-
How to communicate in space instanly...entagled. by scott ryan on 24 Apr, 2017 06:36
-
Long distance com's in space. Talking 100drs of light years away instantly.
In a test looking at atoms/particles, they had the ability to change atoms/particles to op charges or to different atoms or particles then back to the same.
What the test did, was had 2 computers. 1 on the mainland and 1 on an island a small distance away. They had the ability to change the particle to the ops charge and to the same particle as the 1 on the mainland. They then where able to change it back to what it was.
Looking at that, I noticed they could change the atoms/particles and get readings for possible new radar or coms.
Can we also change entangled atoms/particles in the same way? That can work for coms and possible entangled radar.
Even if entangled with other particles they will all change them back giving us sos readings.
Have know idea if it really works, but after I sent china the messages they clamed it works, and are building a Chinese embassy in Adelaide for me. But saying that I sent them 300 other weapons ideas like fields around tanks and so on.
All I can say it they had particles or atoms separated, and they could talk to each other. The one on the mainland had the ability to change the other particle or atom into a different 1, or the same one on the mainland....then change it back.
So they could 100% change it and change it back.
I am saying we can't read entangled atoms/particles spin, so we can change them then change them back doing sos
-
#1 by Silmfeanor on 24 Apr, 2017 10:02
-
Hello, and welcome to the forum! Threads like these are more well-placed in the advanced topics subforum.
Also, you might want to read up on this subject;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem -
#2 by Stormbringer on 24 Apr, 2017 11:48
-
Yup, advanced topic. Look for a thread called "almost an ansible?" sometime.
But I'm in before someone notes that causality ordering postulates or principle (COP) and similar "laws" forbid FTL comms. nu uh. nope. at least not with complete certainly.
Because this: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-physicists-violate-local-causality.html
and other things like that are popping up more and more. Notice that the title of the article is:QuotePhysicists demonstrate new way to violate local causality
It says "new" to distinguish this latest trick from the *OLD* way(s) that have been discovered to violate causality.
Mind you it's not an ansible ...*yet.* But where there is smoke...
EDIT: Anyway since the Chinese claim to have made a quantum radar which uses entanglement already; I think they may have already gotten ahead of you with what entanglement can do. Mind you having a quantum entanglement radar does not necessarily mean they have a faster than light way to communicate information or send and receive radar beams. As far as i have read; their QE radar involves entanglement a different way not related to FTL stuff. So far no entanglement application or experiment has implied or verified FTL communications. The closest thing to this would appear (to me) to be the Feynman-Wheeler interpretation of Mach effect theory using advanced and retarded waves which would seem to generate the illusion of FTL communication. Though in this application the word "illusion" does not mean that the effect is imaginary and void because it could accomplish the same thing as FTL communications by a convoluted Rube Goldberg-esque construct that avoids violations of known physical laws.
-
#3 by meberbs on 04 May, 2017 16:27
-
Communication with advanced waves allows instantaneous communication at a distance which is in conformity with relativity since all interactions take place at the speed of light.
Relativity does not say FTL communication is impossible, it says that FTL communication is equivalent to time travel. You ended up doing a nice job demonstrating that. Since time travel trivially leads to paradoxes, it would make any physical theory that includes it self-inconsistent. As a result physicists have formed the chronology protection conjecture. (Of course if given sufficient evidence of actual time travel, physicists would reject this conjecture and have to figure out how to deal with the paradoxes of time travel.)
...
By advanced waves it will arrive at Earth at 11:20, 40 minutes before first message is sent.
As far as detecting advanced waves, this can't happen under the no-communication theorem (note that this is a theorem, so unlike the chronology protection conjecture, you can't handwave it away.) -
#4 by RotoSequence on 04 May, 2017 16:44
-
Long distance com's in space. Talking 100drs of light years away instantly.
In a test looking at atoms/particles, they had the ability to change atoms/particles to op charges or to different atoms or particles then back to the same.
What the test did, was had 2 computers. 1 on the mainland and 1 on an island a small distance away. They had the ability to change the particle to the ops charge and to the same particle as the 1 on the mainland. They then where able to change it back to what it was.
Looking at that, I noticed they could change the atoms/particles and get readings for possible new radar or coms.
Can we also change entangled atoms/particles in the same way? That can work for coms and possible entangled radar.
Even if entangled with other particles they will all change them back giving us sos readings.
Have know idea if it really works, but after I sent china the messages they clamed it works, and are building a Chinese embassy in Adelaide for me. But saying that I sent them 300 other weapons ideas like fields around tanks and so on.
All I can say it they had particles or atoms separated, and they could talk to each other. The one on the mainland had the ability to change the other particle or atom into a different 1, or the same one on the mainland....then change it back.
So they could 100% change it and change it back.
I am saying we can't read entangled atoms/particles spin, so we can change them then change them back doing sos
The idea of utilizing entanglement for FTL communications is one that has appealed to me for a long time - and for an almost equally long time, I didn't understand the reason why "it doesn't work that way." The long and short of it is that there's no form of quantum enganglement that can be read off without communicating how your entangled machine behaved to the receiving end of the experiment. Interference patterns require cross-referencing and analysis to be seen in entangled systems. The structure of nature is strangely, surprisingly adamant that no information be discernible faster than the speed of light. -
#5 by JasonAW3 on 04 May, 2017 17:32
-
What bothers me is that, so long as messages are simultaneous between two points, there should be no violation of causality. A slight delay between them should also be possible, so long as the information cannot be transmitted backwards in time.
So long as actual information can be transmitted between two reference points in such a way as the actual transmitted information does not go backwards in time from the perspective of the initial transmitting reference point, and information is transmitted between both points in a sequential fashion, there should be no temporal violations, no matter the actual physical distance between both points.
Essentially, this appears to be a case of information not being able to exist within the same universe prior to its actual existence.
In other words; so long as there is an actual delay, even if it simply the time it actually takes to encode and transmit that information, ie. typing it in on the transmitting device, while the information is typed out at the receiving device in "Real Time" there should be no violation of causality.
In a case like this, assuming simultaneity of the reference times between the two points, so long as the reply to a transmitted message follows the completion of the initial message, there should be no paradox. (Yes, I know some people will be impatient and start a reply before the initial transmission is complete, not having the full message, but that doesn't really apply in this case. Information was received at one end to which a reply was sent, after the initial information was received). -
#6 by ellindsey on 04 May, 2017 17:39
-
Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
-
#7 by meberbs on 04 May, 2017 18:14
-
Advanced waves is one explanation/interpretation of how entanglement works. When you talk about advanced waves you are talking about entanglement.As far as detecting advanced waves, this can't happen under the no-communication theorem (note that this is a theorem, so unlike the chronology protection conjecture, you can't handwave it away.)
The no-communication theorem is related to the measurement of an entangled quantum state, and I agree, quantum entanglement can’t be used for instantaneous communication.
But what does this have to do with the detection of advanced waves? This is a completely different phenomenon. -
#8 by JasonAW3 on 04 May, 2017 18:47
-
Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
So, what you are saying is, as an example, a world, deep within a high gravity well, where time has been slowed down, receiving a transmission from between two other locations, whose time reference frame, may be in a simultaneous synchronicity, may receive those same batches of information out of sequence, or even backwards? That could be a possibility, but so long as the initial transmission or sequence did not start in a reference time prior to that of the ACTUAL transmission, relative to the receiving planet, again, I see no actual paradox issues.
In fact, in computer networking, after the initial beginning of communications, data packets are often transmitted out of sequence, although I imaging this is not quite the same situation.
What it appears to be is, that this is an argument that is essentially saying that any form of information cannot be received over extended distances in a simultaneous fashion, due to the fact that it may go faster than the velocity of light, regardless of whether those two points share the same temporal reference frames.
As an example; say a method of transmitting messages from Earth to Mars were discovered that could reduce the relative delay from between four to twenty-four minutes, down to a delay of two to twelve seconds, this would be impossible as it would exceed the velocity of light, and thus, somehow, violate relativity?
I suspect the truth is much more complicated, but so long as messages are received as, or after they are transmitted, even if the time is compressed between the two locations, I doubt that any causality violations would be in effect. Causality violations could be in effect for any place where time is flowing in the opposite direction, relative to the transmitting and receiving locations, but other than that, even if the information is received in Planck Time, between the two locations, I don't see how this would be a causality violation.
It would only become an issue if the information transmitted were to arrive prior to it actually being sent. So, unless information is somehow intrinsically linked to the velocity of light, which quantum entanglement seems to violate, then I'm not really certain how this could violate causality.
Sorry for repeating myself in different ways here, but I wanted to make certain it was understood that I am stating, the reception of the transmitted information would occur AFTER it has actually been sent, relative to the point of origin. I suspect that even after some form of "FTL" travel is developed, so long as the arrival of a craft sent, is after it left, relative to the origin time frame, there should be no issues.
I don't recall any math, other than that of Special and General Relativity, that actually comes close to covering this, and even then, the concept of Einstein-Rosen Bridges seems to violate this rather profoundly. -
#9 by meberbs on 04 May, 2017 19:14
-
Except there are things like self-interaction that we now know to exist that are not part of that original theory. Please provide a modern reference if you think my statement is not valid, the theory of quantum electrodynamics was only just being developed in the 1940s, so of course a 1945 paper would be lacking.
Advanced waves is one explanation/interpretation of how entanglement works.
This is true.QuoteWhen you talk about advanced waves you are talking about entanglement.
This is not true. Read the original Wheeler-Feynman 1945 paper. There is no mention of entanglement there. The concept of advanced waves emerges from classical electrodynamics (advanced solutions of Maxwell’s equations), long before the emergence of quantum mechanics.
I am well aware of the advanced wave solutions to Maxwell's equations, but these are non-physical (Except interpretations where they get tied in with quantum mechanics as above). If you want to claim that they are physical, you have to both explain how to detect them, and why they haven't ever been detected. -
#10 by meberbs on 04 May, 2017 19:51
-
Quote
pulses in duration of 6 ns to 24 ns, wavelength from 91 cm to 200 cm
What magical piece of hardware do you think is capable of such a thing? While not directly breaking physical laws, any produced signal is guaranteed to include spurious effects.
Maybe I'll read in detail later to see what other mistakes you made.
Edit: Also, this doesn't explain why this hasn't been noticed by anyone using advanced radars, and RF communication equipment. -
#11 by meberbs on 04 May, 2017 20:47
-
There was not just one run, but many runs with different pulse durations, performed at different wavelengths with different parts of equipment.
And in what way does this change the fact that you are running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects. (Skimming the paper it looks like you are way, way short on doing actual data analysis, and had many null results that you are effectively ignoring.)The answer is in the paper. One of the reasons is, if you use a receiving antenna of the appropriate size, you can’t detect advanced waves. There are two more reasons explained in the paper.
I didn't notice any other reasons when skimming the paper. This reason seem to amount to saying that the advanced waves will be proportional to the amount of emitted energy that will never be absorbed in the future. This amount is effectively 0, and it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. (You have heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image right?)
-
#12 by meberbs on 05 May, 2017 00:37
-
Figures 2A, 3B and 3C clearly show false positives, because the signals are aligned in phase, which is not expected in general if they were advanced waves. Some of the other figures seem to show this as well, but are less clear if this is the case. There are plenty of reasons the different configurations you list could make the signal come and go, there is nowhere near enough data in the paper to make any conclusions, and based on what data is there your judgment of the presence of a signal seems biased.And in what way does this change the fact that you are running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects. (Skimming the paper it looks like you are way, way short on doing actual data analysis, and had many null results that you are effectively ignoring.)
But if I’m running equipment in a regime guaranteed to generate spurious effects, why I don't see those effects constantly? The null results only appear if the following conditions are not met:
1. The experiment is carried out at wavelengths greater than 21 cm.
2. The detection is done with a λ/6.7 or smaller antenna.
3. The antennas are placed so that a line connecting them, when extended behind the receiving antenna, points to the sky at an angle of at least 3° above the horizon (In favorable weather conditions).QuoteI didn't notice any other reasons when skimming the paper. This reason seem to amount to saying that the advanced waves will be proportional to the amount of emitted energy that will never be absorbed in the future. This amount is effectively 0, and it doesn't matter where you point the antenna. (You have heard of the Hubble Ultra Deep Field image right?)
The key part here is “that will never be absorbed in the future”. The Hubble Ultra Deep Field image is image of the past. From Wikipedia: Looking back approximately 13 billion years (between 400 and 800 million years after the Big Bang) it has been used to search for galaxies that existed at that time.
Also the matter from the galaxies in the Hubble images are still there today, and will still be there in 13 billion years. (Sure, stars will have died, and new ones born, but so what?) You contesting on this point makes it seem like you aren't bothering with critical thinking.
-
#13 by meberbs on 05 May, 2017 14:32
-
Strange coincidence that this doesn't seem to be reflected in any of your pictures.Figures 2A, 3B and 3C clearly show false positives, because the signals are aligned in phase, which is not expected in general if they were advanced waves. Some of the other figures seem to show this as well, but are less clear if this is the case.
The signals can be in phase or out of phase, it depends on exact distance between the antennas at a certain wavelength. When I slowly increase (or decrease) this distance, signals come out of phase, and then in phase, and so on.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough before: The data in your paper does not look like valid signals, but you claim it is, the only available conclusion for anyone else is that you don't know what good data looks like, and all of your conclusions must be doubted. It only makes sense for the paper to include your clearest examples, and since those examples are bad, why should I believe that you just didn't share your good data before?
Antenna patterns, reflections/interference, other subtle things that move when you move/swap antennas, changing effects of your equipment when you change frequencies. A proper, detailed list is impossible with the information available to me.QuoteThere are plenty of reasons the different configurations you list could make the signal come and go, there is nowhere near enough data in the paper to make any conclusions, and based on what data is there your judgment of the presence of a signal seems biased.
Can you list some of these reasons?
Sorry, less than 50% absorbed ever is not a realistic expectation. Also, the cosmological constant was assumed to be 0 until the 90s, so you again need to be using references that aren't from before directly relevant knowledge became available. (And yes, the accelerating expansion probably is in your favor, but I am not going to bother reading a paper that I know is based on inaccurate data, when the answer clearly is not 0 or 100% transparent and whatever result he came up with is guaranteed to not be correct.)QuoteAlso the matter from the galaxies in the Hubble images are still there today, and will still be there in 13 billion years. (Sure, stars will have died, and new ones born, but so what?) You contesting on this point makes it seem like you aren't bothering with critical thinking.
The idea that the ever-expanding universe is transparent to electromagnetic radiation of certain wavelengths is not mine. See for example: Davies (1972) “Is the universe transparent or opaque?” -
#14 by meberbs on 06 May, 2017 00:44
-
I think we should take a step back and review some of what has already been posted:
- If what you are claiming is true. then you have invented a way to send messages to the past. In other words, time travel.
- The theory you are basing this on has been demonstrated as inconsistent with known effects. The places where a version of this theory is still meaningful (specific interpretations of quantum) explicitly disallow the observation of what you are claiming.
-While you have admitted that your results could be systematic error, you seem to reject any proposal I make about them being systematic error. (If you hadn't at least claimed to be open to accepting that what you have is systematic error, I wouldn't still be here.)
While you think your results are worth follow-up, you are not accounting for the odds that you just invented time travel, which is very close to 0, making the odds of systematic error approximately 1.
As to your most recent points, I haven't measured the wavelengths on your graphs you just posted, but glancing at them does not make it obvious that they aren't in phase. There is some weirdness in the gif, but I think it doesn't quite match what I would expect if the phases were misaligned. Measuring these will be complicated by the fact you don't have constant frequency pulses due to the aforementioned limitations of your wavelength and pulse length choice.
Also, what are you changing in that gif? It really doesn't seem consistent with any of your major variables.
The paper you just cited has some useful information, but it is for old light that reaches Earth. They explicitly expected different results if you change frequency (RF instead of optical) and does not all cover how much of your emitted energy hits stars, planets, nebula, etc.
Also, probably the bigger problem is attenuation in Earth atmosphere, ionospheric refraction, and the original absorption by your antenna. That means that the largest magnitudes you show should be impossible even if the theory you were using had value, and ignoring the time travel.
-
#15 by as58 on 06 May, 2017 07:16
-
The paper you just cited has some useful information, but it is for old light that reaches Earth. They explicitly expected different results if you change frequency (RF instead of optical) and does not all cover how much of your emitted energy hits stars, planets, nebula, etc.
I wouldn't think there to be too much frequency dependence. In most directions (that don't hit stars, particularly dense clouds, etc.) the universe has been very transparent since recombination at z~1100. In fact, I don't understand at all Fearn's claims about 21 cm absorption. There's just not that much HI to absorb everything. For one, most of the hydrogen has been ionised since z~8. -
#16 by Stormbringer on 06 May, 2017 11:46
-
Some day something like this will lead to an ansible: https://phys.org/news/2017-05-counterfactual-quantum.htmlQuote
Using this effect, the authors of the new study achieved direct communication between sites without carrier particle transmission.
-
#17 by robert_d on 06 May, 2017 14:24
-
Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
I am still confused because you have an implied parameter. Not only are the two events no longer simultaneous but that event A in reference frame one precedes event B while the opposite can happen in reference frame two? And that the two events can convey that information to each other?
Does not matter what a third party observer can detect, that does not imply FTL communication. -
#18 by meberbs on 06 May, 2017 17:07
-
All inertial reference frames are equally valid, that is the basis of special relativity. If two events happen at the same time in one reference frame, there are reference frames where either event happens before the other. Note, that this is not "when they appear to happen due to speed of light delay of information reaching one observer, but when they actually happened after any such delays are accounted for.Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
I am still confused because you have an implied parameter. Not only are the two events no longer simultaneous but that event A in reference frame one precedes event B while the opposite can happen in reference frame two? And that the two events can convey that information to each other?
Does not matter what a third party observer can detect, that does not imply FTL communication.
To turn an ansible into a practical time travel communication device, it generally is simplest to add in a third party as a relay:
-Person A sends person B a message, which is then received at the same time (any amount FTL works, but just assuming instantaneous is simpler)
-Person B forwards the message to Person C who is moving in a reference frame where Person A received the message 5 minutes before Person A sent it.
-Person C forwards the message back to person A, 5 minutes before Person A writes the message. -
#19 by meberbs on 06 May, 2017 17:27
-
I agree that it is more likely a systematic error than a real effect. But although the odds are small, I think that it’s worth redoing with other equipment, to determine whether this is real or not, considering that it is a simple and inexpensive experiment.
I am not sure what you think are the small odds, or "inexpensive experiment," but while impossible to quantify, I would put the odds somewhere around one in 10^20 to 1 in 10^100. I wouldn't put $100 on it, let alone thousands of dollars of RF equipment.
When your signal amplitude varies that wildly when you aren't changing anything, it means you have an unaccounted for error of about 100%. This means claiming even 1 sigma above noise would be wrong. Before that gif I had assumed that you were just doing one pulse at a time, using a continuous repeated pulse (what was the period?) Brings up many multiple additional mechanisms by which systematic errors could cause this result.QuoteAlso, what are you changing in that gif? It really doesn't seem consistent with any of your major variables.
Absolutely nothing! I was 10 meters away, and nothing was changed near the experiment. That is 8 times accelerated, 80-second clip, from one hour video, compressed to 10 seconds. This cyclically repeated more than one hour. My guess is that this is a consequence of sporadic E fading, caused by an unusual condition in the lower ionosphere layer.
If you really agree with the fact that your experiment is probably a systematic error, you should be trying to help figure out what that error is. Unless you start doing so, I am done with this conversation. -
#20 by meberbs on 16 May, 2017 06:46
-
One last chance: Have you even tried to consider how that second image could be explained without using advanced waves?
If you are posting in good faith and understand that you are claiming to have invented time travel, so it is all probably systematic error (you previously have agreed with this), then you should at least be suggesting possible sources of systematic error. If you can't think of any suggestions, even questionable ones, you either don't have enough background to analyze your experiment results, or you are just refusing to seriously consider the fact that you almost certainly have not invented a way to send messages to the past. -
#21 by meberbs on 16 May, 2017 15:41
-
Yes of course. I know of two causes for this, but it does not mean there are no other causes for which I do not know.
Thank you for replying with this information. You seem to not be thinking of how the smaller your receiving antenna, the weaker the primary signal will be. This in turn means that the effects such as the cable itself acting as a poor antenna picking up the signal will be more pronounced. A short wire lacks the shielding of a cable so even if it is shorter, it will still act as a significant antenna.
I know that a long coax cable run can cause pre-echo ghosting, so I used a very short cable (about 12 cm long). I also tested this without a cable, just with a piece of short wire directly connected to the antenna input.
Also, the ghost can be on the left of the main picture when the direct path is partially blocked and attenuated, so that the signal coming from the reflection of an object is stronger. But in that case, the reflection should be even more visible in the first image. The only difference between these two images is the length of the receiving antenna.I also introduced the third antenna in the line, a half-wave dipole, while the receiving antenna is a λ/24 monopole. When the half-wave dipole antenna is not connected to a load, there are no visible changes in the image. When the half-wave dipole antenna is connected to a load (e.g. VHF handheld radio), the ghost image on the left completely disappears. This looks rather weird to me, and I really do not know how to explain this without advanced waves. Again, this does not mean that such an explanation does not exist.
I'll leave out my guesses at what classical phenomena could be causing that, because you haven't explained how it would happen with advanced waves. I see the general assumptions you are making, but you have no theoretical foundation. You have previously cited obsolete theories, and seem to miss some of the implications of the symmetry that originally motivated the idea. Without actual theory behind what you are doing, it is unclear what you should actually expect as results. Try figuring how much amplitude each signal should have under the advanced wave hypothesis, also other information such as the expected delay, (If you are going to do the TV experiment, figure out what distance corresponds to what delay). I think you would find that it doesn't match your experimental results, which would then save you the trouble of finding the systematic error.
Seeing that an analog TV signal gets noisy when you use a poor antenna will never be good evidence of time travel. -
#22 by ChrisWilson68 on 10 Jun, 2017 06:40
-
Because in relativity, two events which are simultaneous in one reference frame are not guaranteed to be simultaneous in another reference frame. It is possible to have one reference frame in which two events are simultaneous, and a second reference frame in which those same two events are not simultaneous, and therefore information passing from one point instantly to another in the first will be traveling backwards in time in the second.
So, what you are saying is, as an example, a world, deep within a high gravity well, where time has been slowed down, receiving a transmission from between two other locations, whose time reference frame, may be in a simultaneous synchronicity, may receive those same batches of information out of sequence, or even backwards? That could be a possibility, but so long as the initial transmission or sequence did not start in a reference time prior to that of the ACTUAL transmission, relative to the receiving planet, again, I see no actual paradox issues.
No.
No gravity wells are needed. For *any* two points, anywhere in space, "simultaneous" depends on the frame of reference of the observer. If two events are simultaneous at these two points from the point of view of one observer, they will not be simultaneous from the point of view of a different observer moving relative to the first observer, unless that movement happens to be perpendicular to the line between the two points.
Further, any faster-than-light communication, for any two points, as seen by one observer, is communication backward in time from the point of view of some other observer.
-
#23 by Eric Hedman on 19 Jun, 2017 05:24
-
I'm not sure this is the right thread, but this article seems to fit:
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/china-sets-new-record-for-quantum-entanglement-en-route-to-build-new-communication-network/news-story/e528da0cf68b2e63bbe093cab49ec507
-
#24 by ChrisWilson68 on 19 Jun, 2017 11:01
-
The reason people are doing experiments with using quantum entanglement over distances for communication is for security. You can tell if your communication has been intercepted that way. It is not because the communication is faster-than-light, because it is not.
