This post shows that there is no difference, for low longitudinal speeds of
the emitter or reflector of a radar pulse, between classic Doppler effect that
don't follow the second postulate and longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect.

Some elementary mathematics is required. It will be shown that, for speeds
lower than 3,600 Km/Hr (1 Km/sec), the difference between both theories is
lower than 3.3 ppm, in terms of changes in frequency or wavelength of light..

***********************************************
A radar send pulses every 1 msec to detect targets and measure its speeds.

A target is reached by a pulse with frequency f₀ in the time tₑ = R/(c₀ - v).

As the pulse bounces back, the target now operates as a source of the
EM wave and its radial speed v causes a change in the frequency and
wavelength of the EM pulse due to the effect of v in the length required by the period of the bounced EM wave to complete one cycle.

The reflected pulse has a different speed of light, c₁, due to the velocity v
of the emitter of the reflection.

c₁ = (c₀ - v) = λ₁f₁, so λ₁ = c₁/f₁

During the period 1/f₁, the target has moved Δr = v/f₁ = v λ₁/c₁ = v λ₁/(c₀ - v)

The wavelength of the reflected pulse changed to

λ₁ = λ₀ + Δr = λ₀ + v λ₁/(c₀ - v)

λ₁ - v λ₁/(c₀ - v) = λ₀

λ₁ (c₀ - 2v)/(c₀ - v) = λ₀

λ₁ = λ₀ (c₀ - v)/(c₀ - 2v) = λ₀ (1 - β₀)/(1 - 2 β₀)

For very small β₀, with v < 300 Km/Hr and β₀ < 2.8E-07

λ₁ ≈ λ₀ (1 - β₀) (1 + 2 β₀) ≈ λ₀ (1 + β₀), which is the same value obtained using the second postulate.

But, as v increases above 300 Km/Hr, β₀ > 0.3 ppm and the correct
expression to be used is

λ₁ = λ₀ (1 - β₀)/(1 - 2 β₀)

If v = 0.833 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.000002778 λ₀ , difference of - 0.000028 % with SR.
If v = 8.333 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.000027779 λ₀ , difference of - 0.0028 % with SR.
If v = 50 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.000166722 λ₀ , difference of - 0.017 % with SR.

In the following cases, the longitudinal speeds are unreachable for humans,
so longitudinal Doppler tests are impossible.

If v = 833.3 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.002793305 λ₀ , difference of - 0.28 % with SR.
If v = 8,333 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.029411972 λ₀ , difference of - 2.74 % with SR.
If v = 83,333 Km/s, λ₁ = 1.625014063 λ₀ , difference of - 20.3 % with SR.

***********************************************

So, for longitudinal speeds lower than 50 Km/sec, there is no noticeable
difference between classic Doppler applied to objects which reflect light
with a change in its speed as c₁ = (c₀ - v) and longitudinal relativistic
Doppler effect, that uses fully the SR second postulate.

This also serves to cast doubts about THE REAL CAUSE of redshift and
blueshift of stellar bodies, as originally thought by Hubble and, even more
about posterior modifications done by relativists.

Maybe stellar Doppler shift is not what was thought for one century, and
Halton Arp was correct about his theory of stellar red and blueshifting.

After all, he was a famous astronomer of his epoch, until he wrote about
his doubts on the expansion of the universe. The fucking priest of science
literally killed him, erased him from history, and he died expelled from the
church of relativism.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 1:25:41 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The reflected pulse has a different speed of light, c₁, due to the velocity v
> of the emitter of the reflection.
>
> c₁ = (c₀ - v)

.....only in your demented brain.
<rest of your imbecilities mercifully snipped>

I clearly wrote in the title of this thread that the SR second postulate IS NOT CONSIDERED HERE. So, the speed of light
vary with the motion of the emitter, either increasing or decreasing c₁ = (c₀ - v).

As atoms that regenerate light are moving, radially, with speed v, the speed of reflected light is

Asserting that c₁ = (c₀ - v) produces a change in the formula of classic Doppler effect that is only noticeable at v > 10,000 Km/Hr,
with a difference of 10 ppm with relativistic Doppler effect.

The new formula for Doppler effect on light is:

λ₁ = λ₀ (1 - β₀)/(1 - 2 β₀)

For v < 10,000 Km/Hr, λ₁ ≈ λ₀ (1 + β₀). This is the classic Doppler formula for a stationary observer on Earth surface.

For higher speeds, a singularity exists at v = c₀/2 ≈ 150,000 Km/sec.

This is interesting, because it signals that TIME stops at HALF the relativistic limit.

If this is applied to Hubble's red-shift measured in the spectroscopy of the light of celestial bodies, then THE RADIUS OF
THE VISIBLE UNIVERSE is half what was thought: 6,500 million light years.

QUOTE WIKIPEDIA:
"The discovery of the linear relationship between redshift and distance, coupled with a supposed linear relation between recessional velocity and redshift, yields a straightforward mathematical expression for Hubble's law as follows:"

v = H₀ D

But H₀ has to be corrected. Due to redshift new limits, instead of H₀ ≈ 70 kmps/Mpc, it has to be H₁ ≈ 140 kmps/Mpc.

Then, the radius of visible universe is R₁ = c₀/H₀ ≈ 2,142.86 Mpc ≈ 6.9857 bly. After this radius, celestial bodies recede at
a speed higher than c₀, and their light can't reach Earth.

Also, it posits that the "universe" is half the older than it was thought.

Interesting.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> I clearly wrote in the title of this thread that the SR second postulate IS NOT CONSIDERED HERE. So, the speed of light
> vary with the motion of the emitter, either increasing or decreasing c₁ = (c₀ - v).

When the premise is an imbecility, all that follows is a stream of imbecilities, Dick.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:45:58 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 6:21:31 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I clearly wrote in the title of this thread that the SR second postulate IS NOT CONSIDERED HERE. So, the speed of light
> > vary with the motion of the emitter, either increasing or decreasing c₁ = (c₀ - v).
> When the premise is an imbecility, all that follows is a stream of imbecilities, Dick.

Anyway, you don't have a fucking clue about what stellar redshift or blueshift is. Meanwhile, this exercise conserves c₀ as the
speed of light in vacuum. Only the emission of light by radially moving celestial bodies was considered with the Hubble thing.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:58:29 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 10:45:58 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

> > When the premise is an imbecility, all that follows is a stream of imbecilities, Dick.

> Anyway, you don't have a fucking clue about what stellar redshift or blueshift is. Meanwhile, this exercise conserves c₀ as the
> speed of light in vacuum. Only the emission of light by radially moving celestial bodies was considered with the Hubble thing.

I forgot to add that this "exercise" kills your stupid relativity. Hubble was not a believer in relativity. Only that he used the wrong
formula for Doppler effect on light.

There is nothing to compress or expand, as in the Doppler development for sound waves.

The original Doppler formula was wrongfully applied to light, and only is valid for low speeds of emitters. After v > 50 Km/sec,
the error grow noticeably, starting with 0.02% (relativity or not).

For v > 300 Km/sec, the error with classic or relativistic Doppler grow above 0.2% up to infinity at v = 150,000 Km/sec.

You don't like this, cretin, isn't it?

On 19-Mar-23 7:25 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> This post shows that there is no difference, for low longitudinal speeds of
> the emitter or reflector of a radar pulse, between classic Doppler effect that
> don't follow the second postulate and longitudinal relativistic Doppler effect.
>
> Some elementary mathematics is required. It will be shown that, for speeds
> lower than 3,600 Km/Hr (1 Km/sec), the difference between both theories is
> lower than 3.3 ppm, in terms of changes in frequency or wavelength of light.
>
Sounds like you're saying that special relativity reduces to Newtonian
mechanics for relative speeds much less than c.

Stop the presses!

Sylvia.

On Saturday, March 18, 2023 at 7:25:15 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> The original Doppler formula was wrongfully applied to light, and only is valid for low speeds of emitters. After v > 50 Km/sec,
> the error grow noticeably, starting with 0.02% (relativity or not).
>
> For v > 300 Km/sec, the error with classic or relativistic Doppler grow above 0.2% up to infinity at v = 150,000 Km/sec.
>
Can't fix cretin, Dick. Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

Since 1905, the problems created by Einstein are solely due to the stupid use of kinematics in electromagnetism,
without thinking in the mathematical consequences of using wave expressions of light.

And all of this because the eigenfunction e^(-jωt) is the perfect solution for integro-differential linear equations.
Had science evolved from Planck's solution of the BBC problem, with quanta of EM energy (AKA photons), posing
light behavior as based on particles, einstenian relativity would have never existed.

The OP here shows the difficulties that arise for using wave theory in the analysis of light behavior with motion.

A photonic based discrete math would eliminate all the uncertainties immediately.

I mean, a modern theory using discrete z-transforms math.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:37:16 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Since 1905, the problems created by Einstein are solely due to the stupid use of kinematics in electromagnetism,
> without thinking in the mathematical consequences of using wave expressions of light.
>
> And all of this because the eigenfunction e^(-jωt) is the perfect solution for integro-differential linear equations.
>
> Had science evolved from Planck's solution of the BBC problem, with quanta of EM energy (AKA photons), posing
> light behavior as based on particles, einstenian relativity would have never existed.
>
> The OP here shows the difficulties that arise for using wave theory in the analysis of light behavior with motion.
>
> A photonic based discrete math would eliminate all the uncertainties immediately.
>
> I mean, a modern theory using discrete z-transforms math.
"The reflected pulse has a different speed of light, c₁, due to the velocity v
of the emitter of the reflection."

You have the light obeying Galileo and Newton with its speed depending on the speed of the source, contrary to Einstein.

"The wavelength of the reflected pulse changed to"

Of course, the wavelength doesn't actually change in the physics of the Doppler effect. That is mathematical fiction.

"This also serves to cast doubts about THE REAL CAUSE of redshift and
blueshift of stellar bodies, as originally thought by Hubble and, even more
about posterior modifications done by relativists."

"Maybe stellar Doppler shift is not what was thought for one century, and
Halton Arp was correct about his theory of stellar red and blueshifting."

Arp certainly was correct that the velocity-distance relationship (the Big Bang is based on) is false. That would require that we are at the center of the universe or there would be some anisotropy that is not detected at all..

"After all, he was a famous astronomer of his epoch, until he wrote about
his doubts on the expansion of the universe. The fucking priest of science
literally killed him, erased him from history, and he died expelled from the
church of relativism."

Big Science defends itself by censorship because it functions as an ideology.

Hubble and Zwicky did not believe in the velocity-distance relationship or the Big Bang.

"Since 1905, the problems created by Einstein are solely due to the stupid use of kinematics in electromagnetism,
without thinking in the mathematical consequences of using wave expressions of light."

It's much simpler than that. The kinematics disregard physics, as when Einstein thinks breaking a curve into short straight lines means it doesn't involve accelerations.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 3:06:18 PM UTC-3, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:37:16 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> "Since 1905, the problems created by Einstein are solely due to the stupid use of kinematics in electromagnetism,
> without thinking in the mathematical consequences of using wave expressions of light."

> It's much simpler than that. The kinematics disregard physics, as when Einstein thinks breaking a curve into short straight lines means it doesn't involve accelerations.

1) IMO, you can't apply classic Doppler to electromagnetic waves. Audible sound is based on forces that compress air that surround us,
or water. Our auditory system evolved to sense such forces of compression, which are detected in the middle ear and transduced to
electrical and chemical signals in the inner ear (cochlea, Corti's organ, neurotransmitters in synapses between neurons that connect
the output of the inner ear to the brain auditory subsystem). FORCES being transduced.

2) Around 1912, the first imbecile applied Doppler to light, without thinking further. Hubble made it his main tool, wrongfully.
Cretin relativists run to expand the application multiplying by FOUR the Hubble's radius of the visible universe to 46 bly, claiming
that spacetime FORCED THEM TO, to accommodate the increasing expansion of the universe, but keeping c as a constant.

3) Red/blue shifting of light, as measured by the shift of known absorption lines in spectra was applied to wavelength stretching
without any further thinking on details. Then, you have the current cretinism of the use of Doppler and z, with no background theory.

Arp questioned the concurrent existence of blue and red shifting on quasars located nearby galaxies, which demolished the current
theory and proved BBT false, as well as the use of Doppler on EM waves. He insisted that the phenomena had other explanations
than motion or gravity. They "exited" him from Palomar, for life.

And, as of today, the existence of quasars remain unexplained, as well as the origin of stellar red/blue shift.

A shame on the patent cover up done by science establishment, of so many holes in GR, astrophysics and cosmology.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:

> 2) Around 1912, the first imbecile

The only imbecile around here, is you, Dick! Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

On 2023-03-19 19:02:53 +0000, Dono. said:

> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 11:42:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>> 2) Around 1912, the first imbecile
> The only imbecile around here, is you, Dick!

Alas. You're wrong about that.

> Keep it up, dumbestfuck!

--
athel -- biochemist, not a physicist, but detector of crackpots

Richard Hertz wrote:

> 1) IMO, you can't apply classic Doppler to electromagnetic waves.
> Audible sound is based on forces that compress air that surround us,

read and learn this paper, idiot.

PICO-SECOND TDC FOR HEP (AND OTHER APPLICATIONS)
https://indico.cern.ch/event/395562/contributions/940479/attachments/792548/1086384/Pico_TDC_v2.pdf

the 8MHz clock, and clocks, are for control, not for measurements and data.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:31:16 PM UTC-3, Carmine Benedetti wrote:

<snip>

> PICO-SECOND TDC FOR HEP (AND OTHER APPLICATIONS)
> https://indico.cern.ch/event/395562/contributions/940479/attachments/792548/1086384/Pico_TDC_v2.pdf
>
> the 8MHz clock, and clocks, are for control, not for measurements and data.

Imbecile, liar and deceiver. This device is just a fucking ANALOG DELAY LINE CHAIN, using RC cascades to obtain chained delays.

And its use is ONLY to measure pulse durations with picosecond resolution. Pulse by pulse (that operate as gating/read signal).

What it does is to accumulate delays CREATED BY ONE RC FILTER PER STAGE.

Using litography to create RC delays, assuming that each one is equal to the rest of delay cells, you just introduce 2ᴺ (N = 5) delay cells,
the input clock is delayed 32 times, with ALMOST EQUAL ANALOG delay cells.

Go between pages 8 and 35. You'll observe:

FIRST STAGE
Input clock: 1.56 Ghz
Period of the clock: 641 picoseconds
Delay at each of the 32 cells: 641/32 ps = 20 ps

SECOND STAGE:
For EACH ONE of the 32 stages, a chain of 4 analog RC delay lines with 22+32+39+48 Ohms, each one to charge/discharge
a capacitor of 13E-15 Faraday, giving a cumulative delay of 1.91 ps (settled to 20/4 = 5 ps in page 35).

TOTAL BIN OUTPUTS = 32 x 4 = 128 cells of ANALOG DELAY LINES.

Each one of the 128 cells is buffered and read, once the gating signal ends.. The gating signal is what is being measured in duration.

Given a gating signal (random signal to be measured) of 20 nsec, each one of the 128 buffered outputs mark (1 or 0) a delay
of 5 ps. The 200 nsec signal has being ANALOG DELAYED 128 times, which signal a TRANSIT with 20/128 nsec = 156 ps/cell.

As the "word" of 128 points IS NOT BINARY ENCODED, a translation is required to convert a serial code of 128 stages into a
binary word. The readout data is a 32 bits word, after post-processing.

AND THE MAIN, DECEIVING PRINCIPLE:

As each readout can be done ONLY ONCE the main clock period of 641 ps elapsed, this device is useful ONLY TO MEASURE
picosecond delays IN hundred of nanosecond period of signals under measurement.

The INTERNAL 1.56 Ghz clock is PLL RAISED 39 TIMES from an external clock of 40 Mhz MAXIMUM. If this frequency is lower,
so is the resolution of the pulse WIDTH, in K ps fractions.

TO BE CLEAR: This IC can't provide measurements of 1.0000 nsec periods of a constant signal. Even less with 0.1000 nsec periods.

It only takes to LOOK AT THE CHIP to understand that it's not suited for operations in the Ghz range. A different encapsulation is required.

So, the basic chip and its proposed evolution with more channels and 65 nm technologies is just THEORY. I stand with the
applications suggested by TI, which I quoted before.

And REMEMBER: This is analog technology. It's cutting edge, yes, but it's ANALOG, NOT DIGITAL.

Plus, the team that work on its evolution is still LOOKING FOR FUNDING to make the project real.

Meanwhile, it's a THEORETICAL DREAM.

Keep doing your shit, posting imbecilities. It has been fun.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 8:16:48 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:31:16 PM UTC-3, Carmine Benedetti wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > PICO-SECOND TDC FOR HEP (AND OTHER APPLICATIONS)
> > https://indico.cern.ch/event/395562/contributions/940479/attachments/792548/1086384/Pico_TDC_v2.pdf
> >
> > the 8MHz clock, and clocks, are for control, not for measurements and data.
> Imbecile, liar and deceiver. This device is just a fucking ANALOG DELAY LINE CHAIN, using RC cascades to obtain chained delays.
>
> And its use is ONLY to measure pulse durations with picosecond resolution.. Pulse by pulse (that operate as gating/read signal).
>
> What it does is to accumulate delays CREATED BY ONE RC FILTER PER STAGE.
>
> Using litography to create RC delays, assuming that each one is equal to the rest of delay cells, you just introduce 2ᴺ (N = 5) delay cells,
> the input clock is delayed 32 times, with ALMOST EQUAL ANALOG delay cells..
>
> Go between pages 8 and 35. You'll observe:
>
> FIRST STAGE
> Input clock: 1.56 Ghz
> Period of the clock: 641 picoseconds
> Delay at each of the 32 cells: 641/32 ps = 20 ps
>
> SECOND STAGE:
> For EACH ONE of the 32 stages, a chain of 4 analog RC delay lines with 22+32+39+48 Ohms, each one to charge/discharge
> a capacitor of 13E-15 Faraday, giving a cumulative delay of 1.91 ps (settled to 20/4 = 5 ps in page 35).
>
> TOTAL BIN OUTPUTS = 32 x 4 = 128 cells of ANALOG DELAY LINES.
>
> Each one of the 128 cells is buffered and read, once the gating signal ends. The gating signal is what is being measured in duration.
>
> Given a gating signal (random signal to be measured) of 20 nsec, each one of the 128 buffered outputs mark (1 or 0) a delay
> of 5 ps. The 200 nsec signal has being ANALOG DELAYED 128 times, which signal a TRANSIT with 20/128 nsec = 156 ps/cell.
>
> As the "word" of 128 points IS NOT BINARY ENCODED, a translation is required to convert a serial code of 128 stages into a
> binary word. The readout data is a 32 bits word, after post-processing.
>
> AND THE MAIN, DECEIVING PRINCIPLE:
>
> As each readout can be done ONLY ONCE the main clock period of 641 ps elapsed, this device is useful ONLY TO MEASURE
> picosecond delays IN hundred of nanosecond period of signals under measurement.
>
> The INTERNAL 1.56 Ghz clock is PLL RAISED 39 TIMES from an external clock of 40 Mhz MAXIMUM. If this frequency is lower,
> so is the resolution of the pulse WIDTH, in K ps fractions.
>
> TO BE CLEAR: This IC can't provide measurements of 1.0000 nsec periods of a constant signal. Even less with 0.1000 nsec periods.
>
> It only takes to LOOK AT THE CHIP to understand that it's not suited for operations in the Ghz range. A different encapsulation is required.
>
> So, the basic chip and its proposed evolution with more channels and 65 nm technologies is just THEORY. I stand with the
> applications suggested by TI, which I quoted before.
>
> And REMEMBER: This is analog technology. It's cutting edge, yes, but it's ANALOG, NOT DIGITAL.
>
> Plus, the team that work on its evolution is still LOOKING FOR FUNDING to make the project real.
>
> Meanwhile, it's a THEORETICAL DREAM.
>
> Keep doing your shit, posting imbecilities. It has been fun.

I forgot to add that a device built with the dreamt chip has to be stabilized in temperature, just to start with compensations.

Richard Hertz wrote:

> On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:31:16 PM UTC-3, Carmine Benedetti wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> PICO-SECOND TDC FOR HEP (AND OTHER APPLICATIONS)
>> https://indico.cern.ch/event/395562/contributions/940479/attachments/
792548/1086384/Pico_TDC_v2.pdf
>>
>> the 8MHz clock, and clocks, are for control, not for measurements and
>> data.
>
> Imbecile, liar and deceiver. This device is just a fucking ANALOG DELAY
> LINE CHAIN, using RC cascades to obtain chained delays.
> And its use is ONLY to measure pulse durations with picosecond
> resolution. Pulse by pulse (that operate as gating/read signal).

yet another idiot not undrestanding *_control_signals_*, as different from
*_measured_data_*. Try this, fucking stupid. Learn physics.

https://kt.cern/technologies/picotdc

The PicoTDC is a specially developed 64 channel Time to Digital Converter
(TDC) ASIC in 65nm CMOS for use in High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments
and similar scientific applications where high rate, very high time
resolution single shot time measurements are required on a large number of
channels. It is a succesor to the HPTDC chip that over the last 15 years
has been used extensively within HEP and other domains.

Specifications

3ps or 12ps binning with very low jitter (<1ps) and high stability
(~1ps).
40MHz reference clock to which all time measurements are locked via
PLL and DLL.
64 or 32 differential channels.
Leading / trialing edge mode or leading edge plus TOT mode.
Large on-chip data buffering capability.
Option of triggering with programmable latency and time window.
Support for overlapping trigger windows.
Option of using channel 0 as timing channel and trigger generator
channel.
1 or 4 8bit readout ports at 320MHz.
3/12ps resolution test pulse generator.
I2C control and monitoring interface.

On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 8:35:44 PM UTC-3, Carmine Benedetti wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, March 19, 2023 at 6:31:16 PM UTC-3, Carmine Benedetti wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> PICO-SECOND TDC FOR HEP (AND OTHER APPLICATIONS)
> >> https://indico.cern.ch/event/395562/contributions/940479/attachments/
> 792548/1086384/Pico_TDC_v2.pdf
> >>
> >> the 8MHz clock, and clocks, are for control, not for measurements and
> >> data.
> >
> > Imbecile, liar and deceiver. This device is just a fucking ANALOG DELAY
> > LINE CHAIN, using RC cascades to obtain chained delays.
> > And its use is ONLY to measure pulse durations with picosecond
> > resolution. Pulse by pulse (that operate as gating/read signal).
> yet another idiot not undrestanding *_control_signals_*, as different from
> *_measured_data_*. Try this, fucking stupid. Learn physics.
>
> https://kt.cern/technologies/picotdc
>
> The PicoTDC is a specially developed 64 channel Time to Digital Converter
> (TDC) ASIC in 65nm CMOS for use in High Energy Physics (HEP) experiments
> and similar scientific applications where high rate, very high time
> resolution single shot time measurements are required on a large number of
> channels. It is a succesor to the HPTDC chip that over the last 15 years
> has been used extensively within HEP and other domains.
>
> Specifications
>
> 3ps or 12ps binning with very low jitter (<1ps) and high stability
> (~1ps).
> 40MHz reference clock to which all time measurements are locked via
> PLL and DLL.
> 64 or 32 differential channels.
> Leading / trialing edge mode or leading edge plus TOT mode.
> Large on-chip data buffering capability.
> Option of triggering with programmable latency and time window.
> Support for overlapping trigger windows.
> Option of using channel 0 as timing channel and trigger generator
> channel.
> 1 or 4 8bit readout ports at 320MHz.
> 3/12ps resolution test pulse generator.
> I2C control and monitoring interface.

So, after years, they found ONE buyer of the license and did it in analog/digital ASIC, in 65 nm.
Excellent! I congratulate the team.

As I wrote before, I consider the concept and the custom-made chip as cutting edge. I suppose that the
rest of the circuitry needed to make it work could fit in a reasonable enclosure.

In particular, the ultra stable 20 Mhz external clock that was required, as its phase noise is going to
augment 39 times, within the chip. I assume that a costly, 10E-09 short term stable TCXO was used.

OTOH, nothing of what you wrote change what I wrote: The artifact that uses this PicoTDC DOES NOT
MEASURE, DIRECTLY signals like one having a frequency of 9,834.516,334 Hertz IN REAL TIME. That is,
counting 9834516334 pulses every 1.000000000 seconds, constantly.

Is that CLEAR, idiot?

I don't question that it can resolve signals (not periodically) in the order of 10 or 100 nsec with 5 picosec resolution.

But it IS NOT A DIGITAL COUNTER like the HP 5372A, a $30,000 instrument. It measures time intervals of up to 8 seconds
with 150 ps resolution (full 13 digits display).

https://www.testequipmenthq.com/datasheets/Agilent-5371A-Datasheet.pdf

The PicoTDC is an interesting solution for ad-hoc measurements of TIME DURATION of signals, with high resolution IF IT IS
COMPLEMENTED WITH ADDITIONAL CIRCUITRY to emulate something like the 5372A or better. But it's not a competence
in the industrial and scientific market, which requires DIGITAL ACCURACY AND STABILITY, which the Pico TDC can't provide.

And, imbecile, this is NOT a matter of physics. This is PURELY ELECTRONICS.

So, go and meddle into topics where you can really ADD SOMETHING OF VALUE.

Like measuring the frequency or period of a 448 nm blue-violet laser:

Frequency: 669,642,857,142,857 Hertz (669.64 TeraHertz)
Period: 1.49333333 femtoseconds