Could information move faster than light?
Through space, no.
>>7713911
yes. for example, just take a stick with the length of the distance from earth to mars. when you now move the stick, you can communicate from earth to mars faster than the speed of light.
>>7713917
>take a stick with the length of the distance from earth to mars
No. I can't believe this idea still comes up.
Communication via "rigid" stick is much, much slower than light.
>>7713911
If by, "faster than light," you mean faster than the speed of light in a vacuum, then all evidence observed so far suggests that information cannot move faster.
Furthermore, all evidence observed so far suggests that if we, from some reference frame, ever did observe information moving faster than light in a vacuum, then another reference frame could be found where that information moved backward in time, which would be troubling for the concept of causality.
>>7713927
>No. I can't believe this idea still comes up.
Poe's Law
Do the vibrations of a string-theory string propagate with the speed of light?
No useful/discernable information travels faster than light.
A quantum function collapse travels faster than light, but to determine whether given state is a result of the collapse or just quantum randomness, you need subluminal communication with the other end.
This IS useful because you can assure given, *untampered* information can be obtained on two ends simultaneously - at no point is there a delay when a third party could modify it, and if they do, the fact is verifiable. Too bad the "information" is not really an information, but two identical copies of the same random noise - no way to transmit data that way, but good enough for sharing encryption keys.
Yes.
Take a flashlight, start running then turn it on. The light travels your speed + speed of light
Easy lol
>>7713927
BUTThe STICck acts as ASINGLE EntetY
>>7713917
For anyone who doesn't understand why this is wrong, just think about the stick itself and how it is made.
It is composed of atoms bonded to each other. When you push on the stick with your hand, that force transfers to the first atom, then that atom transfers the force to the second, etc. all the way to the last atom in the stick. This "wave" travels at some speed which is slower than light in a vacuum.
Where people get stuck is that they assume rigid objects exist. They don't. Everything is bendy and squishy to some extent. When dealing with planterary distancing this is especially true.
>>7714021
theire is nothing more messive as a big black cock
>>7713960
Is this feature shared by relativistic models of quantum physics?
>>7713913
Correct. Our spacetime itself over large distances (>14 billion lightyears) is moving faster than light, carrying the information of our universe faster than light in the higher-order medium (assuming it's something other than truly nothing).
>>7714079
Pretty much all quantum field theories have been relativistic quantum field theories since the 1950s. So, yes.
I still don't understand why causality is a limit for universe.
Our observation of "right order" of things should matter because... ?
>>7714095
there's no reason, it just is
>>7713960
Yea this is why its annoying when people wanna say "entanglement BTFO Einstein!". Not really.
While the data traveling between 2 entangled particles may be FTL it seems to be, by all accounts so far, fundamentally random. We can't use it to send a message. So it seems he was wrong about "spooky action at a distance" but not about "spooky communication at a distance".
Still strange to think though that this random data can apparently travel FTL. Surely that must mean something, must expose some weakness of relativity and maybe it means FTL travel/communication is doable! Well maybe, maybe not. We don't know for sure but so far it really does seem that only random data can travel FTL.
>>7714097
Causality arises from our perspective of the universe, I don't think "it just is". We choose to percieve it with order in it because it is conventional.
>>7714103
>Causality arises from our perspective of the universe, I don't think "it just is". We choose to percieve it with order in it because it is conventional.
i'm not sure what you're trying to say. there just is order. crazy stuff man.
shadows can move faster than light. Can shadows contain information?
>>7714145
Nope.
>>7714145
what is a shadow?
>>7714147
Absence of light of course.
>>7714150
how does the absence of light move? am i being trolled?
>put giant message on the moon written with ground chalk or whatever
>look at moon through telescope
>read it
>information traveled instantly from the moon and into my mind
Problem, relativity?
>>7714159
>information traveled instantly from the moon and into my mind
you can telepathically communicate with the moon??
>>7713960
disclaimer I don't know anything about this shit
so what if you could reliably manipulate a particle
then if you had two particles set in parallel
by switching them on/off you could send data in binary. 01011100010101000111 etc.
would work y/n?
Nope. That would be equivalent to time travel
>>7714204
you're time traveling right now
>>7713911
you have to ask yourself what form the information is taking
then you have to ask yourself how to move faster than light
you can move faster than light if you manipulate the medium that light travels through
you can move faster than light if you warp space sufficiently
can anything actually move faster than the speed of light? no
is information a thing? yes
figure the rest out
Sound can travel faster than light, so a stiff rod can used to transmit FTL signals. Either the rod conducts the sound wave, or it doesn't. Negative group velocities can also be attained, so you can violate causality while you're at it.
QM can be used to explain this; all particles exist in every state they'll ever exist in simultaneously, and it's your measurement that locks them into a particular state at a particular moment. You're not violating causality, because all causality is retroactive or preactive - a non-local variable determines which state you'll observe a particle in. This is called superdeterminism. FTL, then, doesn't violate causality because it's part of the timeless, superdeterministic script of the universe whenever it occurs.
The last 50 years of QM has been a fruitless attempt to rescue free will - the OrchOr theory was invented explicitly for that purpose. The mind is as deterministic as a phase change in a drop of water.
>>7714289
>The last 50 years of QM has been a fruitless attempt to rescue free will
are you exaggerating or do you think the people working on it want that?
>>7714021
But what if the stick is made out of diamond? crystallized carbon doesnt bend
>>7713911
quantum entanglement anyone?
>>7714296
Read the Orch-Or paper - it litterally says as much.
>>7714333
this is why popsci is the cancer of science.
>>7714321
If it doesn't bend, it will break.
>>7714370
Why not?
What speed does gravity move at?
>>7714369
Yes, and? I can read any site, book, or paper propounding a crackpot theory and it'll tell me that mainstream science has been misled for decades / is chasing ideology over truth / laughed at Einstein, etc, etc.
Orch-OR is no different. (Is Penrose a respected physicist? Yes. Does that make him not a crackpot? No. Scientists are about as prone to crackpottery as anyone as soon as you look beyond their field of expertise. Just ask Luc Montagnier, Nobel prizewinner in biology and homeopathy proponent.)
>>7714095
It's because breaking causality would seem to lead to paradoxes.
If I could send a message back in time to myself, then it would seem I could decide to only send a message back in time to myself at a certain time if I don't receive a message from myself at that time.
Then if I don't receive a message, I will recieve one, and then if I do, I won't. It's a problem.
Note that all of this is just a thought experiment. I personally believe that the self-consistancy principal is correct, and so sending messages back in time neither changes the past nor allows paradoxes, but this is all so hypothetical it's not even worth talking about further.
>>7714445
Speed of light, same as the electromagnetic field.
>>7714455
quit acting like me you misunderstand our exchange
>>7714012
>>7714460
Possibly slower #modifiedgravity
>>7713917
umad physics?
>>7714099
>While the data traveling between 2 entangled particles may be FTL it seems to be, by all accounts so far, fundamentally random.
This is probably fucking retarded, but could you use a machine that observes this to get truly random numbers?
>>7714321
Young neutron stars have carbon atmospheres, and red carbon stars are their obvious 'larval' form. Neutron stars are thought to produce black holes, which form wormholes composed of black hole mouths and Hawking radiation anuses - for lack of a better term. Evaporation proves that the source of black hole jets is the matter composing the black hole - which, if my hypothesis is correct, is composed of a high percentage of carbon.
FTL group velocities are acknowledged fact, and can cummunicate FTL information. The Hawking radiation of the supermassive black hole at the center of the galaxy coagulates to form the rest of the galaxy. To say that this takes you back or forward in time is inaccurate - the black hole and the Hawking radiation exist simultaneously, and cause each other. Space and time are illusions - moving very fast contracts them both. Time is the perception of energy differences along static lines, which are the true form of particles.
So it would seem that diamond, in a sense, is the medium of choice for FTL communication. It interests me that the word 'Vajra,' fron sanskrit, means 'diamond, power.'
>>7714152
I assume what he means is if you projected a light onto a wall lightyears away and lightyears wide, and then started covering the light source, the shadow would move faster than light on the wall. Shadow isnt really a thing though, its more like the absence of a thing so it doesnt contradict Einstein.
>>7714491
You probably could but that's way too complicated. We can already generate true random numbers by looking at minimal fluctuations in heat, atmospheric noise and/or radioactive decay.
>>7713911
>information move faster than light?
Of course. How do you think they phone home?
>>7713911
Luna moths hold the secret.
>>7713911
no, but giant fucking insects can
into your house
>>7714458
I doubt causality works like that, with the quantum shit and all. Your reality doesn't change if you send a message to the past, it changes for the you in the past, nothing more.
>>7714496
Go to bed mr chopra, you're drunk
>>7713911
e z p z
>buy a watch light can pass through
>break the watch so that it ticks slower
>get a flashlight
>shine the flashlight through the watch
>the light from the flashlight travels through less time than the light that doesn't
>The light from the flashlight arrives ahead of the other light
I already send my fiber optics through a set of broken watches in series to acquire a negative ping.
Yes. Recording allows us to displace information in spacetime. So the word that is spoken may be heard hundreds of years apart from when that speaker was alive.
>>7713911
information is an inborn property of matter, so yes
>>7715508
Anon, that makes little sense. Whether information is truly preserved relies on the existence a of a suitable decoder. This is what gives it the accuracy relative to the original.
Ancient scratches on rocks are recordings. Your body itself is a recording. eg there's a bone in my right hand that sustained a greenstick fracture when I was a teenager. I ignored it thinking it wasn't broken, and thus it healed in an arc. This is present for all to discover, but only I know the truth of what this recording means.
Various degrees of the same are present with all change imposed on an environment. Recording in the sense of the word it's used modern day, matters not.
But also, philosophically, I don't anything we do is especially significant. We're not bridging spacetime, you're just creating a particle system that happens to endure over time, relative to a suitable decoder.
>>7715515
Nothing exists apart from an observer that says it exists. Not even time.
Op
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo
>>7713917
the Problem with that is how do you move the shadow ?
right the light travels from you gets blocked by the stick and then lands on the mars so yeah not faster
>>7713911
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement
>>7713911
the c which we refer to as the speed of light actually stands for causality
no, information can't move faster than the speed of causality. light can move at the speed of causality, but doesn't always.
so yes, situations exist where information can move faster than light, but no it cannot move faster than what we dub "the speed of light"
