More so, every time someone comes up with a mathematical trick that appears to allow violation of causality, speed of light, conservations of energy/charge/etc, it always turns out that the effect can't be used to do so. Every single frickin' time. At some point you have to accept what the universe is telling you.
What gets me is simple; If a communications could be transmitted in real time to another person light years away, with no lag time, (Other than the speed of sound going from the sender to the transmitter and then from the receiver to the person listening, how would that be a violation of Relativity?So long as the reception of the message cannot arrive before it is (sent? added here) received, where is the paradox?
What gets me is simple; If a communications could be transmitted in real timeto another person lightyears away, with no lag time, (Other than the speed of sound going from the sender to the transmitter and then from the receiver to the person listening, how would that be a violation of Relativity?So long as the reception of the message cannot arrive before it is received, where is the paradox? If data can be shared by entangled particles, again, so long as simultunaity is maintained between two points, where is the paradox? (Yeah, it's a word I made up, I think, it means for an event to happen at two remote locations at the same time, as compared to each location's frame of reference). Mind you, this could not be applicable to objects moving at relativistic velocities, as the frame of reference would be massively skewed. While data transmitted to an object moving at relativistic velocities would be vastly spead up, data transmitted from an object moving at relativistic velocities should be slowed down, relative to the temporal difference in reference frames.
I think we are in trouble if our scientific analysis consists of "This violates some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe on philosophical grounds."
There is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that any of these postulates about preserving order have any basis in physical facts let alone that they are universally true.
Furthermore physicists will evoke time travel when convenient. Feynman and wheeler posited advanced waves and retarded waves traveling into the future and the past to solve certain otherwise intractible problems.
Recent entanglement experiments strongly supported future measurements affecting the state of particles that had already ceased to exist.
Relativity allows (so far) limited time travel but it is time travel. all of it allowed by the rules; given a traversible wormhole which is not yet ruled out.
Relativity allows it; physicists have *faith* however that something in Quantum Gravity theory which hasn't been discovered yet will forbid that.
*Faith* that some how "theory X" will forbid it. LOL. Better get out the robes, incense and ritual fetishes.EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel.
I understand relativity of simultaneity and the statement that there is not a special frame of reference. However, what would constitute a special frame of reference? If it is something that can be measured from any frame of reference, then isn't the cosmic microwave background leftover from the Big Bang a special frame of reference? If I am missing something here, please enlighten me.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amI think we are in trouble if our scientific analysis consists of "This violates some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe on philosophical grounds." Fortunately, causality isn't "some fudged principle created to make physicists feel better about the universe".The only people fudging here to make themselves feel better about the universe are those who want to believe faster-than-light travel or communication is possible in spite of all the very strong evidence that it is not.Sure, we could find new evidence one day that calls into question whether FTL travel or communication is possible. So far, there's been no such evidence.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amThere is absolutely no evidence of which I am aware that any of these postulates about preserving order have any basis in physical facts let alone that they are universally true. Every experiment, everywhere, has supported the idea that causality has a basis in physical fact. Everyday life experience also provides such evidence. I can't think of anything at all that has more evidence going for it than causality.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amFurthermore physicists will evoke time travel when convenient. Feynman and wheeler posited advanced waves and retarded waves traveling into the future and the past to solve certain otherwise intractible problems.You're misunderstanding what they were talking about. Those theories were explicitly consistent with the inability to communicate classical information or travel faster than light.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRecent entanglement experiments strongly supported future measurements affecting the state of particles that had already ceased to exist.And that has absolutely nothing to do with violating causality.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRelativity allows (so far) limited time travel but it is time travel. all of it allowed by the rules; given a traversible wormhole which is not yet ruled out.There are lots of things that are consistent with relativity but inconsistent with other evidence. Relativity only describes part of known physics.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amRelativity allows it; physicists have *faith* however that something in Quantum Gravity theory which hasn't been discovered yet will forbid that.That's utter nonsense. Physicists follow the evidence. Causality is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence we currently have. That's why physicists coming up with theories try to find theories that also support causality -- because a physical theory that matches the evidence is better than one that doesn't match the evidence.Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 am*Faith* that some how "theory X" will forbid it. LOL. Better get out the robes, incense and ritual fetishes.EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".
Information cannot exceed C; wavefronts may do so, but can't carry information. We're trying to use English here to describe subtle mathematics, and our innate perception of causality etc interferes with any understanding of the outer universe - we are simply one of the Great Apes, looking out into a Universe which doesn't fit in with our mental predispositions, and attempting to erect a narrative.Go and read Jastrow.
Quote from: Bob Shaw on 04/03/2015 09:58 pmInformation cannot exceed C; wavefronts may do so, but can't carry information. We're trying to use English here to describe subtle mathematics, and our innate perception of causality etc interferes with any understanding of the outer universe - we are simply one of the Great Apes, looking out into a Universe which doesn't fit in with our mental predispositions, and attempting to erect a narrative.Go and read Jastrow.Explain quantum tunneling then. A particle going from point A to point B without transitioning through the interveining space certainly seems to violate the concept of information traveling faster than light. Admittedly this, so far, has only been observed on the nanoscopic scale, but the transition certainly SEEMS to be happining at faster than light velocities.
Explain quantum tunneling then. A particle going from point A to point B without transitioning through the interveining space certainly seems to violate the concept of information traveling faster than light. Admittedly this, so far, has only been observed on the nanoscopic scale, but the transition certainly SEEMS to be happining at faster than light velocities.
Quote from: ChrisWilson68 on 04/08/2015 05:23 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amEDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".No- i know well what these terms mean. And merely relativistic travel is also time travel due to gamma factor. if i go to a distant star at 99.99 percent C i travel in time. I experience an abbreviated time compared to observers at home. in my perspective the trip takes mere moments or weeks at worst. That is time travel. It's not your definition of time travel; but it is time travel. If i return home at 99.99 percent light speed; I will have aged moments or weeks at worst while everyone I greet at journey's end will be about 9 or ten years older. I will have effectively traveled to the future skipping all the inconvenient things in between moments.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/05/2015 07:16 amEDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel. No, it wouldn't amount to time travel. You seem to misunderstand the word "relativitstic" or its implications. Going faster than light would amount to time travel. The word "relativistic" means, roughly, "close to but less than the speed of light".
EDIT: Unless i am mistaken any relativistic travel allows time travel and we have observed physical objects with mass that are traveling at relativistic speed with our astronomical instruments. Certain celestial objects that got booted by a massive gravitational partner at some point. If one of these objects were to return to it's starting point at speed it would amount to time travel.