4 ms·
Causality isn't nearly as central to physics as it may be to your worldview. Lawrence Krauss and others who have commented on the matter have argued that FTL tr
by threevox 5y ago
Causality isn't nearly as central to physics as it may be to your worldview. Lawrence Krauss and others who have commented on the matter have argued that FTL travel, would mostly require a re-evaluation of our perspectives rather than a re-evaluation of physics
- plebianRube 5y agoHmm, similar to how heavier than air flight was thought to be impossible for humans? Interesting how the will of a few can shape humanity. I love it.
- threevox 5y agoProbably a pretty good analogy! Even now, it's not known whether time has directionality in any way that is meaningful in physics. FTL travel would resolve the "Arrow of Time" question (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) but this wouldn't invalidate much/any of physics because the arrow is essentially non-observable at the micro level
- phkahler 5y ago>> Causality isn't nearly as central to physics as it may be to your worldview No, but locality seems to be a sacred cow in physics. They'll latch on to just about anything to explain violation of the Bell inequalities, but nobody is willing to part with locality.
- threevox 5y agoGenerally I'm suspicious whenever anyone seems to imply that an entire field is barking up the wrong tree
- mr_mitm 5y agoCan you give me a reference? Here, Krauss argues in favor of Lorenz invariance when presented with the possibility if FTL. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ftl-neutrinos/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ftl-neutrinos/
- threevox 5y agoHe discusses it extensively in The Physics of Star Trek. Also, supposed locally FTL travel for subatomic particles is pretty different from locally non-FTL but globally FTL travel a la Star Trek, Alcubierre drives, etc