Nothing. Depending on how you look at it, transmitting Nothing can be easy, or hard. Actually, I choose the easy way - because it's the way the universe uses Nothing. First, a bit about terminology. Many words have different meanings. Take the word imaginary, for example. To a mathematician, there is nothing wrong with an imaginary number. It simply represents a particular type of number that is not on a regular number line- for example a number such as the square root of negative 1. To a physicist, an imaginary quantity may represent something that can not be represented by physically measurable units - to many physicists imaginary quantities are only math. "Don't be too hung up on imaginary portions of the equations because 'it's just math' ", they say. This philosophy trickles into the engineering field - especially electronics. Every equation used is complex - it has both a real and an imaginary component, but as I've said before, engineers routinely ignore the imaginary part of the equation and everything still works. The medical community regards an appendix the same way an engineer regards the imaginary side to an equation.  Like an appendix, the imaginary portion is there, but useless and can be thrown away with no consequence. Surgeons will remove your appendix automatically  if they go into your gut. Then there is the common meaning of the word, the way someone not in a technical field may use the word.

Other words get the same treatment. I have already used many of these words - virtual, complex, real, etc. They all have many, equally valid definitions. I propose two other words that fit this confusing zoo of words: Information, and Nothing.

Information is a really confusing word. The way I use the word 'information' is simply that which causes change. When the universe transfers information, you know about it because you can detect a change in state. Sometimes we use the words information and signal interchangeably. But, signaling is more appropriately defined as a method of transferring information.  That signal usually has energy as a component, like an electromagnetic wave. Your radio would be very boring to listen to if audio information couldn't be mixed with a higher frequency carrier wave. Though in this example, the EM wave propagating through space is made of energy, the information it carries is not. The information carried on an EM wave can be more accurately thought of as a time varying change in entropy. This shows that the words 'signal' and 'information' can mean different things. Now, why should I be so nitpicking about these particular words? Because, taken as a whole, The act of transferring information through a signal can define a work function. Information can define how much work is done per unit of time and a signal can define the way that work is done. Usually, energy can be defined as a work function, but we have already seen that under quantum physics, probability may also define a work function, irrespective of energy.

Nothing is even more abstract. We can't detect it. That seems to be a good definition of Nothing - Nothing doesn't mean there is nothing there, it just means we can't detect it. A bit over a century ago, radio waves would have qualified as 'Nothing' because they couldn't be detected. It certainly fits the definition for a P2 wave today. If you can't detect it, it doesn't exist i.e. it is nothing. (At least, until a way is found to detect them). This defines Nothing, but does NOT identify it. Like energy, Nothing can not be identified. Luckily, like energy, we can work with Nothing without knowing what it is...

To detect Nothing, you first have to make Nothing - make sense? So lets make some P2 waves, remembering they are nothing until they can be detected.

How can you go about making a P2 wave? Remember, P2 waves are what is left over when a complex wave collapses. They are remnant waves. That's what looking at the single slit experiment shows us - P2 waves are literally the price we pay for making a decision. They are created naturally, because the universe is constantly making decisions - not conscious decisions, but whenever a matter wave collapses, the P2 Remnant wave is what 'escapes' from that decision making process. It simply represents the probability of a process *not* collapsing.

You can make a P2 wave in much the same way an AM transmitter generates a useable EM signal. Even a simple AM transmitter takes a 'useless' constant amplitude electromagnetic signal, which is generated at a relatively high frequency, and combines a lower frequency, varying amplitude signal - voice, music, or whatever - to generate varying amplitude sidebands (the really useful part of the signal). These EM waves propagate through space to your receiver, which takes it all in, gets rid of the now useless parts of the signal, and presents the useful part to your awaiting ears. A process that over a century ago was Nothing, has now become Something - a multi trillion dollar Something at that, as this basic process describes the entire  commercial and non-commercial broadcasting industry, of which AM radio and Television are only a small part. I find it amusing that during the infancy of radio there were many respected scientists that said in the long run radio would amount to Nothing :-)

Anyway, the process for generating P2 waves is similar. It is almost like making an AM radio transmitter. Almost. Make a nice high frequency sine wave, then  modulate it with your favorite information - Nirvana, The Who, The Matrix, whatever. At this point though, an AM radio and a P2 generator part company. The radio simply sends this information directly out the antenna in the form of self propagating electromagnetic (complex) waves, and that is that. You're done.  Not so  with the P2 'transmitter'. This information flow must be deconstructed. Simply put, the signal must flow into a decision making circuit - this is where the P2 wave is created. The circuit , much like the slits in a single slit experiment, will collapse the wave. The real part of the wave is left behind, to warm the transmitter.  The P2 wave, now 'modulated and imaginary', becomes part of the universe, to be detected by the 'receiver'.

"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 grid that is found in an old styled triode vacuum tube. The charge on the wire mesh can define the probability of the electron beam either hitting the 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. And it works very well. 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....

So, this appropriately shows the trap one can fall into using analogies too freely. This circuit would not make sense to anyone comparing it literally to an Radio transmitter, but that's because all forms of transmission of information up to this point involve overlaying electromagnetic waves with meaningful information that is extracted by a radio receiver at the destination point.  The analogy fails. For example, from the point of view of a radio signal, the bandwidth of the transmitting signal is directly proportional to the amount of information that can be carried. With P2 probability waves, this is not so simple.... at first, it looks like an inverse relationship. The smaller the bandwidth, the more information can be transferred - theoretically, if you reduce the bandwidth to zero, the amount of information transferred can be infinite. How can this make sense? Well, here's the trick - you are actually dealing with two types of bandwidths: the connection bandwidth, and the information bandwidth. FTL information transfer is critically dependent upon establishing a noise free link between the transmitter and receiver. There are several ways to do this. And, they all must be used. The first method is straightforward. To reduce noise in a conventional transmitter, you simply make the bandwidth narrow. This comes from the fact that there is a certain amount of noise produced when you make a carrier. By limiting the carrier to as narrow a range as possible, you in effect, are also reducing the total amount of noise being transmitted. In a regular radio, this isn't critical - as long as the range of frequencies being sent is not so wide that it overlaps another channel, it is not worth doing because the receiver isn't affected much by this type noise. The government also will restrict the bandwidth to avoid interference with other radio broadcasters - for example, the bandwidth for commercial AM Radio is measured in KHz - this limit is why AM radio sounds so bad and is mostly used for talk. The broadcasters would probably like to have a larger bandwidth, but since the entire commercial AM radio spectrum is only a Million cycles wide, from .53 to 1.7 MHz at the outside, this isn't possible. Using lower frequencies is another way to lower the noise figure. But, in EM broadcasting, the lower the frequency the less information you can send - this is a problem in resolution. There is no nice way to fit an audio signal of 10 KHz onto a carrier of only 5 KHz - the high frequency information will be simply absent at the receiver. So, you simply must have a carrier that is of a larger frequency range than the information bandwidth you modulate onto it or you will wind up with a distorted, lousy sounding audio at the receiver. This is the type of mindset an electrical engineer would have going into the project of evaluating a FTL Transmitter, and what he would see simply would make no sense from this point of view.

I use a purpose-built, precision analog sinewave oscillator that produces a sine wave output with a noise figure of -110 DBc, 1 Hz from the center frequency, and the DMC bandwidth is one Hertz. This presently is where the most expense is located, as the oscillator needed is a custom design made by experts (not me - precision oscillator design is part know-how, and part art), mostly for use in space probes where high precision, low noise is mandatory. You will also require a matched set, one for the transmitter and one for the receiver. When you must also specify matched components, even requiring that the SC - cut quartz material for both units be sourced from the same quartz slug, the price can easily exceed several thousands of dollars per unit in small quantities - I am presently looking into some ways to reduce this cost to a reasonable amount as it plays hell on a tight research budget. But right now it is the price you must pay for quiet....

I heard you -- the person who said why not use a digital oscillator? DDS methods do offer very tight control over both frequency and phase of the output waveform. That's true. They also allow you to dynamically alter these parameters on the fly simply by inserting a CPU  (or a computer) in the feedback loop. The main problem with digital oscillators, is, well, that they're digital. No matter how well filtered, the waveforms are still composed of discreet, if tiny, voltage jumps.  In all the oscillator variations I have tried, this is what renders digital oscillators useless. The digital noise that accompanies the stepping of the waveform is unacceptably high and there is no way to eliminate it. Digital oscillators wont work. It's too bad, because it would really be a fifty cent solution to a million dollar problem.

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 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. Think of a tunnel carved into a mountain through which a freight train can go. The tunnel need be only slightly larger than the width of the train. The length of the train may be several kilometers - dozens and dozens of boxcars can flow through that tunnel unimpeded. The width of the tunnel has no relation to the length of the train or the amount of material that can flow through it. This is analogous to the FTL circuit. All that great expense and effort to reduce noise was made simply to establish a connection - to make that tunnel through which the freight train of information can flow through unimpeded. It is lucky for us that the information flowing through this tunnel is imaginary-- if the circuit generates too much noise the connection would not be possible, so 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 a scientist attempts to send complex information through the pipeline without first deconstructing it, it will promptly cause it to collapse. 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 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.

If you think the transmitter of P2 waves is non-intuitive, then the receiver will really be headache material. A hint: from clues given about the transmitter, the receiver also would require no antenna, be completely self contained, and require ultra precision components, amongst other things.  But, the process of transmitting and receiving aren't commutative. Just because you know how to build a transmitter does not mean you know how to build a receiver. For example, how can you 'tune' a receiver when the transmitter has an effective bandwidth of  plus or minus 0.5 Hz? How do you do this tuning when there is no external signal to lock onto? Conventional radios self tune by looking at the signal strength, but that is radio. In an FTL receiver, there is never anything for a phase locked loop to lock onto.  Enter the "Hunter-Seeker" circuitry. Then, there is the problem of translating the imaginary signal back into a complex signal electronics circuitry can work with - the complex regeneration of the original signal. This is the opposite of what the DMC does in the transmitter and is a job for the Reintegration Logic Block...  I mentioned before that creating P2 waves is the easy part. Well, receiving them is NOT. In 22+ years of experimenting, maybe one year was spent figuring out how to create P2 probability waves and overlay them with meaningful information. The other fifth century was spent attempting to detect them.  It ain't easy working with Nothing...