nessus42

40 ms·

301.
by nessus42 14y ago
Wormholes most certainly do allow you to violate causality! How about I just point you at the FTL FAQ? http://www.physicsguy.com/ftl/html/FTL_part4.html
302.
by nessus42 14y ago
> Sure, B sees things happen in the wrong order, but I will maintain that causality is not actually violated until an effect actually disturbs a cause. You maintain incorrectly. All inertial frames are equally good in Special Relativi
303.
by nessus42 14y ago
All Special Relativity requires is that space be more or less flat between point A and point B. It doesn't matter if the information travels from A to B through a wormhole and then into another universe and then out the butt of Dumbo, if it
304.
by nessus42 14y ago
You're simply closing your ears and exclaiming "special relativity" which only applies locally (if you want an appeal to authority, I talked about this with a former physicist who worked with Stephen Hawking). If you come up with a mathem
305.
by nessus42 14y ago
He has only stated that there are no closed causal loops for one particular use-case of his drive. He never stated either that causality was not violated from the point of view of a distant observer in a different frame of reference. Nor di
306.
by nessus42 14y ago
If the Many Worlds interpretation of QM is true, then there is no wave collapse.
307.
by nessus42 14y ago
I would certainly defer to your much superior knowledge of physics. Mine is only that of an MIT student who was thoroughly indoctrinated with Special Relativity as part of MIT's general science education, and who sat in on an undergrad cour
308.
by nessus42 14y ago
Nowhere does he state that causality is never violated.
309.
by nessus42 14y ago
Where do any of these top minds of physics say that this drive does not violate causality??? They DON'T! If they asserted such a nonsensical thing, they would be the laughing stock of the scientific world and would no longer be considered a
310.
by nessus42 14y ago
Yes, there are parts of the universe traveling away from us at faster than the speed of light. In fact, it's quite likely that the universe is infinitely big and an infinitely large part of it is traveling away from us at faster than the sp
311.
by nessus42 14y ago
Did you read the part above where I wrote this: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuu
312.
by nessus42 14y ago
Special Relativity applies ANY TIME that you transmit information from one point A in an inertial frame to another point B in an inertial frame. If you can use your warp drive to transmit information from A to B, then Special Relativity app
313.
by nessus42 14y ago
If you've somehow made A and B closer together, then you've made a wormhole, not a warp drive. Wormholes also come with "closed time-like loops", which allow for time travel.
314.
by nessus42 14y ago
Badge numbers? Are you talking about the badge numbers of the authors of the original article? If so, I'm sure they are quite aware that their proposed drive violates causality. Some scientists are willing to bite that bullet. It's some peo
315.
by nessus42 14y ago
I can't provide a coherent explanation of Relativity in one little HN box, but what I can say is that Special Relativity is pretty easy to learn and understand if you're willing to put in a bit of effort and deal with some high-school level
316.
by nessus42 14y ago
I'm not sure whether the Alcubierre drive contradicts causality, but if it does, I highly doubt that it is because of the arguments presented on this forum. The Alcubierre drive most certainly does violate causality, and this follows fr
317.
by nessus42 14y ago
> Say, for example, you set up a pool table with a pool ball and hit it through a time machine such that it went back in time and hit itself, making it miss the time machine? Would the pool ball be suddenly acted on by some invisible f
318.
by nessus42 14y ago
I understand it perfectly fine for the purposes of this discussion. Edit: I can't believe people down-vote irrefutable facts, so let me state this ONE MORE TIME: It is an irrefutable fact of Special Relativity that if you can transmit any i
319.
by nessus42 14y ago
>I'm not sure that this can be used to violate causality. If you can transmit any information from point A to point B faster than light would travel from point A to point B in a vacuum, then there are inertial frames of reference in w
320.
by nessus42 14y ago
Since I don't know anything about QED, I'm not equipped to answer this question. What I can say, however, is that much of what we consider to be "causality" is just a matter of probability. There's nothing in the fundamental laws of physics
321.
by nessus42 14y ago
Nothing you just said contradicts my statement, which was, "there are frames of reference in which that information arrived at the destination before it left the origin." I suspect that you don't know anything at all about Special Relativit
322.
by nessus42 14y ago
FTL is not the same thing as warping space in the same way that speeding is not the same thing as driving a Maserati. But if you can warp space at your will to give you the power to effectively get from point A to point B faster than a be
323.
by nessus42 14y ago
That's not the scenario described in the OP. The FTL drive described in the OP is a traditional "warp drive", that allows you to travel faster than light by moving the space around you faster than light, while you continue to travel slower
324.
by nessus42 14y ago
Causality it NOT a postulate of the system. General Relativity fully allows for universes in which causality does not hold. Such universes would either turn out to be either very strange, or actual use of FTL drives would have to be extrem
325.
by nessus42 14y ago
Faster-than-light travel allows you to travel backwards in time. This is an essential part of Special and General Relativity. Those who don't understand this and who are not ready to address its consequences, should refrain from speculating
326.
by nessus42 14y ago
You are not correct. If anything with information travels faster than the speed of light, then there are frames of reference in which that information arrived at the destination before it left the origin. Furthermore, unless your FTL driv
327.
by nessus42 14y ago
Fear not. Despite the science behind the OP, faster than light travel will not turn out to feasible. Those who think it will be, haven't really thought through the ramifications of what a world in which causality is routinely violated would
328.
by nessus42 14y ago
You can't have faster than light travel without violations of causality. And while the equations of General Relatively allow for universes where causality is routinely violated, the probability that we are in such a universe seems vanishing
329.
by nessus42 14y ago
Only sloppy-minded Continental philosophers would typically discard the distinction of accurate vs inaccurate. (Though there may certainly still be a large space for variation within images of equal accuracy. If this were not the case, then
330.
by nessus42 14y ago
Thanks for the book recommendation. It actually looks fascinating. I think I best avoid it for now, however, or no doubt I'll become too distracted from my programming duties. In the meantime, I'll take one more stab at horribly distorting

More ›