to send information across the universe in an apparent violation of the physics as we presently understand them.
[Bane's voice in my head right now: "...and he shall appear!"]Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2013 01:49 pmto send information across the universe in an apparent violation of the physics as we presently understand them.Using a wormhole to communicate superluminally is not a violation of currently-understood physics.
[Bane's voice in my head right now: "...and he shall appear!"]Quote from: JohnFornaro on 12/08/2013 01:49 pmto send information across the universe in an apparent violation of the physics as we presently understand them.The objections on causal grounds are just philosophical objections from people who are uncomfortable with the implications. They are not based on any known physical principle (and IMO are on fairly shaky philosophical ground too).Besides, this 1984 JBIS paper suggests that superluminal travel (=communication) doesn't necessarily result in such causality violation anyway...
The reason you cannot dismiss causality casually is because if you have a paradox, you don't even know what you have. You can't describe it's behavior.
I think causality problems can be resolved akin to what has to be done to complex logarithm function to make sense:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithmCheck the picture at the bottom of the page."The various branches of log z cannot be glued to give a single function log C*->C because two branches may give different values at a point where both are defined."Similarly, if we go around a closed timelike curve, causality holds locally at every point, but when we return to the "same" point in spacetime, it is not really the same point. Spacetime got foliated.
You do understand the distinction between currently accepted physics and currently available technology, right?
If a wormhole is opened, I have heard that it is impossible to travel farther back in time than when the wormhole was created (please see diagram).It seems a traveler could only arrive before he left if the wormhole was around at the time before when he arrives before leaving.
so if entanglement is a result of wormholes does that mean that kilometers long entanglement experiments have created wormholes that are kilometers long? and when they do the orbital entanglement experiment that has been proposed does that mean we have worm holes that reach orbital distances?
That's the theory.. but seeing these are the non-exotic forms of wormholes, it doesn't really mean anything.
we already know the things are quite ubiquitous.now we have examples of man caused wormholes of macroscopic lengths.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 12/20/2013 02:08 amwe already know the things are quite ubiquitous.now we have examples of man caused wormholes of macroscopic lengths. citation?
Quote from: scienceguy on 12/20/2013 02:35 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 12/20/2013 02:08 amwe already know the things are quite ubiquitous.now we have examples of man caused wormholes of macroscopic lengths. citation?He means: according to this theory that entanglement = wormholes.