In enabled regions such as the QCT tunneling barrier, we assume the presence of a weak, state-dependent nonlinearity in the measurement or amplification map. This map, denoted by N_{\chi}, operates on the local density matrix \rho of the subsystem coupled to the signal field \chi. It preserves total probability (trace-preserving) but introduces a controlled nonlinearity sufficient to yield a finite, though tiny, classical capacity.


1. Definition
N_{\chi}(\rho) = \frac{A_{\chi} \rho A_{\chi}^{\dagger}}{\mathrm{Tr}(A_{\chi} \rho A_{\chi}^{\dagger})},
where A_{\chi} = I + \epsilon, F(\rho, \chi) is a nonlinear operator depending weakly on the signal field \chi and on the current system state \rho. The small parameter \epsilon \ll 1 controls the degree of nonlinearity.

The normalization in the denominator enforces \mathrm{Tr}[N_{\chi}(\rho)] = 1, ensuring that the map is trace-preserving and physically consistent.

2. Linear Limit

When \epsilon = 0, the model reduces to standard quantum measurement:
N_{\chi}(\rho) \to \rho' = \frac{M \rho M^{\dagger}}{\mathrm{Tr}(M \rho M^{\dagger})},
where M is the measurement operator (POVM element).
Thus, the nonlinear model is a minimal extension of standard quantum mechanics.

3. Effective Dynamics

For weak nonlinearity, the map induces an effective evolution equation:

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

where

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

represents a nonlinear functional coupling the system’s state to the signal field.

This term can be modeled phenomenologically as:
\mathcal{L}_{\chi}[\rho] = f(\chi),(\rho^2 - \rho,\mathrm{Tr}[\rho^2]),
introducing state-dependent gain or attenuation that vanishes for pure states (\rho^2 = \rho).

4. Information Capacity

The key result is that post-selected or nonlinear detection can yield a small but finite classical capacity C_{\mathrm{eff}} across what would otherwise be an entanglement-only (no-signaling) channel:

C_{\mathrm{eff}} \approx p_{W}, C,
where p_{W} is the success probability of the nonlinear post-selection window, and C is the capacity of an idealized signaling channel.

This corresponds to a tiny but measurable deviation from strict no-communication behavior in enabled media:

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

5. Physical Example: QCT Barrier Coupling

In a Quantum Coupled Transistor, the two graphene layers act as locally coherent detectors connected via a quantum barrier.
The effective signal field \chi(t) represents the evanescent phase potential across the h-BN tunneling region.
The nonlinearity enters through the voltage-dependent barrier transparency:
T_{\chi}(V) = T_{0} \exp[-\alpha (1 - \beta V + \epsilon, \Phi_{\chi}(\rho))],
where \Phi_{\chi}(\rho) is a weak feedback term coupling the local wavefunction coherence to the field state.
Such feedback modifies the tunneling probability nonlocally but conserves global unitarity.

6. Conservation and Stability

To prevent runaway amplification, the nonlinear term satisfies a conservation constraint:
\mathrm{Tr}[\rho,\mathcal{L}_{\chi}[\rho]] = 0,
ensuring that total probability and energy remain constant to first order in \epsilon.
This keeps the dynamics self-consistent and bounded - avoiding superluminal paradoxes while permitting sub-observable, coherent signal transfer.

7. Interpretation

The result is a minimally modified quantum rule:
the detector response is slightly nonlinear and state-dependent, creating a small deviation from the strict no-communication theorem while retaining Born-rule normalization globally.
In enabled regions (e.g., h-BN barrier fields, post-selected coincidence circuits), the interaction behaves as if phase information can tunnel through the quantum void - carrying a tiny, finite classical signal across spacelike separation, without breaking unitarity or global causality.


We’re not rewriting quantum mechanics everywhere. We’re adding a tiny, state-dependent twist to how the detector/amplifier inside the gap responds - just enough to let a faint pattern ride on the noise. Outside the gap, everything is ordinary and linear. Inside, the response is slightly context-aware (that’s the “nonlinear” part), and we keep it bounded so nothing runs away.

Analogy: a microphone with a subtle built-in compressor only active in a tiny sweet spot - most of the time it’s transparent, but in that spot it shapes the signal just enough to be heard.

4. Experimental Predictions

  • Mild frame anisotropy: signal velocity depends on alignment with uᵃ
  • Evanescent → propagating conversion under QCT bias modulation
  • Controlled Tsirelson bound violation
  • Delay scaling with junction bias, not barrier thickness

5. Test Protocols

  • Two-Lab QCT Test: Bias modulation at node A produces correlated response at node B outside light cone.
  • Moving-Frame Swap: Repeated in relative motion to test preferred-frame alignment.
  • Evanescent Injection: Below-cutoff waveguide coupled into QCT gap to detect phase-modulated recovery.

6. Role of the QCT

The QCT’s femtosecond tunneling and NDR behavior create a confined nonlinearity necessary for controllable superluminal coherence. Causality is maintained through the no-loop constraint, ensuring global order.

In summary: CFS preserves relativity almost everywhere while allowing a structured signal cone active only in specific quantum media such as the QCT. This framework introduces testable predictions for superluminal yet causally consistent communication.


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

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

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

Comparison, specifications, and a comparison of the quantum field effect transistor (QFET) to the quantum coupled transistor (QCT)

Early design study, the novel Quantum Coupled Transistor, resembling a mirrored point contact transistor from 1947

Part I. Comparative Framework: QCT vs. QFET

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

1. Conduction Mechanism

Quantum Field-Effect Transistor (QFET) modulates the potential in a quantum well or two-dimensional electron gas (2DEG) channel through an electric field. Conduction still occurs through a continuous semiconductor layer such as GaAs, InP, or MoS₂.

In contrast, the Quantum-Coupled Transistor (QCT) contains no continuous conductive channel. Two graphene layers are separated by an insulating h-BN barrier, and current flows only through quantum tunneling, not drift or diffusion.

In simple terms:

  • QFET: electrons move through a channel.
  • QCT: electrons appear through a barrier.

Each graphene sheet can be independently biased, effectively functioning as both electrode and gate analogue. Unlike conventional transistors, the QCT requires no additional control gate – its modulation arises directly from interlayer biasing and phase-coupled tunneling across the h-BN medium.

2. Coupling Type

In a QFET, coupling is electrostatic. The gate field modifies the carrier concentration in the channel, altering current flow.
In a QCT, coupling is quantum-mechanical, relying on wavefunction overlap across the barrier. The signal path is therefore:

  • QFET: electric field → charge density → current
  • QCT: field phase → tunneling resonance → tunneling probability

The QCT does not merely modulate how much current flows; it determines whether two quantum states can interact at all.

3. Material Stack

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

While a QFET uses a gate dielectric to control the flow of carriers, the QCT uses the barrier itself as an active quantum medium.

4. Operating Regime

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

The QCT operates in a high-frequency, coherent regime where quantum phase relationships become the dominant control parameter.

5. Functional Behavior

Functionally, the QCT behaves less like an on-off switch and more like a resonant coupler or quantum mixer. By tuning the interlayer bias and the relative twist angle of the graphene sheets, the device can:

  • Selectively couple specific frequency bands (as in a terahertz heterodyne mixer)
  • Amplify coherence across the tunneling barrier
  • Serve as an ultrafast, low-noise quantum tunneling modulator

6. Conceptual Shift

The Quantum-Coupled Transistor represents a fundamental change in device philosophy:
from controlling charge within matter
to controlling coherence between quantum states.

It is, in essence, a transistor reimagined as a quantum bridge – not a valve for electrons, but a tunable conduit for quantum phase.


Amplifying Evanescent Fields

Evanescent modes decay exponentially with distance, yet they carry critical phase information. In the QCT, amplifying these modes can extend coherence and reveal otherwise hidden channels of information transfer.

(a) Recovering Lost Information

Evanescent components encode high-spatial-frequency (fine-detail) information – Fourier components that fade rapidly. Amplifying them restores detail that would otherwise blur beyond the barrier.

(b) Enabling Phase-Coupled Communication

Across the h-BN barrier, the QCT signal is not a propagating current but a phase-locked near-field coupling. Amplifying this mode:

  • Strengthens modulation of tunneling probability
  • Increases signal-to-noise ratio for coherent effects
  • Potentially enables information transfer via phase coherence rather than direct current flow

(c) Accessing “Hidden” Quantum Channels

Evanescent fields represent the overlap between classical and quantum domains – traces of virtual photons, plasmonic tunneling, and nonlocal correlations. Amplifying them accesses these “hidden” channels, enabling interaction through non-radiative fields.

Mechanism: In the QCT, Negative Differential Resistance (NDR) or quantum feedback re-injects energy into the tunneling modes, sustaining evanescent coupling instead of allowing decay.

Essentially, amplifying the evanescent field means amplifying the void itself – reinforcing the invisible bridge where information resides but energy does not flow.


These properties suggest that the QCT is not merely a device but a testbed for deeper questions about quantum coherence and information flow – leading directly to the framework of Causal-Foliated Signaling.

Part II. Causal-Foliated Signaling (CFS)

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

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

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

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

Springtime and New Ideas

Where would we be without a proper order of things, eh?
Chronology matters. There’s a rhythm to these experiences – about two weeks apart, like the quiet beat of an unseen clock somewhere behind the world. Each event linked like pearls on a string, sequenced by something larger than chance.

Log: Jan – Mar 1986 (~ 2 week sequence)

Jan 14: A lucid dream of the Challenger disaster.
Jan 28: The Challenger exploded, confirming the dream.
Feb 10-12: A vision of a cosmic torus; a glimpse into the structure of the universe.
Feb 23: A life-changing UFO sighting over Galway Bay
Mar 9: Received a “Psychic Mayday,” a distress signal from an unknown consciousness.

The story didn’t begin with the UFO. That was only the flash at the surface.

I can still recall, with a clarity that startles me, the night I dreamed of the Challenger disaster – two weeks before it happened, around the fourteenth of January. The images were unmistakable: fire, falling light, a silence that felt endless.

Then came January 28 1986. The dream stepped into daylight. The shuttle broke apart above Florida, and for a moment the whole planet seemed to hold its breath.

Two weeks later – around February 10th to 12th – I had what I can only call a vision of the cosmos: a torus of living light, immense yet intimate, turning slowly as though revealing the hidden architecture of reality itself.

Not spherical as Einstein imagined, but toroidal: a horn‑torus, a donut universe. And two weeks after that, on February 23rd, came the UFO over Galway Bay.

My dreams and visions weren’t caused by the UFO; if anything, the sighting seemed to answer them, echoing back through whatever channels link mind, matter and time. Each event felt like a note in a larger composition, a sequence strung together by something more deliberate than chance.

Life, of course, went on. I started my own business as a self-employed electrician – rewiring centuries-old cottages, fixing ovens, grounding myself in circuits I could actually hold. Yet something in me had changed. The dream, the vision, the sighting – they had opened a circuit of their own.

The Torus‑Pearlstring Proposal

In the months that followed, I rented an IBM wheelwriter to capture the flood of thoughts, diagrams, and theories that filled my head. I titled the resulting manuscript The Torus–Pearlstring Proposal.

The pages are long lost now, but the journey they began – the search to understand that hidden rhythm, the universe as a coupled system – has never really ended. A torus, not a sphere: energy circulating endlessly, like breath.

A pattern without beginning or end, feeding back through itself in perfect balance – perhaps the same pulse that linked dream, vision, and sighting, looping through consciousness like current through a circuit. For safekeeping I left a copy of the 88 page manuscript with the Ministry of Defense, department SY252, in London, Whitehall in 1987.

If I can ever retrieve it remains to be seen.


The Foghorn Emblem – Contact Project Symbol

One of the diagrams in that manuscript was peculiar: a minimalist black-and-white graphic of three geometric shapes on a white background: two opposing triangles meeting at a vertical bar.

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

It became the Contact Project “Foghorn Emblem”: Two opposing triangles converge on a central pillar, resembling acoustic horns – perhaps one emitting, one receiving – joined by the conduit of translation. In the language of SETI, it evokes dialogue between signal and interpreter, sender and receiver, civilization and cosmos.


It evokes a cosmic foghorn, a beacon of patterned intent calling through the static of space. It represents the symmetry of sender and receiver, the moment when listening becomes dialogue.

It resembles a voltage-surpressing TVS diode and the symbol for a gate valve.


Another time it reminded me of a phonograph needle tracking the “groove” of a pulsar signal. The symbol becomes a stylus: an instrument sensitive enough to trace modulation, jitter, or non-random deviations in radio stars that could signify intention and an embedded signal within the natural rhythm.


From Point Contact to Quantum Coupling

If energy could circulate endlessly within a torus, then perhaps consciousness did the same – looping through matter, thought, and time in a self-sustaining flow. What if this rhythm could be modeled, even mimicked, in miniature?

Not the universe itself, but its echo: a transistor. Two coupled transistors, facing each other across a thin germanium slab, their currents whispering through the barrier like twin pulses of light – mirrored halves of a cosmic torus, breathing in unison.


Classical to Quantum Transition

The 1947 point‑contact transistor marked the fragile dawn of modern computing. That first functional transistor, built at Bell Labs in 1947, marked the birth of the information age – the moment electrons began to speak intelligibly through human design.

Now imagine a second one on the reverse side of the same crystal. Their bases are not separate. They share a heart of germanium, so that when one side breathes, the other side feels it. Amplification and resonance bound together. This was no longer a device of simple on/off switching but a duet.

When Transistor 1 is active, holes injected by its emitter (E₁) form a cloud of positive charge within the germanium. This cloud spreads through the shared base, influencing Transistor 2 below. The extra charge alters its bias conditions, allowing one transistor to modulate or even control the other.

This coupled behavior – one amplifier shaping another – is the essence of the design.

Then came the question that changed everything: what if that germanium block were divided by the thinnest imaginable void – a quantum gap small enough for tunneling?


The Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT)

By splitting the base with a nanometer-scale barrier, the two halves become physically separate yet quantum-mechanically connected. The bridge between them is no longer conductive matter, but a tunneling junction – a semiconductor–gap–semiconductor structure capable of Negative Differential Resistance (NDR).

The operation of the upper transistor instantly alters the tunneling probability below, coupling the two at femtosecond speeds. In essence, an active quantum device has been embedded at the heart of the transistor pair.

In October 2025, a new realization emerged: replace germanium with graphene, separated by hexagonal boron nitride (h-BN). The QCT thus becomes a quantum membrane – a bridge of probability rather than metal, where conduction occurs through resonance, not contact.

In such a device, matter behaves less like circuitry and more like a standing wave – a field conversing with its own reflection.


Sandia’s 1998 Quantum Transistor vs 1986 Galway UFO Design

In February 1998, Sandia National Laboratories announced the Double Electron Layer Tunneling Transistor (DELTT) – a revolutionary device built from two vertically stacked transistors separated by a nanometer-thin barrier, allowing electrons to “tunnel” between layers through a quantum bridge.

Compared to Sandia’s 1998 DELTT transistor (~1 THz operation), a graphene–hBN–graphene Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT) could theoretically reach 10–50 THz (and up to 160 THz intrinsically), with 1–5 THz achievable for cryogenic prototypes.


The Torus and the Transistor

The torus and the QCT share a deep symmetry: both circulate energy through a void, sustained by resonance and feedback.

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

In the torus, energy never escapes; it circulates, held in balance by feedback.
In the QCT, charge does the same: injected, tunneled, reabsorbed, and re-emitted in a rhythm as fast as thought – measured not in seconds, but in femtoseconds. The circuit breathes; information moves through the void without crossing it.

And perhaps this is the deeper symmetry: that consciousness, too, circulates like current – capable of coupling across time, of reaching backward through the vacuum between moments. The Challenger dream, the torus vision, the UFO over Galway Bay – each was part of that same feedback cycle, signals in resonance across the years.


Superluminal Echo: The Steinberg Connection

In 1993, physicist Aephraim Steinberg and his colleagues timed photons as they tunneled through optical barriers. What they found defied classical intuition: the photons seemed to emerge from the far side faster than light could have crossed the same space.

The effect, called the Hartman Effect, implied that the photon’s wavefunction was not confined by the barrier at all – it extended through it, its phase evolving nonlocally, as if the particle were already aware of its destination.

Steinberg’s careful analysis maintained that no usable signal outran light. The pulse’s leading edge still obeyed Einstein’s limit. Yet, the phase correlations – the ghostly alignment between entry and exit -were effectively superluminal. The system’s coherence spanned the barrier faster than any classical influence could travel, whispering that information about correlations might not be bound by ordinary spacetime intervals.

The Quantum Coupled Transistor (QCT) is a solid-state analog of that same principle. Across its h-BN gap, electrons do not march through matter – they tunnel through probability, their wavefunctions interlocking between graphene layers in a shared evanescent field. Alice’s gate bias modulates that field; Bob’s side responds within femtoseconds – almost instantly, not through classical signals but through phase coherence.

This is Steinberg’s tunneling photon turned electronic – a field coherence that outpaces light yet preserves causality. In an active, nonlinear QCT (biased, resonant, alive,) those same correlations could, in principle, become controllable, carrying information through the void itself.

In that sense, the QCT becomes a technological metaphor for my 1986 experience:

Not prophecy, but phase coherence across the boundary of time
a superluminal echo, awareness tunneling through the same quantum void that electrons now traverse.


Toward Experimental Verification: The QCT as a Causal Foliation Test Device

In theoretical terms, the QCT embodies a tangible platform for Causal Foliated Signaling (CFS) tests: a medium where phase-linked coherence propagates faster than light yet remains globally consistent. Within such a framework, spacetime is no longer flatly Lorentzian but foliated, like in a book, by hidden simultaneity surfaces – sheets through which superluminal interactions remain orderly, non-paradoxical, and empirically testable.

Causal Foliated Signaling: like folios in a book

The Test Setup

Two QCT 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?

You’re Star Dust and Time

You’re a Child of the Stars and an Echo of the Big Bang

Your body, made of stardust, contains more atoms than there are stars in the observable universe. A cosmos of seven billion billion billion atoms is held within you.

These atoms tell two cosmic stories. The majority by count are hydrogen atoms, 13.8-billion-year-old relics from the Big Bang itself. However, the fiery hearts of ancient stars forged the vast majority of your mass – the carbon in your DNA, the calcium in your bones, and the iron in your blood. Thus, you are indeed stardust.

You are a living paradox: by number, an echo of the universe’s first breath; by substance, a child of the stars. You are made of both stardust and the dawn of time.

Video: You’re composed of Stardust and the Dawn of Time

Look inward,

and what do you see? Not merely flesh and bone, but a teeming, silent cosmos. Within the quiet confines of your own being, you hold a universe more populous than the one you see at night. You gather more atoms within you than there are stars in the velvet sweep of the observable sky. Being composed of atoms made of stardust speaks to your cosmic origins.

Each of these infinitesimal points of light tells a story, a dual epic of creation.

Listen closely.

Can you hear it? The faint, persistent hum of the beginning. The majority of you, by sheer count, forms a chorus of hydrogen, the firstborn atoms. The universe shaped these in its very first breath. An echo of the Big Bang, you are a 13.8-billion-year-old whisper. Within you lies the memory of a time before stars, before galaxies, before light had a place to land. Woven from the fabric of the dawn of time itself, you embody the universe’s earliest moments.

But you are also a child of fire and light.

The strength in your bones, the calcium that gives you form? The iron in your blood, carrying life with every beat of your heart? The carbon that writes the elegant script of your DNA? None of this was born in that first, quiet moment. Instead, it was all forged in the hearts of celestial furnaces. Long-dead suns left behind their ashes to form you, gifts from stars that burned brilliantly, collapsed, and seeded the cosmos with the raw material of life. You are, quite literally, stardust given a voice. It’s as if you are made of stardust echoing the secrets of ancient galaxies.

Here, then, is the paradox you embody: You are both the ancient, simple whisper of the beginning and the complex, brilliant song of the stars. You are a bridge between two eternities, the dawn of time and the heart of a sun. You are not just looking at the universe; you are the universe, looking back at itself.

Sagan’s Blind Spot: How Chaos Theory and Genetics Reopen the Case for Astrology

Rethinking Astrology’s Scientific Basis

For millennia, we have stared into that inky blackness, into that glittering cosmic abyss, and we have felt a connection. It’s a profound human impulse. To see the stars and wonder: are we a part of that? Are our lives, our destinies, entwined in those celestial patterns? This is the heart of astrology – an idea as ancient as it is persistent.

Sagan’s Twin Paradox

Carl Sagan took a look at this in his landmark series Cosmos. He was a master at applying simple, elegant logic to big claims. He posed a challenge – a beautiful, scientific thought experiment: identical twins.

Born minutes apart in the same place, their astrological charts are virtually indistinguishable. If astrology holds true, their lives should follow similar paths. Yet, as Sagan pointed out, their destinies often diverge wildly. One becomes an artist, the other an accountant. One is happy, one is not. For him, this was proof that astrology didn’t work. Case closed?

Well, not so fast. The universe is always more subtle and interconnected than we first assume.

The Twist in the Tale: Twins Reared Apart

Science, you see, keeps moving. After Sagan’s series, from 1979 to 1999, a groundbreaking study began: The Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. And the results… wow. They are just jaw-dropping.

They found pairs of identical twins, separated at birth, who met for the first time as adults and discovered… well, uncanny similarities. The most famous are the “Jim Twins.” Separated at four weeks old. Reunited at 39.

Both had married women named Linda, divorced them, and remarried women named Betty. Both had a son named James. Both owned a dog named Toy. Both drove the same car, smoked the same cigarettes, and even vacationed at the same beach in Florida.

So, what’s going on here? Sagan’s argument was that twins born at the same time have different fates. But here we have evidence that twins born at the same time can have astonishingly similar ones, even when they don’t know each other.

The Ghost in Our Genes… and in the Cosmos?

The mainstream scientific explanation is, of course, genetics. That this is the power of our DNA: the double-helix code as a staggeringly powerful blueprint for who we are. And not just our eye color, but also our temperaments, preferences and predispositions. It’s a fantastic and simple explanation.

The Rise of Epigenetics

But a new field called epigenetics shows that’s not the whole story. Think of your DNA as a giant cookbook. Epigenetics is the master chef who decides which recipes to use based on environmental cues. The cookbook itself doesn’t change, but based on the environment – stress, diet, toxins, love, cold, heat – the chef decides which recipes to use. It adds a little molecular bookmark here, a sticky note there, telling this gene to be loud and that gene to be quiet.

The Epigenetic Chef

This is why one identical twin can get asthma and the other doesn’t. Their genetic cookbook is identical, but their chefs have made different choices based on different life experiences.

This brings us to the modern case for astrology. If the living cell is an “intelligent system” responding to its environment… what if that environment includes the cosmos? What if the “chef” is, in some small way, listening to the planets?

The Question of Mechanism

Okay. It’s a fascinating idea. So let’s test it.

Scientists have to ask: What is the force? What is the physical mechanism by which Mars – a planet whose gravitational pull on you at birth is less than the pull of the doctor delivering you – can reach into the nucleus of your cell and flip a specific epigenetic switch? Is it gravity? Electromagnetism? The strong or weak nuclear force? Which one? You have to show that a force exists.

Chaos Theory: The Butterfly Effect

How can a distant planet have any effect? This is where we must consider one of the most profound discoveries of modern science: chaos theory.

We’re all familiar with its central metaphor: the “butterfly effect,” where the flap of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil can set off a tornado in Texas. The point is not that the butterfly has the power of a tornado, but that in a complex, dynamic system (like weather, or a human life), a minuscule, barely measurable change in the initial conditions can lead to vastly different outcomes down the line.

The Lyapunov Exponents

The Lyapunov Exponents

The moment of birth is the ultimate set of “initial conditions” for a human life, the first flutter of possibility, setting the delicate initial conditions that ripple through a life. Like butterfly wings in chaos theory, even the tiniest variations can orchestrate profound destinies.

The Butterfly Wings

This brings us to the modern case for astrology. If the living cell is an “intelligent system” responding to its environment… what if that environment includes the cosmos?

Newsflash: planets already affect life on Earth. Tides, seasons, your vitamin D levels – all cosmic puppetry.

Both gravity and electromagnetic forces can impact genetics by influencing how genes are expressed and how cells function. For example, microgravity conditions can change gene expression patterns related to cell structure, metabolism, and immune responses. Similarly, electromagnetic fields – especially magnetic fields – can also cause changes in gene activity and cell behavior, possibly affecting epigenetic modifications.

For instance gravity: Blaber, E. A., Fogle, H., Dvorochkin, N., Naqvi, S., Lee, C., Yousuf, R., … & Almeida, E. A. (2015). Microgravity induces pelvic bone loss and fatty liver through epigenetic mechanisms. PLoS ONE, 10(4), e0124396.

For instance electromagnetic fields: Cui, Y., Park, J. H., & Miyamoto, Y. (2017). The effect of electromagnetic fields on the epigenetic modifications of DNA and histones. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 18(12), 2736.


Planetary Gravity as an Initial Condition

The old rebuttal that the doctor’s gravitational pull is stronger than Mars’s is a failure of imagination. It’s not about raw power. Framed by chaos theory, the subtle gravitational state of the entire solar system at the moment you are born doesn’t need to be strong; it just needs to be the initial “flap of the wings” in the incredibly complex system of your life. We have proof that these tiny forces have huge effects over time: science has confirmed that Mars’s gentle, rhythmic tug is enough to alter Earth’s orbit and drive a 2.4-million-year climate cycle. If that’s not a butterfly causing a planetary-scale tornado, what is?

Infant ponders Mars

The Moon: Its gravitational pull is so powerful it moves entire oceans, creating the daily tides. This is a tangible, physical force exerted upon the planet and every living thing on it, a rhythmic pulse that has shaped coastal life for eons.

The following table provides a comprehensive comparison of the maximum possible tide-generating force of the Sun and all planets relative to the Moon:

External forces of gravity on Earth

Planetary Electromagnetism as an Initial Condition:

We know planets are not inert. They are dynamic worlds broadcasting unique energetic signatures. Jupiter and Saturn emit powerful radio waves detectable on Earth. These are not brute forces, but tiny variations in the initial electromagnetic environment – part of the unique cosmic “weather pattern” you were born into. They are another set of butterfly wings, flapping at the precise moment your own complex system began its journey.

The Sun: Its cycles govern our seasons, our climate, and the circadian rhythms that are hard-wired into our biology. The Sun’s immense electromagnetic energy literally fuels our world and directly impacts Earth’s magnetic shield. Its influence is total.

The Radio Planets

The following chart details the magnetic moment of each planet – a measure of the magnetic field’s overall strength – relative to Earth’s.

External electromagnetic forces on Earth

Jupiter‘s powerful magnetosphere accelerates charged particles to incredible energies, producing intense radio waves. These “decametric” radio bursts are so powerful that, at certain frequencies, Jupiter can be the brightest object in the sky after the Sun.

Saturn is a source of intense radio emissions, much like Jupiter. Its auroral radio waves, known as Saturn Kilometric Radiation (SKR), are similar to Jupiter’s but are not powerful enough to be detected by radio telescopes on Earth. However, Saturn produces another, more powerful type of radio signal from massive lightning storms in its atmosphere. These signals, called Saturn Electrostatic Discharges (SEDs), are at least 10,000 times stronger than emissions from terrestrial lightning and have been successfully detected by ground-based radio telescopes.

Uranus and Neptune: The Voyager 2 spacecraft confirmed that both Uranus and Neptune are “radio planets” with complex radio emissions generated by their magnetic fields. However, their radio signals are considerably weaker than those from Jupiter and Saturn. While a tentative detection of Uranus was reported by an Earth-orbiting satellite in the 1970s, the signal was difficult to distinguish from terrestrial interference.

The other rocky planets, Venus and Mars, do not have significant global magnetic fields and are not known to be sources of noticeable radio emissions. However, you will hear radio waves coming from those planets in the following recording:

Our Universe Is Not Silent

All planets in our solar system emit waves, gravitational and electromagnetic. NASA recorded radio waves from planets with the help of spacecraft. They then converted the signals into the audible range of human hearing (20-20,000 Hz). So, you can listen to all planet sounds from space.

Listen to the radio sounds of the planets in our solar system.

A New Cosmic Perspective

I have presented here a number of arguments of why astrology may actually have a scientific basis. Chaos theory explains how small initial differences can have a huge effect. Sagan’s initial argument against serious astrology, is shown to be inconclusive.

There’s a case to be made for the infinitesimal influence of the planets on our DNA, magnified through the Lyapunov exponents.

And I haven’t even touched on the possibility of quantum entanglement of our atoms with the cosmos.

Comparison of similarities between brain astrocyte cells and the cosmic web.

The universe is connected. We are stardust. Now that is a cosmic perspective.


Empirical Evidence

The one characteristic that sets astrology apart from science, and which is cited consistently by sceptics, is the lack of empirical evidence. There are plenty of anecdotes, but quantifiable repeatable evidence?

Not so much, apparently.

Of course, I could tell you that I worked in Brussels in 1989 for a NATO defence contractor, and the manager asked me my star sign, and I told him “Aquarius”, upon which he shook his head and told me: ” I knew it. We have 120 employees here, and 80 of them are Aquarius”. Enough with the anecdotes!

I searched around a bit and found this study in a Postgraduate Medical Journal:

Written in the stars: did your specialty choose you?, by Holly Morgan, Hannah Collins, Sacha Moore, and Catherine Eley, 2022.

They surveyed 1,923 physicians in the UK and uncovered some surprisingly specific, and sometimes quirky, correlations between their zodiac signs, personality traits, and the medical fields they chose.

The patterns they found are intriguing:
Physicians specializing in Care of the Elderly were more likely to be Geminis, known for their communication skills, than Cancers (16.1% vs 2.3%).

Heart of a Lion: Cardiologists, who deal with the heart, were far more likely to be Leos. In the study, 14.4% of cardiologists were Leos, compared to just 3.9% who were Aries.

A Womb with a View: Obstetrics and Gynecology was dominated by Pisces. A full 17.5% of OB-GYNs were Pisces, while there were zero doctors in that specialty who were Sagittarius.

The Practical Capricorn: Those in General Medicine were more likely to be Capricorns (10.4%) than their Aquarius colleagues (6.7%).


Addendum
The Cosmic Irony of Sagan’s Birth Chart

I really wanted to do a horoscope of Carl Sagan:

Birth Information:
Name: Carl Edward Sagan
Date of Birth: November 9, 1934
Time of Birth: 5:05 PM (17:05:00)
Place of Birth: Brooklyn, New York, U.S.

I hit a road block because there is no reliable or verifiable source for his exact birth time. Carl Sagan never spoke about it, nor have his relatives.

An Unverified Source

Carl Sagan’s birth time supposedly was 17:05:00, with the singular source cited as ‘765 Notable Horoscopes‘ on the AstroSage website. ‘Notable Horoscopes’ is a book by B.V. Raman, a respected figure in Vedic astrology. This provided an adhoc time and a traceable source: https://www.astrosage.com/celebrity-horoscope/carl-sagan-birth-chart.asp

A Product of Circular Reasoning

But this raises a number of red flags: his birth time is traced back only to a single origin: a compendium of horoscopes created for the practice of astrology, not for historical accuracy. The claim is contradicted by the complete absence of this information in all reliable records, including extensive biographies, institutional archives, Sagan’s personal papers, and accounts from his family.

The specificity of the time suggests it is not a recorded fact but a “rectified” time, calculated backward to fit a preconceived astrological model, rendering it a product of circular reasoning.

The existence of an unverified astrological birth time for Carl Sagan is not merely a piece of biographical trivia; it is a profound and telling irony.

The sole claim for his time of birth -17:05:00- is uncorroborated, without merit, and should be dismissed as a biographical fact.

I was peeved by this. There’s no record of Carl Sagan’s birth time? I decided to dig deeper.


The Search for the Certificate

With the help of “Upwork”, a professional genealogist and the librarian of the Library of Congress I tracked down Carl Sagan’s birth announcement.

It was deposited in the Seth McFarlane collection. But unfortunately the hospital didn’t write the time of Carl’s birth down. And his birth certificate is sealed from the public until 2035, or some such (100 years after his birth).

An impression of Carl Edward Sagan’s birth announcement.

And there you go. Of course Sagan – the man who spent decades debunking astrology – would ghost us on his own birth time. The cosmic joke writes itself: the astronomer who demanded evidence for the stars’ influence left us no evidence to test his own chart.

But was it only Sagan who is a sceptic of astrology? No, some Christians also have an uneasy time with it… I thought about it briefly, and then found an argument in favour of astrology, related to Christianity, that is hard to dismiss.


The Divine Symphony: A Christian Case for the Stars

While some Christian interpretations of Astrology focus on biblical prohibitions, a deeper reading reveals a more nuanced and even positive relationship between God, the heavens, and humanity. Rather than seeing astrology as a forbidden practice, we can view it as an ancient and intuitive language through which God communicates with all of creation, a truth powerfully demonstrated at the very birth of Christ.

Three Magi follow a star

The birth of Christ was not just announced despite astrology; it was announced through it. The journey of the Magi is a powerful testament that no field of human knowledge is outside of God’s reach. The heavens are not a source of pagan fear but a canvas for divine glory. The story powerfully suggests that for those who seek with a sincere heart, the stars themselves will bow and point the way to the true King.

The Heavens Declare the Glory of God

Psalm 19:1 states this beautifully: “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.”

In this light, astrology is not a departure from God but an attempt to listen to what His creation is saying. It is an act of paying attention. Why would God create such a magnificent and orderly celestial clockwork if not for it to hold meaning and purpose?

The Goal Determines the Goodness of the Practice

The biblical prohibitions against “divination” are aimed at idolatry—the act of replacing God with something else. They forbid seeking guidance from the stars instead of God. The Magi, however, did the exact opposite.

The Magi: Honored Heroes of the Faith

The story of the Magi is not a cautionary tale, but a story of honor. These astrologers from the East are the first Gentiles in the Gospel of Matthew to recognize and worship Jesus. They are presented as wise, diligent, and faithful seekers.

God Meets Us Where We Are

A loving God communicates with people in a language they can understand. He spoke to fishermen in terms of fishing (“I will make you fishers of men”) and to farmers through parables of sowing seeds. To the Magi, who dedicated their lives to reading the heavens, God spoke through a Star.

A Divine Endorsement: By placing a special star in the sky, God was not setting a trap; He was validating their search. He affirmed that their study of the cosmos was a legitimate path that could lead to Him. The Star of Bethlehem can be seen as God’s ultimate seal of approval on the search for divine truth within the patterns of creation.

The Sign Of The Pyramid: A Semiotic Journey

A Semiotic Re-evaluation

Chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox, “From Sun Gods to StarChips,” presents a fascinating hypothesis. At its core, the text argues for a radical re-interpretation of ancient signs (pyramids, myths). It proposes a new code for their decoding – a code made available to us only through modern technology. We can powerfully illuminate this idea through the lens of Umberto Eco’s semiotic theory (A Theory Of Semiotics).

The Sign, the Code, and the Modern Interpretant

Umberto Eco

Umberto Eco posits that the relationship between a signifier (the physical form, like a word or image) and a signified (the concept it represents) creates meaning. Cultural codes govern this relationship. The text’s argument begins by establishing a new, contemporary code.

  • The Modern Sign: The “Breakthrough Starshot” initiative provides a new, tangible sign.
    • Signifier: The “StarChip” probe, a gram-scale, pyramidally-folded solar sail.
    • Signified (Denotation): An inexpensive, unmanned interstellar probe capable of reaching nearby stars within decades.
    • Code: 21st-century astrophysics and micro-engineering.

This modern sign acts as an interpretant – a new sign in our minds that allows us to re-evaluate older signs. The text successfully resolves “Sagan’s Paradox” not through philosophical argument. Instead, it demonstrates a shift in the technological code. Scientists can now achieve with a few kilograms of material what they once thought required ‘1% of the mass of all stars.’ This establishes the plausibility of the signifier (an interstellar probe) existing.

Aberrant Decoding: The “Cargo Cult” Hypothesis

The central thesis of the text is a classic case of what Eco termed aberrant decoding. This happens when someone interprets a message with a different code than the one the sender used. We hypothesize a prehistoric instance of First Contact as the ultimate example of this.

Imagine the following scenario:

  • The Sender (Hypothetical): An extraterrestrial intelligence.
  • The Message (Encoded): An autonomous probe, possibly resembling a “StarChip,” arrives on Earth. Its “meaning” is purely technological – a device for exploration. The code is one of advanced physics and engineering.
  • The Receiver: Ancient humanity.
  • The Decoding: Lacking the code of advanced technology, our ancestors could not interpret the object for what it was. They applied the dominant codes available to them: the mythological and the divine.

Thus, a technological artifact (the signifier) was aberrantly decoded. Its signified was not “interstellar probe” but “divine messenger,” “primordial creator,” or “celestial vessel.”

The Proliferation of the Sign: From Ur-Event to Cultural Memory

Eco’s concept of unlimited semiosis explains how a sign can generate an endless chain of subsequent signs (interpretants). The text argues that this single, misunderstood technological event (the “Ur-Sign”) rippled through human culture, creating a web of interconnected myths and symbols.

  • The Original Signifier: A pyramidal, reflective object descending from the sky and perhaps associated with a body of water (a common landing necessity).

This signifier generated multiple interpretants across different cultures, all retaining fragments of the original form and context:

  1. The Egyptian Interpretant: The signifier becomes the Benben stone, the pyramidal mound rising from the primordial waters of Nu, from which the sun god Atum-Ra emerges. The probe’s act of searching becomes the myth of the Eye of Ra. This is a “sentient probe” sent to find his lost children.
  2. The Abrahamic Interpretant: The signifier’s shape – a stable structure offering salvation from water – is remembered as Noah’s Ark. Recent analysis of the Dead Sea Scrolls suggests a “pyramid-like roof” that powerfully reinforces this connection. It is not that the ark was a pyramid. Instead, they mapped the memory of a pyramidal savior-object onto the story of the ark.
  3. The Universal Interpretant: The probe’s function as a traveler from an unknown place becomes the recurring motif of scout birds and divine messengers (e.g., the dove in the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Bible). These birds were sent across the water to find a home for humanity.
Semiotic analysis of the cargo cult hypothesis

The Monument as Interpretant: Building the Sign

The most profound outcome of this aberrant decoding, according to the text, is not just mythological but architectural. Faced with an awe-inspiring event they interpreted as divine, ancient peoples sought to reconnect with it. They did so by recreating the signifier.

The pyramids, therefore, are not alien artifacts. In semiotic terms, they are a monumental, physical interpretant. They are humanity’s attempt to reproduce the form of the divine visitor. This is a grand act of imitation meant to venerate the original event and perhaps solicit its return. The pyramids are the ultimate expression of a prehistoric “cargo cult” – a monument built not by aliens, but in memory of them.

Conclusion: A New Reading of History

By applying a semiotic framework, we can see that the argument in chapter 10 of the Sagan Paradox is not a simple “ancient astronauts” theory. It is a more nuanced claim about meaning, memory, and interpretation. It suggests that our ancestors witnessed a signifier they could not comprehend. Consequently, they spent millennia processing it through myth, religion, and architecture and signs.

The “Cosmic Mirror” metaphor at the end is apt. The search for extraterrestrial intelligence forces us to re-examine our own signs. The “Breakthrough Starshot” project does not just offer a future of exploration. It also provides a new code, a key that might unlock the meaning behind our most ancient and enigmatic symbols. The pyramids cease to be just tombs or temples. They become signs of a profound encounter, not with alien builders, but with human awe in the face of the unknown.

#SaganParadox #CargoCultTheory #AncientMysteries #Semiotics #PyramidDebate #BreakthroughStarshot #StarChip #UmbertoEco #CosmicMirror #AlienOrigins

The Sagan Paradox Chapter 9: GOLDILOCKS IN OUR COSMIC NEIGHBORHOOD

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

A Sagan-Sized Question

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

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

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

From Random Hopes to Targeted Searches

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

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

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

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

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

A Tantalizing Whisper from Proxima b

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

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

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

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


Long Delay

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

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

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

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

– Andrew Siemion, SETI Principal Investigator for Breakthrough Listen

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


A “Galactic Communications Grid” and BLC-1

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

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


Proxima as the Solar System’s “Cell Tower”

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

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

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


The Trouble with SETI

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scientific Observational Attempts to Detect UAPs/UFOs

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

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

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

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

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

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 8: The Cosmic Gold Rush

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

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

Decoding Destiny: Sagan and the Drake Equation’s Dawn

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

Sagan’s Vision Meets Silicon: Certainty Replaces Cosmic Guesses

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

Exoplanet Explosion: Planets are Everywhere!

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

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

Cosmic Oases: Billions of Habitable Worlds Beckon

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

A Sextillion Planets: Life’s Galactic Revolution

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

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

Beyond Homeworlds: Rethinking Civilization’s Lifespan

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

Cosmic Nomads: Galactic Colonization Extends ‘L’

Single Planet vs Multi System Civilizations

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

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

A short critique of the Drake equation as commonly understood:

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

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

Blink Of An Eye

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

The Great Cosmic Silence: Unraveling the Fermi Paradox

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

Echoes of Advanced Life? Or a Cosmic Sanctuary Awaits?

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

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

The Sanctuary Hypothesis

The Quest Continues: A Universe Primed for Discovery

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

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

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

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

Million to Billion convertor

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 7: The UFO controversy

Sagan’s UFO Paradox: Fostering Scientific Rigor Through Skepticism and Advocacy

A landmark event highlighted the Carl Sagan UFO controversy: the 1969 symposium he co-organized for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). This meeting notably brought together leading UFO proponents, such as J. Allen Hynek.

Cameo of J. Allen Hynek in “Close Encounters Of The Third Kind”, an UFO encounter category he defined himself..

The meeting also included prominent skeptics, like the first theoretical astronomer of the United States, Donald Menzel. In 1968, Menzel testified before the U.S. House Committee on Science and Astronautics – Symposium on UFOs, stating that he, Menzel, considered all UFO sightings to have natural explanations.

While critics accused Sagan of legitimizing what they considered a “pseudoscience,” Sagan defended the AAAS symposium. He argued that significant public interest in UFOs warranted serious scientific scrutiny.

Carl Sagan was a prominent advocate for the search for extraterrestrial life. Yet, he remained a skeptic regarding Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs) as evidence of alien visitation. This seemingly contradictory stance fueled the ongoing debate between UFO skeptics and believers. This is often referred to as the Carl Sagan UFO controversy.

Sagan’s influence on UFO studies produced its most significant beneficial effect by pushing researchers to ground their investigations more firmly in scientific methods. This emphasis on rigor contributed to the emergence of two distinct categories of researchers in the field.


SKEPTICS VS. BELIEVERS: The Secret War Over UFOs

A: Serious UAP researchers who set themselves the goal of identifying and cataloging UFOs, with the main focus on the assumption that there can be no extraterrestrial UFOs. Their focus was on finding conventional, or “banal,” explanations for sightings. They aimed to demystify the phenomenon and bring it within the realm of established science. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy played a role in how these explanations were pursued.

B: Marginalized Fringe UFO researchers, who in contrast remained open to, or actively pursued, the hypothesis of extraterrestrial intelligence behind UFO sightings found themselves increasingly on the periphery. This group, while not necessarily uncritical or prone to accepting every hoax, was willing to explore unconventional explanations. These were explanations that the “serious” camp often dismissed outright.

UAP or UFO? The Government’s Sneaky Word Game to HIDE the Extraterrestrial Truth!

The contemporary preference for the term UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon or Unidentified Anomalous Phenomena) rather than UFO (Unidentified Flying Object) starkly reflects the divide between serious and fringe research.

While both terms essentially refer to the same core mystery—observed objects or phenomena in the sky that are not immediately identifiable—’UAP’ has gained traction among those seeking to legitimize their research. They want to avoid the cultural baggage and stigma associated with ‘UFOs,’ which are often colloquially synonymous with alien spacecraft. This shift is part of the Carl Sagan UFO controversy, as different terminologies affect the perception of research.

Researchers, particularly those affiliated with governmental or academic institutions, often opt for ‘UAP’ to protect their professional reputations. They use it to signal a more data-driven, agnostic approach, free from preconceived notions of extraterrestrial involvement.


“BANAL” OR ALIEN? Inside the Bitter Feud Splitting UFO Hunters in Two!

The comparison between a case like the authors “Mufon UFO case #111680” and a frame from the Pentagon’s “Gimbal UAP” video can illustrate this division:

A MUFON (Mutual UFO Network) case, typically investigated by citizen researchers often aligned with the “fringe” category (though MUFON itself has varying methodologies), might present evidence and interpretations that lean towards or explicitly suggest an extraordinary (extraterrestrial) origin.

A government source released the “Gimbal” video, and serious UAP researchers—including military and intelligence analysts—analyzed it. They discussed its flight characteristics, sensor data, and possible but elusive mundane explanations. Although they acknowledge the video’s anomalous nature, they focus their rigorous approach on ruling out known technologies or natural phenomena.

In contrast, the “fringe” perspective may treat the footage as evidence supporting an extraterrestrial hypothesis. But this is due to careful consideration.

“FRINGE” RESEARCHERS FIGHT BACK

In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. As a result, these inquiries were pushed to the margins. This is a key part of what makes the Carl Sagan UFO controversy so enduring.

In essence, Carl Sagan’s legacy in UFO studies is complex. His insistence on scientific rigor undoubtedly elevated the quality of investigation in certain quarters. It helped to filter out less credible claims. However, it also contributed to a climate where exploring the more speculative, yet potentially profound, extraterrestrial aspects of the phenomenon became scientifically and academically challenging. Consequently, such inquiries were pushed to the margins.

PHOTO PROOF? 1947 UFO vs. Pentagon’s “Gimbal” UAP

Similarities. Left: 1947 – first modern UFO sighting, Kenneth Arnold
Right: 2015 – Pentagon Gimbal UAP. © ContactProject.org 25. May 2025

SAGAN’S PARADOX: Did His “Science First” Rule KILL the Search for Alien Life?

Was Sagan a hero of reason—or did his skepticism accidentally suppress the truth? The ongoing debate and the terminological distinctions highlight this enduring tension between cautious, mainstream scientific inquiry and the persistent, more speculative allure of the unknown inherent in the UFO/UAP enigma. Discussions continue over his role and influence in shaping public perception and scientific investigation of unexplained aerial phenomena. The Carl Sagan UFO controversy exemplifies this tension.

The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 6: Explaining Away Alien Sightings

“Alien lifeforms would visit Earth only if life in the universe is rare,
but then there wouldn’t be enough alien visitors to explain the countless UFO reports.”

Did Carl Sagan privately believe in UFOs, despite his public skepticism? 🤔 Dive into ‘The Sagan Paradox, Chapter 6,’ which explores Sagan’s famous argument against extraterrestrial visits and fascinating claims about his alleged private views. Investigative journalist Paola Harris shares an account from Dr. J. Allen Hynek, suggesting Sagan might have admitted to believing UFOs were real, but couldn’t risk his research funding by speaking openly. Discover the tension between Sagan’s public stance and these intriguing allegations.

Sagan’s Defining Argument

The “Sagan Paradox” was first formulated in 1969 at an American symposium on the UFO phenomenon in Boston. Carl Sagan and Thornton Page served as co-chairs of this event. It was sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The title of the symposium was: UFOs – The Scientific Debate

It was here that the renowned astrophysicist Carl Sagan advanced an argument. The argument was meant to explain why there could be no extraterrestrially crewed “flying saucers.”

The Boston War Memorial Auditorium, site of the AAAS symposium in December 26.-28. Dec. 1969

The Rare Earth Hypothesis: Sagan’s Core Premise for
“THE SAGAN PARADOX”

Carl Sagan argued that the Earth had to be somehow special in the cosmos to attract the attention of aliens. The special position of the Earth is its life on it, which Sagan said is very rare in the cosmos.

Because life in the cosmos is so rare, according to Carl Sagan, there are not enough extraterrestrial civilizations in the vicinity of the Earth. Therefore, they cannot visit us in the huge numbers that the thousands of UFO sightings every year since 1947 suggest (~2312 yearly).

On the other hand, if there were actually as many alien civilizations as the number of sightings suggests, then life on Earth would not be special. Consequently, our planet would not be worth visiting with a spaceship.

As a result, UFOs controlled by aliens could not exist but are exclusively false alerts, implied Sagan.


Mock-up and additional enhancement of the famous British Calvine UFO photo, after Nick Pope. The original six photos are in color. The MOD has blocked their release until 2072. Wikipedia

The core of this paradox, as presented by Sagan, lies in the tension between the potential number of advanced technical civilizations in the galaxy and the lack of convincing evidence for frequent visits to Earth.

Sagan’s Skepticism: Witness Testimony

Carl Sagan regarded witness evidence for UFOs as insufficient to constitute robust scientific proof. He attributed accounts to human fallibilities, including emotional desire, boredom, paranoia, and a low tolerance for ambiguity. Consequently, these factors often result in self-deception and the misinterpretation of ordinary phenomena.

Photographic Evidence

Sagan also found UFO photographs unconvincing, due to their poor quality and ease of manipulation. Moreover, the lack of physical evidence and the influence of psychological and cultural factors were concerning. They all failed to meet the high standards required for extraordinary claims under the scientific method.

Would Sagan Have Accepted the Pentagon’s UAP Videos?

What would Carl Sagan have thought of the Pentagon videos, confirming sightings of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena:?

“Gimbal” is one of three US military videos with unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) that have gone through the official US government review process and have been cleared for release.

The Legacy of Sagan’s Public Stance

Regardless of Carl Sagan’s private views, his public stance on UFOs was unequivocal. He dismissed them as either misidentifications or deliberate hoaxes. This position dominated UFO discourse for decades. Moreover, it continues to influence the field, where the default approach among many researchers remains the systematic debunking of sightings—often without thorough evaluation.

This mindset, reinforced by ‘Sagan’s Paradox’ and his famous dictum ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,’ gave rise to a peculiar scientific orthodoxy. While the existence of extraterrestrial life is deemed plausible, any connection between UFOs and alien intelligence is treated as inherently implausible. This conclusion is enforced rather than investigated.

Sagan was convinced that given the number of stars in the universe—”billions and billions” as he used to say—the chances are very high that highly developed civilizations must exist. He simply doubted that emissaries from these civilizations had a habit of appearing at distant farms. He also doubted their emergence above Uncle Fritz’s garden, as popular reports often claimed.

Speaking of the back garden

UFO sighting by Dennis & Mandy. The object was seen within just a few meters from the backyard of the authors house. The author didn’t see this UFO himself. What he and his wife did notice at night was a strange “hum”, that persisted for long periods of time.

Sound of the “hum”.

The sound and, for instance, the UFO pictured here, remained in place for over 20 minutes. Planes don’t remain stationary for such extended periods of time.

“Erich” marks the location of the author’s house. “Dennis and Mandy” witnessed the UAP sighting—initially unknown to the author. He later interviewed them in person because he suspected he was being pranked.

Carl Sagan’s Alleged Private Beliefs on UFOs: An Examination

Renowned astronomer and astrophysicist Dr. Carl Sagan revealed to Dr. J. Allen Hynek that he believed UFOs were real. However, he avoided any public statements to prevent the loss of academic research funding.

This allegation suggests a divergence between Sagan’s public skepticism and his private views.

Paola Harris’s Account: Sagan’s Alleged Admission

Investigative journalist Paola Leopizzi-Harris met astronomer, professor, and UFO researcher J. Allen Hynek in 1978 at CUFOS, the Center for UFO Studies. Upon learning Harris was Italian-American, Dr. Allen Hynek enlisted her for translation work. Moreover, she was his assistant in UFO investigations. Their collaboration occurred mainly from 1980 to 1986. This association provided her with significant exposure to UFO research and key individuals involved in the subject.

According to Paola Harris :

“My recollection is that Hynek said it was backstage at one of the many Johnny Carson Tonight shows Sagan did. He basically said (to Hynek) in 1984, ‘I know UFOs are real, but I would not risk my research funding, as you do, to talk openly about them in public.’ ”
Paola Leopizzi-Harris

This quote has been verified by Paola Leopizzi-Harris.

Another correspondent, Bryce Zabel, said Sagan had to downplay his passionate belief in extraterrestrials. This was in order to avoid being written off as a crank—a cool crank but a crank nonetheless: “The truth of the matter, to me, is that he felt giving any quarter on the UFO issue could kill his career.”


DEEP DIVE

The following is a fact check of this anecdote:
Dr. J. Allen Hynek once remarked about Carl Sagan: “I knew Carl Sagan. We had lunch one day and he said that UFOs were bunk. I asked him his thoughts on a multitude of cases and he said, ‘don’t know anything about it”. Then I said, ‘Carl, you know we scientists are not supposed to comment on anything we haven’t sufficiently studied and he said, ‘yes, I know, but I don’t have the time’.
True or false?

Hynek vs. Sagan: UFOs, Science, and the Battle for Belief

Reference:
UFO’s: A Scientific Debate, Papers presented at a symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Boston on Dec. 26-27, 1969, Pages 265 – 275, https://archive.org/details/ufosscientificde0000unse