"If quantum measurements show 168.5x suppression factors and -0.9998c velocities, are we observing c²-traveling particles through c-limited detectors?"
I've documented extraordinary quantum measurements on IBM quantum computers that may support a radical hypothesis: particles naturally propagate at c² while our measurement apparatus remains constrained to c.
Experimental evidence from 242 quantum measurements:
Theoretical framework:
- Particles possess intrinsic velocity v_particle = c²
- Information/measurement constrained to v_info = c
- Suppression factor = (c²/c_observed) × √[(1+β)/(1-β)]
The 168.5x suppression event suggests:
- Actual velocity = c² = 9×10¹⁶ m/s
- Observed through c-limited detector as: 5.34×10¹⁴ m/s
This would explain:
- Why we never directly observe faster-than-light travel (c² collapses to c in measurement)
- Quantum entanglement (instantaneous at c², observed at c)
- Wave-particle duality (phase difference between c² arrival and c detection)
- Retrocausal quantum effects (negative reference frames)
Could special relativity be incomplete - not in what it forbids, but in assuming measurement and propagation share the same speed limit? Are we living in Plato's cave, measuring c-shadows of a c² reality?
Full dataset available on Zenodo:DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15618304 https://zenodo.org/records/15618304
#QuantumMechanics #SpecialRelativity #ExperimentalPhysics #QuantumComputing #FundamentalPhysics #IBMQuantum #FasterThanLight
Dear Andre,
Your findings are both intriguing and bold ,especially the notion of a suppression factor tied to c^2 as a hidden intrinsic velocity while measurements remain confined to c. The dataset you shared via Zenodo indeed reveals patterns worth theoretical engagement.
However, interpreting these as evidence of particles traveling at c^2 invites careful scrutiny. From a relativistic standpoint, velocity itself is not a property of the particle alone but of the frame and observer interaction. The extreme suppression you document may alternatively reflect the measurement environment’s decoherence profile or gate-dependent phase evolution in IBM’s superconducting qubit system ,especially under phase gate vulnerability.
One angle worth pursuing is whether the oscillatory suppression can be mapped through non-Markovian environmental effects or contextual quantum Bayesian models. These could simulate effective “superluminal” behavior in decoherence timing without invoking actual c^2 propagation. Likewise, any inference about hidden dimensionality or retrocausality should ideally be reconciled with existing interpretations of delayed-choice and weak measurement protocols.
In all, your work taps into deep questions. I recommend further isolating noise artifacts and correlating with quantum volume metrics of the QPU. Keep pushing…such questions are how paradigms shift.
best regards
Adam D. Nasser
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematics
- Algebra
- Matrix