3 ms·

Yeap, with the speed of information having a propagation limit, you can make that assertion. But, as soon as FTL becomes real ( if it's possible to be real ), i

Yeap, with the speed of information having a propagation limit, you can make that assertion. But, as soon as FTL becomes real ( if it's possible to be real ), it turns out, that assertion was wrong. The universe has no requirement to follow our theoretical framework. Why would FTL automatically invert causality? Assuming we chuck out, the speed of light limit, like I originally said in my previous comment, which if FTL was possible, would end up being the case. Has the expansion of space ( present day -or- the inflation event, both involving FTL which is allowed under relativity ) already inverted causality? Mostly I was just trying to point out that it appeared commenters were arguing from two different point of views, one with the intuitive cause and effect definition, and the one from relativity which makes certain assumptions about the universe ( well tested assumptions, but still assumptions, that could be proven false one day ).

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> Why would FTL automatically invert causality? And yet it does, that is just the mathematics of it. Another commenter linked this worked example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone > well tested assumptions, but still assumptions, that could be proven false one day But not in the way that you seem to be implying. They may be proven _incomplete_, but existing measurements confirm that these assumptions are mostly correct (to high degree of accuracy, and over a lot of measurements), and so won't be superseded by something completely different that contradicts those measurements. The best essay on this subject is "The Relativity of Wrong", Asimov, 1989 https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...
SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago
> Mostly I was just trying to point out that it appeared commenters were arguing from two different point of views, one with the intuitive cause and effect definition, and the one from relativity I think you have hit on something there. Human intuition is a product of human evolution, and for the landscape in which our ancestors evolved, it works very well. I'm talking about moderate speeds and moderate sizes, basically what's covered by classic Newtonian mechanics. Now the "Schrodinger's cat thought experiment" as a pop culture meme serves to re-enforce that the quantum realm of the very small is counter-intuitive - and it is very much so, so we don't expect intuition to be a good guide to quantum physics. Unfortunately there's no light-speed equivalent of Schrodinger's cat; or perhaps the innate assumption is it's a "small" thing if the "very small" realm is blurry, but not so much with the very large and fast. Whatever the reason, people continually arrive with assumption that their intuition is a decent guide to relativity, with tragicomic results seen upthread. Intuitive arguments or analogies about thunderstorms just aren't good guides here.

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

> Why would FTL automatically invert causality? And yet it does, that is just the mathematics of it. Another commenter linked this worked example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone > well tested assumptions, but still assumptions, that could be proven false one day But not in the way that you seem to be implying. They may be proven _incomplete_, but existing measurements confirm that these assumptions are mostly correct (to high degree of accuracy, and over a lot of measurements), and so won't be superseded by something completely different that contradicts those measurements. The best essay on this subject is "The Relativity of Wrong", Asimov, 1989 https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm https://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.ht...

SideburnsOfDoom 6y ago

> Mostly I was just trying to point out that it appeared commenters were arguing from two different point of views, one with the intuitive cause and effect definition, and the one from relativity I think you have hit on something there. Human intuition is a product of human evolution, and for the landscape in which our ancestors evolved, it works very well. I'm talking about moderate speeds and moderate sizes, basically what's covered by classic Newtonian mechanics. Now the "Schrodinger's cat thought experiment" as a pop culture meme serves to re-enforce that the quantum realm of the very small is counter-intuitive - and it is very much so, so we don't expect intuition to be a good guide to quantum physics. Unfortunately there's no light-speed equivalent of Schrodinger's cat; or perhaps the innate assumption is it's a "small" thing if the "very small" realm is blurry, but not so much with the very large and fast. Whatever the reason, people continually arrive with assumption that their intuition is a decent guide to relativity, with tragicomic results seen upthread. Intuitive arguments or analogies about thunderstorms just aren't good guides here.