Is Faster-Than-Light communication possible?

[Darby]

Hello Servant X

By using a statistical formula and taking into consideration the current pase of scientific theory applied into or converted into accessible technologies it would take us approximately 107 years to achieve such concept.

This is the formula, its actually a derivation of Altman's Z-scores finance formulas. They are used widelyu to predict stock market, tsunamies, trends and even weather. We made a modification to its intricacies and ended up with this:


Z = (5.98 (X1) + 2.01 (X2) + 8.24 (X3) + 9.37 (X4))/ 11.3(X5)/.02
X1, Actual amount of technology present needed to accrue future technology.
X2, technologies present which are similar to related technology.
X3, Success of investigation/amount of technology present to further investigation.
X4, Amount of difficulty in experimentation/developers present in the actual fields of investigation/level of advancement in such investigative fields.
X5, Level of interest or demand by public society

5.98x.20 1.96
2.01x.10 .201
8.24X.30 2.472
9.37x .80 7.496
11.3x. 05 .565
12.129/.565= 21.46 / .2 =107 years

I hope you like it.

Your equation states that if we set X1, X2, X3 & X5 to 0.01 (complete lack of tech, completely unsuccessful investigation and no public interest) and set X4 to 1.0 (low degree of difficulty) we can develop a new technology in about 8 hours.

But if we increase the technology available and success of investigation to 100 (X1, X2 and X3 = 100) and also set public demand to 100 (X5 = 100) while keeping the degree of difficulty the same it will take 14,445.75 years to develop the same technology. (You didn't state that the individual scores were to be greater than zero and less than one. Was that your intention? In a real Z-Score they are but I used 100 as a max.)

You probably need to be more explicit with your brackets and define the min-max on the individual scores). BTW: Your calculation of 107 years is wrong. There's an addition or typo error. Your calculation should have been 100.5 years. But in your equation the final statement is to divide by 0.02. You divided by 0.2. The result should be 1005.75 years.

I don't understand how this is a derivitive of Altman. Z-Scores, including Altman simply output a unitless number greater than zero and less than one that is a probability. Generally it is the probability than a result lies within a standard deviation of the mean of all scores. In ALtman's case it's the probability of a company going bankrupt within two years. How does your equation derive years?

 

[John Thomas]

Evolutionary technological progression isn't steadily linear. It is explosively dynamic usually spawned by those on the brink of genius and or insanity.

 

[Transient001]

Thumbs up Darby, you understand the equation better than I do. I am aware that my conclusion might be incorrect since I was using my mobile to write and paste the info.

But yes, you seem to have grasped its fundamental notion. Its a derivation of Z scores we used a while back, I know its crazy to use one of Altman's to pull it off; but we are all a bunch of crazy old guys revisiting formulas and trying to see how helptful are they.

We are now exploring with socio demographic decisions using one of Boyle's gas and pressure formulas. I know that again its crazy, but will you care to see it? I would really love your comments. I ve always valued your helpful insights in the past.

By the way in our formula the lower the number the more probable things are considered, for example when they approach the 1.00 value they become statistically impossible, whereas when they approach the .001 value they are more probable. I should have said that before.

But I can not stress enough how happy I am that you explained it further, it denotes interest and dedication. As always Darby.....its nice to hear from you be it under the iron or away from it.

 

[Transient001]

No I havent seen the movie, I look forward to doing so.

And yes that was exactly what I was referring to. Speed is not determinant or actually needed for a traveler to jump forward or back in time. However, we need to focus on great energy resources which could power the devices and create the exotic phenomenons that we are talking about.

I havent heard about those history viewers, I was aware of the remote viewing techniques and several units of RV's that they have. Could you please explain this a little further. Thanks in advance.

 

[John Thomas]

No I havent seen the movie, I look forward to doing so.

And yes that was exactly what I was referring to. Speed is not determinant or actually needed for a traveler to jump forward or back in time. However, we need to focus on great energy resources which could power the devices and create the exotic phenomenons that we are talking about.

I havent heard about those history viewers, I was aware of the remote viewing techniques and several units of RV's that they have. Could you please explain this a little further. Thanks in advance.

It isn't a remote viewing technique. It is an actual device I'm talking about. It has been in development well over 20 or so years now.

Directors will create montages of historical events. Want to witness the fall of Jerusalem in 70A.D.?

 

[Transient001]

Of course, lets see it!!!!!

PD: Intrigued and enthralled betwixt tantalizing wonderment and utter marvel!!!!!

 

[servantx]

That's a good observation.

As I generally caution, reading the pop-sci news version of a cutting edge experiment might be interesting but pop-sci articles generally dummy down the facts so the average reader can understand. I do appreciate that at the bottom of the article they did refrence the Physical Review Letters article so that a subscriber or someone who wants to purchase the article can find and read it.

In the above referenced experiment nothing is moving faster than light in a vacuum (or faster thasn light in a rubidium gas). They've advanced the wave peak within the wave form. That means they can get the wave peak to arrive a bit sooner but the limit would be (lambda/2) ( 1/300,000,000 m* sec^-1) (where lambda is the wave length). But that's it.

One could look at it like this:

F-1 racing changes its rules. The winner of a race is determined not by which car's leading edge crosses the finish line first but which driver's helmet crosses the finish line first. So, we have two otherwise identical cars running in a dead heat so far as the leading edges of the cars are concerned but at the last second just before they cross the finish line one driver slides his seat forward a bit so his helmet crosses ahead of the other driver's.

Both cars were travelling at exactly the same velocity and in every respect were precisely tied for the lead as they crossed the finish line but one driver advanced his "wave peak" (helmet) a bit and won the race.

If this helmet wins 1 second ahead in the wall street, it will be a big advantage in economy and the share market.