what if information can be transmitted faster than c

[fermions]

hello

I've been thinking what contradiction will arise if information can be transferred faster than the speed of light...

for example.. suppose the same old example... the sun suddenly disappeared but we somehow get information before the incident reached our eyes... we know it will happen but we cannot alter it

one contradiction is that there will not be any more relative motion... but what other more significiant problem will arise?

 

anyway is it possible to have an object that is absolutely at rest?

 

thanks

[ed84c]

I think weve already had a thread like this.

 

But it is possible.

 

Photon Polarity; If you fire 2 photons from each other so they are travelling at 2c from each other, then you polarise one, the other will become polarised instaniously.

Imagine a polarise as 1 and a non polarise as 0, we have information travelling at 2c ( i think that was the point sayo missed in the other thread)

 

As far as your question goes, the only information that arrives to you e.g. sun explosion, will be that at the same time it happens. Even if we know the sun has exploded, running into our houses will not create a paradox, because we cannot see the affect on us at that time.

[boxhead]

but still with the point of reference it is c and c only..... coz destination of ur information is not the same for both "0" and "1" ... and if you want them to be at a common point the total actual speed is c....

[swansont]

I think weve already had a thread like this.

 

But it is possible.

 

Photon Polarity; If you fire 2 photons from each other so they are travelling at 2c from each other' date=' then you polarise one, the other will become polarised instaniously.

Imagine a polarise as 1 and a non polarise as 0, we have information travelling at 2c ( i think that was the point sayo missed in the other thread)

[/quote']

 

Yes, we have. No, it isn't. No, it won't; it must already be polarized and entangled. You just don't know what it is until you measure it. Then you know the polarization of the other photon.

[Rasori]

Swansont, you can say the "Yes, we have," part and because of your backing (in that one example) you can say "No, it won't," but you can't really say "No, it isn't." We've just yet to discover how or completely prove that it's impossible (which is near if not completely impossible to do seeing as there are so many possibilities (absurd as they are) that may allow for FTL travel.

 

We do have good backing for your statement, but it is still Einstein's THEORY and thus could be, one day, disproven.

[5614]

Swansont, you can say the "Yes, we have," part and because of your backing (in that one example) you can say "No, it won't," but you can't really say "No, it isn't."

 

uh, he can say no it isnt.... it is a known fact that in the actions of quantum entaglement no information will ever travel faster than c.

 

whether Swansont meant nothing will ever travel faster than c we do not know... what he said was that in the process that we are discussing (quantum entaglement) no information will ever travel faster than c.

[Natski]

Although, some things can travel faster than c, [for example, action at a distance (the entanglement), phase velocity of waveguides and quantum tunnelling] no information or energy can be transferred faster than c. That is Einstein's first postulate of SR- which is, to date, yet to be shown otherwise experimentally or theoretically.

 

Natski

[Asimov Pupil]

Here's a thought, two particles travel from the same point, and arive at the same place at the same time, but strangley enough the one particle travels around a curve. The one traveling in the straight line goes at 98% c, does that mean the other travels >c?

[swansont]

Swansont' date=' you can say the "Yes, we have," part and because of your backing (in that one example) you can say "No, it won't," but you can't really say "No, it isn't." We've just yet to discover how or completely prove that it's impossible (which is near if not completely impossible to do seeing as there are so many possibilities (absurd as they are) that may allow for FTL travel.

 

We do have good backing for your statement, but it is still Einstein's THEORY and thus could be, one day, disproven.[/quote']

 

Yes, as with gravity and all other scientific theories. So I will concede that point if you concede that we might fall "up" some day.

[fermions]

em... could anyone state what kinds of contradiction might arise if information can be transmitted faster than c...

and the so called instantaneous transfer of information during entanglement doesn't seem to cause any confusion... so why can't information be transmitted faster than c after all... just because the special relativity states the c is the fastest speed than we cannot exceed it?

thanks

[swansont]

em... could anyone state what kinds of contradiction might arise if information can be transmitted faster than c...

and the so called instantaneous transfer of information during entanglement doesn't seem to cause any confusion... so why can't information be transmitted faster than c after all... just because the special relativity states the c is the fastest speed than we cannot exceed it?

thanks

 

You lose causality. Effect can precede the cause, in some frame of reference. Which is a contradiction.

 

It's not "just because" relativity says it - relativity has been tested, so we are pretty confident that it's right.

[Rasori]

I understand that it's a GOOD theory, I'm just saying that some day something might allow us to get around it. Like how propellor planes couldn't go faster than the speed of sound, then we developed jets.

 

So yeah, I'll concede that we COULD fall up someday.

[swansont]

I understand that it's a GOOD theory' date=' I'm just saying that some day something might allow us to get around it. Like how propellor planes couldn't go faster than the speed of sound, then we developed jets.

 

So yeah, I'll concede that we COULD fall up someday.[/quote']

 

But there's an important distinction between difficulties in engineering vs in the physics theory.

[ed84c]

theres an important distinction between seeing and believing, as far as government funding goes.

[JaKiri]

I understand that it's a GOOD theory, I'm just saying that some day something might allow us to get around it. Like how propellor planes couldn't go faster than the speed of sound, then we developed jets.

 

That was an engineering problem, not a physics one. Until Einstein, a universal speed limit was not the way of thinking.

[Rasori]

I'm just asking you to act like true scientists and keep it in the back of your head that it may, one day, be possible. You're almost as bad as religious zealots whose religion is being criticized.

[Sayonara]

Perhaps you sleeping in the day all the scientists sat down and decided that new proofs would change the current models.

[swansont]

I'm just asking you to act like true scientists and keep it in the back of your head that it may, one day, be possible. You're almost as bad as religious zealots whose religion is being criticized.

 

And I'm asking you to act just a little bit like a scientist and recognize that scientific theories aren't guesses, and not all hypotheses deserve equal consideration.

 

The notion that, because of its inductive nature, all of science could be wrong, occupies essentially zero time in a working scientist's day. Why? Because things do fall down. And relativity does work. Any theory that might come along that's better won't tear down relativity, just like relativity didn't eliminate Newtonian gravity - we still use it for the cases where it's valid. There's nothing to be gained by stopping and declaring, "But all of this could be wrong" every five minutes.

[Gilded]

"I'm just asking you to act like true scientists and keep it in the back of your head that it may, one day, be possible."

 

From what we've learned so far, it is rather... impossible. Unless you mean quite wacky possible stuff like wormholes and such that bend the spacetime so that you might be able to get from Earth to Alpha Centauri in five seconds, which isn't really FTL travel (at least I don't see it as such). Like if you had a maximum speed of let's say 20km/h and a 40km long wall, it would take you two hours to move at max. speed from the center of one side to the center of the other side. Although, if you could make a hole in the wall you would be on the other side's center in seconds... But still, that wouldn't allow you to go faster than the 20km/h.

[5614]

that is a very good post swansont (post #18) and i think that it will be a good quote for future threads similar to this!

 

what i wanted to say is why is everyone so paranoid about FTL, i mean, electricity is SOOO fast and that is nothing compared to light... not there's fiber optics and all. people always want faster and faster and faster... its gotta end somewhere.

 

besides if you think you are so clever that you can proove physics wrong why dont you do that!!!!

 

when it comes to physics you cant just say that world famous fully tested theories are wrong... that is not part of physics.

 

you dont say to a mathematician but 1 + 1 could = 3 because it doesnt (unless your counting in binary... but you know what i mean!) similarly you dont go to a physicist that you're gonna travel FTL because you cant.

 

at the same time if you know you are right then there's only one thing you can do about it... PROVE IT!

 

thats in addition to swansont's post and all the other posts!

[Rasori]

I'm NOT saying that I can prove it, nor am I saying that it IS wrong. I'm saying be a little more open-minded about it then "No, we can't." "No, we almost definitely can't," is a better choice, but I guess people are too lazy to spend the extra five seconds on two words. I agree that, especially with all the information we have now, it appears to be impossible. It most likely is impossible. BUT new information could come up some day that says "No, if you do it this way, it is possible."

 

And 5614, people want FTL travel and communications for space exploration. There would be no use at all for it within the boundaries of the atmosphere and a while beyond.

[5614]

to a physicist just like 1 + 1 = 2 so does FTL = 0

 

its not a case of being open minded, its a case of a proven, certain impossibility.

[Rasori]

I'm not going to carry this on because it's a useless argument that I started for no apparent reason, but I would willingly say to you that 1+1 doesn't always = 2 if you want me to, because I still think that someday we might have a chance at disproving it.

[5614]

if you think that no tricks, no binary, straight forward pure maths that a single unit (1) + or added to a second single unit (1+1) could be equivelent to anything other than 2 units or 2 then i will happily stop the argument now.

 

not trying to make it sound like your dumb, just wanna make sure you're not saying like 1 and 1 = 11 or sumin!

[Rasori]

I'm just saying that I'm more willing to say that than you are to say that FTL travel may eventually be possible.