Zero

Feynman, yeah! No, seriously...good point about Dirac. Em...his notation confuses me, but I profess to be no QM specialist. ha! Just studying Tachyons...the whole Higgs-Kibble mechanism concept screws with me. But, hey, kudos to you guys!

Cool, thanks Pete. Seriously, however, the concept of FTL intrigues me, as does so-called “time-travel.” The whole “Time’s-Arrow” concept/paradox has always been one of my favourite…even better than the Grandfather Absurdity. However, I was wondering, if I have questions to pose to the (obviously greater) intelligent users here, where might I post…? My question relates to the Dirac Constant, and the subsequent frequency in Planck’s Relation. Not sure if I can pose off-topic questions here, or need to start my own post. Thanks for any info.

"What part of this thread indicates that we are sticking to special relativity?" Nothing indicated that we were STICKING to SR, I was simply responding to the comment earlier stating that the original scenario was "well understood in SR." I was merely using SR scenarios to demonstrate the possibility of FTL within those scenarios. Besides, the possibility of FTL only increases as we attain proximity to General Relativity. The causality violations become more and more easily explained and/or less frequent. PS: I wasn't arguing the point, just throwing out ideas.

Several thoughts: In principle, according to the Everett-Deustch “many-worlds interpretation,” the Grandfather Paradox has little to do with either (a) the timeline involved, or (b) the traveler himself. The common fallacy lies in the concept that only one spatial-dimension is traveled. Realistically, the only plausible solution is that the “time-traveler” is involved in some sort of peripatetic activity (for lack of a better expression) in the multiverse, i.e., multiple levels of dimensional reality are being accessed to complete the theoretical scenario. As for FTL in Special Relativity, first, we have the EPR paradox. I know, I know: you're saying, “it’s a highly-contested model.” Nonetheless, I re-present it as indication (however subtle it might be) of FTL potentiality. Further, special relativity doesn't preclude FTL speeds. It forbids an object traveling at v < c from reaching c. If, however, the object was ALREADY moving at v > c at the moment of its inception, theoretically, it should be acceptable in the framework of special relativity (it would not be able to decelerate to < c).