The Decision Making Circuit (DMC)
The DMC is the central component of the super communicator. It’s where P2 wave creation occurs and complex information is imprinted onto these waves.
"Okay, so what exactly is this 'decision making circuit' and how can I build one?" You might be asking at this point. In general, this circuit will cause wave function collapse to occur at a certain probability level. The slits in the single slit experiment comprise a decision making circuit because they will cause the electron matter wave to collapse at a pre defined probability level. At its most basic, a DMC circuit can be as simple as a charged wire mesh screen, much like the screen grid that is found in an old style triode vacuum tube. The charge on the wire mesh can define the probability of the electron beam either hitting the screen grid or making it through. This comprises a decision at a certain probability level. Once this is done, you may define an imaginary wavefunction. The electron beam has served its purpose and may now be discarded. Like the single slit example for a lone electron, the act of passing the grid or hitting the grid is what defines a P2 wave. Easy, hmmm? Additionally, by modulating the grid voltage, you can change the probability slightly. This is also a handy way of imparting meaningful information onto your P2 wave. This is called probability modulation. The only thing to watch out for is to keep the LC ratios low or your signal will suffer high frequency attenuation. Is this the only way to make a DMC? No. Is it the most efficient? No. Over the years, I have investigated many types of DMC circuits. They fall into two rough classifications - Static and Dynamic. The main advantage of dynamic DMC circuits, such as the one described above, is the ability to provide probability modulation schema within the DMC circuitry itself. This leads to a more self contained unit, as one device provides multifunction capability, and hence circuitry simplification. The disadvantage is higher circuit noise. The DMC is the heart of the FTL transmitter, and is the one place where it is vital to keep noise to a minimum.
Static DMC devices, on the other hand, only provide P2 wave creation at a fixed probability level. The complex signal must be injected before the DMC phase using a separate circuit. The disadvantage to this type schema is a higher circuitry complexity. The advantages are both a lower noise level in critical circuitry areas, and more control over modulation methods. After many years of experimentation, I am currently of the opinion that static DMC schema offer a much higher reliability level, and this outweighs the higher complexity needed for implementation.
To someone looking at the transmitter and following the process, everything would appear conventional until the signal entered the decision making circuit, because there it would disappear. The real (complex) signal enters but doesn't leave. Only the imaginary part gets out, and that can't be detected by conventional means. This 'transmitter' would appear very strange indeed. For one, there would be no antenna, because Nothing is radiated. Also, the signal strength going into the decision making circuit doesn't need to be very high. In fact, the lower, the better. The P2 wave is imaginary, so there is no need for a large real signal. Physically, the transmitter of P2 waves is a self contained box with a microphone at one end. One other thing a clueless spectator would notice is the lack of any type of resonant circuits. Noise is a critical factor to keep low. The larger the 'bandwidth' of the transmitter, the more noise the signal contains. If the noise figure were large enough, the P2 signal would not be detected at the receiver. One way to make for a low noise signal is to limit the carrier to a single cycle, or fraction thereof. In fact, the tighter this parameter, the more information can be transferred. So, to a radio engineer, this circuit would begin to make no sense beyond a certain point. The bandwidth would appear to be nonexistent even for the portion of the signal that could be measured. There would be no tuned circuits, or Ariel. And, not the least, the machine would only require enough power to make the electronics work. Also, most importantly, beyond normal leakage radiation created by the main oscillator, and perhaps a few other devices, Nothing would be emanating from the 'transmitter'. Nothing at all....
Anyway, the engineer would take one look at this circuit and shake his head. How, he might wonder does a signal such as a video signal, which is maybe 5 MHz, fit into a circuit where the DMC bandwidth is only one Hz or less? It is because once the connection is made, a link is established between the two remote points and only then can information flow. This link must be spectrally pure and of the lowest noise figure possible. This superluminal link is what is defined as the pipeline bandwidth. The characteristics of this pipeline are defined by the system oscillator, namely frequency, phase, amplitude, and waveform. The superluminal pipeline originates in the transmitter within the Decision Making Circuit (DMC), and it is linked into its complimentary circuit within the receiver, called the Reintegration Logic Block (RLB).
The quality of a pipeline determines the volume and kind of useful information that can be transferred through it. This is known as the information bandwidth. The pipeline bandwidth, which is limited to one hertz or less, is like the width of a tunnel through a mountain for a freight train. The tunnel only needs to be slightly wider than the train. The train could be several kilometers long, allowing many boxcars to pass through the tunnel without obstruction. The width of the tunnel doesn’t limit the length of the train or the amount of material that can pass through it, but it must exist. Similarly, the pipeline bandwidth doesn’t restrict the information bandwidth. It simply sets up the necessary conditions for a Faster-Than-Light (FTL) channel to be established.
You cannot directly control the amount of information you can send through a FTL pipeline. But, if you've set up the superluminal pipeline properly, you will have a strong information bandwidth to send information through. Practically speaking, a robust enough pipeline can establish an information link for anything, from audio waveforms through microwaves, and beyond. Just remember, the signal you send through the pipeline must be imaginary. The DMC interprets any complex signal as noise, and doesn't differentiate between normal circuit noise such as phase noise in an oscillator, or modulated audio waveforms. Any complex signal sent through would promptly destroy the link and the connection would instantly collapse! Imaginary signals do not affect the noise level, so the connection remains stable. The smaller the connection bandwidth, the less noise there is to deal with. The more robust the connection, the harder it is to collapse. This, in turn, allows you to widen the information bandwidth, allowing you to send very high frequency material through the pipeline.
This statement also shows exactly why it is impossible to use simple E.P.R. methodologies to send meaningful information faster than light. In these cases, researchers may indeed establish a connection. But, the connection will be unusable - if someone attempts to send complex information through the pipeline without first deconstructing it, it will promptly cause pipeline termination. In other cases, there is no way to limit the bandwidth of the connection - so the pipeline will be continuously collapsing and regenerating at random frequencies because of a high noise value - and then even when a useful connection is made through random luck, it will also face collapse because of the first reason: the information is complex. In either case, all you will hear is static. Really, it is no small wonder to me that there is such a widespread belief that useful FTL signaling is impossible. But, when looked at from the proper perspective, it turns out to be not such a difficult problem - the universe doesn't distinguish between kinds of information - whether it is random information transmitted non locally through natural processes or information generated by human control. Information is information. The universe doesn't care - all that matters is we emulate the method the universe uses to transfer information non locally and not try to create our own.
This again brings up a very basic point I have been stating since the very beginning- anything we wish to do will only succeed if the universe already has a mechanism in place to accomplish it. We invent nothing. All we do with our inventions is to make use of already preexisting phenomena. The universe already has the mechanisms for FTL information transfer in place and is using them all the time. We are only copying, and manipulating those mechanisms in our devices. Put plainly, why try to reinvent the wheel when there is already a good one to use? Also, it is my belief we can't even if we wanted to. There is no example of humanity ever creating natural phenomena that did not have prior existence. Maybe there never will be. But, so far, this doesn't really impose limitations on us. At this point in our evolution as a species, there is still much in nature to be explored and exploited to our own ends. Apparently, nature doesn't mind being exploited in this manner - the only requirement it places on us is that our creativity rise to meet the challenge we face. Exploitation appears to be a sort of reward for a task successfully completed...at any rate, there is still so much left to explore, I think if we manage to manipulate even a small fraction of what is actually out there waiting for us, this world will look like magic in short order.