Live data from Hacker News

Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

math.ucr.edu

81–88 of 88 posts

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#81
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When exactly were people burned alive, or killed in general, for saying the earth isn't flat? The first article of the _Summa Theologica_ discusses how to prove that the world is round; no Christian took Genesis' cosmography particularly seriously until biblical literalism and the Reformation. You might be thinking of the heliocentricism mess; but Bruno was burned for beliefs that had nothing to do with heliocentrici…

http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Bruno_Giordano.html Yip your right, my mistake, good to learn. Least none can name and was indeed thinking of Bruno at the time, my bad. Thank you for the correction and sorry for the misconception correction by me.

Thanks for not turning it into a fight! (And I apologize for my contentious tone; I was inappropriately gearing up for battle there.)

I thought you might be thinking of Bruno, the scientist who really was burned at the stake; it's a good thing for everyone that this wasn't for his science. (Of course, it would've been better if people weren't burned at the stake in general. Certain modern elements have reminded us of how painful a death that was...)

I also learned a few things about Galileo from Biography Base's article on him; thanks for that link!

The more I learn about that case, the less it sounds like Religion versus Science and the more it sounds like a conventional miscarriage of justice. A frail, sick, stubborn old man should never have been treated like that, even though he did call the Pope a simpleton. The Pope is the Pope, and has certain standards to maintain; it doesn't reflect well on Christ when His Vicar abuses the courts to make trouble for people who insult him.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#82
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want to make sure I understand "time dilation," as you describe it. I have no formal background in science or math. So, please bear with me. For the sake of making the math easy, I'm going to talk about traveling faster than the speed of light, but only for the sake of argument. You'll see why. I understand it this way. Assume I were traveling away from my friend at twice the speed of light. My time of departure is…

Try not to think of time-dilation in relation to "light travelling". Time dilation just means that time passes more slowly for you due to your speed relative to an observer. So imagine you have an identical twin, and you leave on a Journey to a nearby solar system at say 0.9x the speed of light. Your twin stays on earth and for arguments sake you can say he is "stationary" in comparison to you. When you come back, he…

In that first link, where it says (referring to the diagram at the bottom right), "Observer moving parallel relative to setup [...]," I don't understand. Parallel to what? Parallel to the mirrors? Parallel to the beam of light? I don't find it to be clear. Can you tell me which it is? Thanks.

------

P.S. Never mind. I follow the diagram now. I'm trying to follow the rest of it.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#83
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If FTL is possible then the Fermi paradox goes from being an intellectual curiosity to a near metaphysical emergency. Maybe. Maybe not. This is how UFO conspiracy theorists reason - "Here are some phenomena I don't understand, I can't think of any plausible explanation for them, therefore, must be aliens". There may be some hidden reasons why we can't detect FTL civilizations.

Way off in tangent land now but: while much of "ufology" is indeed silly, "the aliens are here but they are not communicating" is a valid hypothesis for the Fermi paradox (with or without FTL). There are numerous rational reasons that an intelligence exploring the universe might choose to be very very careful about initiating communication to the point of taking steps to avoid even accidentally revealing itself. Some…

It seems implausible that all of the aliens would agree to ignore us, even less so for them to consistently arrive at that conclusion in an independent manner. Then again, Earth might be exceptionally boring and consistently uninteresting to spacefaring aliens. Who knows? Maybe life is really rare.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#84
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly right given our current understanding of the universe. FTL travel violates causality, which is a fundamental principle of the universe. I wouldn't go quite so far as to say it's totally impossible though. There is a whole lot about the universe we don't understand and I can't rule out the possibility that there are entire branches of mathematics and physics that we don't know about.

>>fundamental principle of the universe. Fundamental principles of the universe also say heavier than air machines should be impossible. FTL issue is the same thing. Its possible, it just won't happen in the way we might expect.

Birds don't break causality.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#85
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of a bunch of mathematical conclusions of Special Relativity (the most famous one being that objects at rest have a "kinetic" energy of mc^2). I'll try to explain it simply, without the math: Imagine a friend and you, moving very fast with respect to each other. You measure your friend's clock as advancing slowly (due to time dilation), on account of the fact that he's moving with respect to you. But your fr…

I want to make sure I understand "time dilation," as you describe it. I have no formal background in science or math. So, please bear with me. For the sake of making the math easy, I'm going to talk about traveling faster than the speed of light, but only for the sake of argument. You'll see why. I understand it this way. Assume I were traveling away from my friend at twice the speed of light. My time of departure is…

Ah, good observation! But what you're describing isn't relativistic time dilation. It is called "the (non-Relativistic) Doppler effect", and can be commonly experienced when a race car, an ambulance, or a train passes you: When it's approaching, the noise will have a higher pitch than when it's passed. This is because the frequency of things that move towards us appear higher than they are, and that of things that move away from us appear lower. It's also why stars that move away from us appear more red than they are (they are said to be "red-shifted").

Imagine the same scenario you described (there's actually no need to use faster-than-c speeds for it), but your friend has planted clocks all along the path that you're traveling. Once he's back at his starting position, he synchronizes them all (there are techniques to achieve this - Einstein famously proposed one). Now when you pass him and keep moving away from him, every second you take a picture of your own clock next to the clock planted on the path. In a non-relativistic world, the pictures will show that your clock is always synchronized with all of your friend's clocks. Making the observation this way rids us of the Doppler effect.

But a non-relativistic world isn't the real world! In reality, if you go fast enough (close enough to c), the pictures will show e.g. your clock marking 12:00:01 when the clock in the path marks 12:00:02. And your clock marking 12:00:02 when you encountered the next clock in the path marking 12:00:04. In other words, your friend (and everything that's stationary with respect to him) will measure your time passing more slowly. Using these example numbers, in what for them is the pass of 2 seconds, you (and everything moving at your same speed - like your clock) have only aged 1 second. This is relativistic time dilation. It's shocking, but it's a fact that's been established for 110 years (and its mathematical consequences help explain even the microelectronics you and me are using). Now this happens no matter what speed you move with respect to your friend. But for everyday speeds it's so small as to be imperceptible - it only becomes noticeable at speeds like that of GPS satellites.

An immediate question is:

> Wait, if I move away from my friend, from my point of view my friend is moving away from me. So I should measure his clocks advancing more slowly than mine.

And that is correct, and is exactly what would happen!

> But the pictures I took show the opposite?

No! They show your clock compared to different clocks. And these clocks on the path, that your friend synchronized, by your measurements they all started at different times. I.e. for you, none of these clocks are synchronized. For your friend, they all marked 12:00:00 simultaneously. For you, they all marked 12:00:00 at different moments. In non-relativistic physics, simultaneity was an absolute concept: If two things happened at the same time, they happened at the same time for everybody. In reality, if I'm moving with respect to you, what happens at the same time in different locations for me, doesn't happen at the same time for you.

Re: Is Faster-Than-Light Travel or Communication Possible? (1997)

#86
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>fundamental principle of the universe. Fundamental principles of the universe also say heavier than air machines should be impossible. FTL issue is the same thing. Its possible, it just won't happen in the way we might expect.

Birds don't break causality.

Neither will FTL. Time at the destination and back will the time elapsed between departure and arrival.
Post reply on HN