|
|
|
On September 24 2011 04:42 Gummy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 04:36 scFoX wrote:On September 24 2011 04:23 ampson wrote:
Neutrino drive engines anyone? Nope. In space, the only real way to travel is to chuck stuff in the other direction. Conservation of momentum means that you have to eject your fuel fast, but it also has to have sufficient mass in order to actually have an impact. Since neutrinos have little or no mass, well... you do the math. Not to mention neutrinos are notoriously impossible to contain or even direct (as their name indicates, they are neutral). Even if you produce them, they'll escape in all directions at once, nullifying any thrust. Hell, most of then travel through Earth without a sweat. If this is in fact true, FTL communication is EZPZ.
Ender's Game, anyone?
|
Steven Spielberg can see the future, thus Terra Nova was born
|
I'm no physics major, but this makes me wonder: If the neutrinos are travelling faster than the speed of light, then that means they are actually going back in time, right? If that's the case, then does that mean they're actually not quite traveling as fast as they appear?
|
On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation?
If you find out let me know...
If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism.
Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it:
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Ftl-time-travel-equivalence.gif)
it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past.
|
So 60ns is about 60ft at the speed of light. That's a pretty big margin of error for such precise experiments. Hopefully people will try to investigate the claim ASAP
|
On September 24 2011 00:50 gruff wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 00:34 Xxazn4lyfe51xX wrote:On September 23 2011 05:00 cptKewk wrote:On September 23 2011 04:52 DarkEnergy wrote:On September 23 2011 04:50 cptKewk wrote:On September 23 2011 04:39 SomeONEx wrote:
I have never really understood my good 'ole teacher when he told me that things can't be faster then the speed of light. "It's only a matter of time before "we" break the laws" said to him, and it seems (for now) as though I was right. I would say that it is more likely to be a mistake. I mean why are these neutrino different from others? that is what I don't get. They are just subatomic particles. As far as i knew they shot one from each side and let them collide creating exotic particle's and then they analyse it. You mean that they collided the neutrinos and measured the energy of the created particles? makes sense, haven't read the explination of the experiment but what I meant was why haven't we seen neutrinos move faster than light before? (maybe you answered that just now and I misunderstood you) Actually, we might possibly have before. Fermilab posted similar results, but they didn't have the precision to validate it as statistically significant. The error range on the CERN experiment was 10 nanoseconds, and they found the neutrinos arrived 60 nanoseconds ahead of schedule. That being said, I'm also betting that this is a fluke of some sort. Something hasn't been accounted for... Someone posted a link earlier in the thread to some phd guy saying the CERN 10 nanoseconds is incorrect and the range is considerably higher.
Strange, i wonder what their source is. If you read the paper itself, it clearly denotes the uncertainty as +/- 9.1 ns
|
On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? + Show Spoiler +If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past.
How can you send information into the past with superluminal neutrinos? You can only send them faster than the speed of light, so that they appear to have been sent before they were if you believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed of information.
|
Shit, it seems like Okarin needs to watch out!
|
On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism.
A lot of experiments have shown that the light speed in vacuum is very, very close to the Lorentz c, certainly a lot closer than 1-(10^-5). Such a discrepancy would have been noticed many decades ago.
edit: nice animation btw, very useful
|
Hmm, i hope its true... ive always wanted to see Cincinnatus in real life.
|
On September 24 2011 06:34 scorch- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? + Show Spoiler +If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past. How can you send information into the past with superluminal neutrinos? You can only send them faster than the speed of light, so that they appear to have been sent before they were if you believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed of information.
If the neutrinos are superluminal, you can find a moving frame of reference in which they appear to be moving backwards in time. It works much like the animation does, but instead of moving horizontally along the space dimension (instantaneous communication or travel) the line would be at an angle above the space dimension but below the sender's light cone.
On September 24 2011 06:46 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism.
A lot of experiments have shown that the light speed in vacuum is very, very close to the Lorentz c, certainly a lot closer than 1-(10^-5). Such a discrepancy would have been noticed many decades ago. edit: nice animation btw, very useful
Oh ok, so if it somehow proves to be true then things get extra interesting.
|
On September 24 2011 06:54 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:34 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? + Show Spoiler +If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past. How can you send information into the past with superluminal neutrinos? You can only send them faster than the speed of light, so that they appear to have been sent before they were if you believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed of information. If the neutrinos are superluminal, you can find a moving frame of reference in which they appear to be moving backwards in time. It works much like the animation does, but instead of moving horizontally along the space dimension (instantaneous communication or travel) the line would be at an angle above the space dimension but below the sender's light cone. Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:46 Maenander wrote:On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism.
A lot of experiments have shown that the light speed in vacuum is very, very close to the Lorentz c, certainly a lot closer than 1-(10^-5). Such a discrepancy would have been noticed many decades ago. edit: nice animation btw, very useful Oh ok, so if it somehow proves to be true then things get extra interesting.
Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that cause massive shenanigans in the neutrino's own reference frame? I mean, same thing as with the observation about muons and their half lives?
|
On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past.
wouldn't that gif only be correct if the concept of relatively applies to both things going near the speed of light AND faster than it? What's to say time dilation and relativity and all this still affects anything at all once it breaks the light barrier?
|
People keep saying that if these particles move faster than light, then they are moving backward in time as a result of relativistic physics.
But this ignores an enormous problem: faster than light travel violates relativistic physics.
You obviously can't make claims about a faster than light particle when those claims are the result of a theory whose fundamental axioms have been proven incorrect.
|
On September 24 2011 07:08 Antisocialmunky wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:54 starfries wrote:On September 24 2011 06:34 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:
[quote]
So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? + Show Spoiler +If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past. How can you send information into the past with superluminal neutrinos? You can only send them faster than the speed of light, so that they appear to have been sent before they were if you believe that the speed of light is the maximum speed of information. If the neutrinos are superluminal, you can find a moving frame of reference in which they appear to be moving backwards in time. It works much like the animation does, but instead of moving horizontally along the space dimension (instantaneous communication or travel) the line would be at an angle above the space dimension but below the sender's light cone. On September 24 2011 06:46 Maenander wrote:On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism.
A lot of experiments have shown that the light speed in vacuum is very, very close to the Lorentz c, certainly a lot closer than 1-(10^-5). Such a discrepancy would have been noticed many decades ago. edit: nice animation btw, very useful Oh ok, so if it somehow proves to be true then things get extra interesting. Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't that cause massive shenanigans in the neutrino's own reference frame? I mean, same thing as with the observation about muons and their half lives?
On September 24 2011 07:14 Kaonis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past. wouldn't that gif only be correct if the concept of relatively applies to both things going near the speed of light AND faster than it? What's to say time dilation and relativity and all this still affects anything at all once it breaks the light barrier?
You're right, the Lorentz transformation doesn't apply there since it only works on inertial reference frames. Since one of the requirements is that you measure c to be the same in all directions, superluminal frames aren't inertial. I think there are ftl formulations of the Lorentz transformation but I haven't really looked at those so I don't know what happens. The animation still works though, because all you need is for the signal to be superluminal in your reference frame (which the neutrinos were measured to be) and the moving reference frame and you can send it back in time.
|
On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past.
Not necessarily. Some dickery by the universe and physics could still prohibit FTL communications and time travel, like in the case of the tachyon anti-telephone. The universe and physics just seem to conspire against us when it comes to FTL travel and communications.
|
On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 05:32 hypercube wrote:On September 24 2011 03:05 QuAnTuM314 wrote:On September 24 2011 01:48 scorch- wrote:On September 24 2011 01:43 emythrel wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. Light only travels at 186,000,252mps in a vacuum...... its slower when travelling through water etc and it is this way because it interacts via the electro-magnetic force. Neutrinos don't. I wasn't saying that photons dont travel at the speed of light, i was saying that the speed of light as a barrier doesn't apply to massless particles... On September 24 2011 01:42 Oktyabr wrote:On September 24 2011 01:37 Robinsa wrote:On September 24 2011 01:31 emythrel wrote:
The speed of light only applies to particles with mass. So youre going in to the argument saying that Light doesnt have the speed of light ? Considering the photon is massless I mean.. His second line says "it has been thought for a long time that particles without mass see the speed of light as a lower limit, not an upper one." thanks for the help lol The speed of light in a vacuum is the maximum speed attainable by massless particles... such as photons. Actually its the only speed attainable by massless particles. But you know, very little difference. If we discovered that photons actually had mass, no matter how tiny, we would then still have the cosmic speed limit "c", but it would no longer be the speed at which light travels, just massless particles. What's the experimental limit on the difference between the speed of light in vacuum and the speed c in the Lorentz transformation? If you find out let me know... If the neutrinos were traveling faster than the experimental value of c for the Lorentz transformation then that's when the real problems start. If they're just above the speed of light but within the bounds of the Lorentz c then we just have to revise our theory of electromagnetism. Also having ftl signals is not just fun and games with ansibles and warp drives - it does bad things to causality. I found a nice gif that explains it: it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past.
So in theory if we were able to send information into the past, say for example, a text message, it could easily change history by correcting the actions of people in the past. And in theory if you send all of your current memories to the past then that would count as a form of time travel, as it transfers your entire consciousness into another timeline.... interesting
|
On September 24 2011 07:58 Frigo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2011 06:11 starfries wrote:
it's not quite the same since what we have here isn't infinite speed and it's just a neutrino, but it would still mean you can send information into the past. Not necessarily. Some dickery by the universe and physics could still prohibit FTL communications and time travel, like in the case of the tachyon anti-telephone. The universe and physics just seem to conspire against us when it comes to FTL travel and communications.
I have no doubt it won't work, either. The universe is extremely good at protecting causality and cockblocking time travellers. It'd just be interesting finding out why it wouldn't work, provided there are actually ftl neutrinos. And trying to send signals with neutrinos is probably one of the worst ways of communication to begin with.
Were you talking about something else with the anti-telephone? As far as I can tell it only doesn't work because tachyons don't exist, and ftl neutrinos would work as a substitute.
|
I brought this up in my physics class and my teacher hit me with a ruler.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
