Would FTL travel actually break casualty or is it just bullshit?I'm too retarded to understand it, but it does sound like bullshit
considering the speed of light is the speed of causality, yes.
>>16930681yeah but what about manipulating spacetime so that you're in a self-reinforcing, localized wave pulse? couldn't it then move ftl without breaking causality since spacetime is whats being manipulated, not matter?
>>16930691>self-reinforcing, localized wave pulseWhat does that even mean?> Would FTL travel actually break casualtyYes. Effect would precede cause.
>>16930678No, it just compresses spacetime so the future becomes an immediate reality instead of proceeding through the flow of time.Albert JEWstein is a crock, and is stopping humans from teleporting to the farthest reaches of the universe instantaneously.
>>16930678It's all bullshit on top, like the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: their jump drive made them change into anything. You have to enclose the ship away in the dark, away from physicality.
>>16930678It's bullshit because causality doesn't have a speed, it's just things happening after another. Scientists defining causality in terms of the speed of light is like admitting that a tree hasn't fallen until you hear it fall.
>>16930723you have a single digit iq
>>16930723That's what I reckon too. It might cause some weird things in some edge cases, but how is me travelling to another galaxy in one second going to break anything? It doesn't break nothin'. I think what they mean is you might see something happen that didn't actually happen until reality catches up and you see the actual thing. Big whoop. That's not breaking anything.
>>16930729could you go into why you disagree with anon so the quality of the thread holds to an appropriate minimum? thank you for your attention on this matter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scharnhorst_effectApparently FTL signal is possible, but for some reason it doesn't break causality. I don't fully understand it, but it's the accepted conclusion.
>>16930789nta but you don't need speed at all to explain it. All it takes is defining causality as such: there is no reference frame where an effect precedes a cause.FTL allows you to construct a frame where that exactly is possible.
>>16930792looks like an artifact of the math.
>>16930681I don’t get it>no FTL>send signal to rover on mars>wait 20 minutes>rover moves>wait 20 more minutes>get confirmation rover has moved>have ftl comms>send signal to rover>wait several nanoseconds for the signal to travel through some wires to FTL comms device>rover moves>wait several more nanoseconds for ack signal to come back through wires>get confirmation rover has movedEffect still preceeds cause, you’re just not waiting on light lag from a distant location
>>16930796>Effect still precedes causeOnly from certain frames of reference (such as yours). Other frames will disagree, and say the rover moved before you sent the signal.Only with a light-speed or slower signal do all reference frames agree which happened first.
>>16930698>it just compresses spacetime so the future becomes anWould this mean that the future is predetermined already?
>>16930820Yes, it's called fate
>>16930816And those reference frames matter why?
>>16930826Because they could see the rover move and then tell you not to move it, breaking causality.
>>16930826because if they exist there are experiments where YOUR reference frame is the one where YOUR actions are preceded by their outcomeretard
>>16930838Explain how that works without just reciting it. They can’t tell me not to move the rover via STL means because then the signal will arrive 20 minutes late, and if they do it by FTL there’s still the light lag between them and the rover, and then back to the FTL comms.
>>16930846>oh no muh photons don’t make sense in my reference frame and I’m too autistic to reorganize the information I received or think for a second And?
FTL + Lorentz invariance -> broken causalityYou could have FTL without broken causality, but it would have to be not Lorentz invariant, meaning it doesn't work the same in every special relativity reference frame.>>16930850If you both have FTL then in your frame his message can arrive 19 minutes before he sent it. From his frame your message arrived 19 minutes before you sent it.
>>16930863> negative time < instantaneous < FTL time < round trip timestill not seeing how a message can arrive before it is sent. Sure, it’ll arrive ~20 minutes before an STL signal, and an FTL reply can arrive instantaneously instead of after a ~40 minute RTT, but that still doesn’t make the time negative
>>16930678No, FTL doesn't break causality. All of the arguments that allege FTL create causality violations are based on a logical fallacy. If an object moves faster than light, then that would mean that the second postulate of special relativity is FALSE (ie light is not constant in all frames of reference) and thus all of the equations in special relativity are also FALSE since those equations were DERIVED from the second postulate. The logical fallacy is that idiots input FTL numbers into the equations of special relativity to then predict that FTL creates causality violations. This is wrong and very stupid to do (even Einstein did this). The correct answer is to admit that a FTL object disproves postulate #2 and thus the equations for special relativity are wrong and thus special relativity cannot be used to make any predictions regarding what would happen to FTL objects. Instead, you would need to come up with a new theory of relativity if FTL objects exist.
Doesn't space expand faster than light already?Isn't that a problem for causality?
>>16930880Nothing can travel "through" space faster than light, but space itself can expand faster than light without interfering with causality because of no information is being transferred through the medium.
>>16930852>retard babble about photons that has nothing to do with reference framesbrainlet. If you can send a particle at superluminal speeds you can shoot yourself in the head 5 minutes before you pulled the trigger. Lacking FTL, you should shoot yourself in the head anyway.
>>16930793>FTL allows you to construct a frame where that exactly is possible.It doesn't though.>b-but light from the event of the cause will reach me after I have seen light from the event of the effect!! that means I'll see the effect before the cause!!!!Yes, because light has finite speed, but causality doesn't, it's just things happening after others. Does a jet aircraft break sound causality? No, that's absurd.>but light is the fastest thing alive like sonic the motherflipping hedgehog!!!Not in the FTL scenario, it isn't.
>>16930908>lightwhere does your rotted undergrad brain see light in any of that? Reference frames are not about photons. >It doesn't though.It does, and it is trivial to verify using highschool level math for a particle traveling at a constant, superluminal speed. You can of course say "well SRT/GRT categorically oppose superluminal speeds" in which case refer to >>16930875, which is a perfectly fine take but not in the spirit of what OP is asking.
>>16930678You were shot in the face by a ftl bullet and it will take years before the light catches up and kills you
>>16930891>sending particle of non-imaginary through space at superluminal speeds Not what I’m talking about. A stable communications-gauge wormhole would be more like it.
>>16930891>>16930920What is it with you IFLScience niggers and being violent towards anyone who questions your dead kike Saint Einstein?
>>16930925>wants information to travel faster than light but not particlesso a tachyonic telephone. You know the math of information traveling FTL is gonna play out the exact fucking same the moment you allow that information to affect matter? It's a roundabout way of doing the exact same.
>C is the speed of light in vacuum Oh but, turns out, the vacuum isn’t static. It only looks that way because the violent actions tend to happen in even opposites that average out to “nothing” when you zoom out. FTL travel just requires smoothing out the vacuum in front of your ship so that there’s less resistance to moving through it. You can do that with local vacuum polarization. In a polarized vacuum, light would also move faster than C.
>>16930928>IFLSci>said the undergrad fag that can't even take 5 minutes to write down a Lorentz boost and confirm the simplest fucking math
>Stein's;Gate was a really good anime
>>16930931>accuses me of graduating high schoolHigh praise for a tard with a GED. You still haven’t proven anything beyond appealing to (and not demonstrating the macroscale effects thereof) fancy faggot math that is, by its very nature, falsifiable. Give me something more convincing that dune coon runes.
Did the hyper inflation event of the big bang when the universe expanded at many times faster than the speed of light break causality?
>>16930678imagine a rocket going away from the earth. speed dilates time, so since it departed 10 years passed on Earth but 5 on the rocket.Now from the rocket's perspective. The rocket is stationary and it's the Earth the one that is going away at fast speeds. Speed dilates time so it's been 5 years since the rocket departed on the rocket but 2.5 years on Earth.Now send a message faster than the speed of light from Earth 10 years after the rocket departed, it's received by the rocket 5 years after it departed, and then it sends it back to Earth 2.5 years after it departed.The message traveled back in time 7.5 years>inb4 Earth's frame of reference is more valid than the rocket'sno it isn't. that's the whole point of relativity
>>16930867>>16930678>>16930678>>16930867You're correct, a FTL message cannot arrive before it is sent. This is basic logic that is over the heads of the idiots that you are talking to. You're arguing with idiots who mistakenly think that the message will arrive before it is sent because they mistakenly input the FTL numbers into the equations of special relativity and those equations told them that the message would arrive before it is sent, which is a mistake of logic because the equations of special relativity were never designed to make predictions for FTL objects because FTL objects are an explicit violation of the second postulate of special relativity. See >>16930875If you ask these people to explain how a message arrives before it is sent, without using the invalid FTL equations in special relativity, then you will see that they have no other argument to support their claim that FTL breaks causality. Their belief that FTL breaks causality is based only on their incorrect usage of the equations in special relativity.
>>16930959Oh so you're a HS dropout? Sorry I haven't been to McDonald's in years I rarely see your kind.>fancy faggot math>fancy>square roots and matrix multiplicationfiltered by Minkowski diagrams>m-m-math doesn't count!!all you got are vibes and gut feelings like the pop sci fag you are.
The only question of causality that remains unanswered, if what is this "Information" being transferred?In that I mean it literally...what IS information?Is it the voice sound waves, propagating through the oxygen molecule sub track layer? What even are the molecules?Electron probability clouds within a predictability range of a nucleus?Is it the photons being exchanged between the electrons and nucleus? Is it the quarks? Color? Charm? Where, exactly, is this "information"? WHAT exactly is it even? Were building "it" upTo bring "it" back downThe cycle repeatedAs explosions broke in the skyAll that "I" neededWas the one thing "I" couldn't findThe colors conflictedAs the flames climbed into the cloudsI wanted to fix thisBut couldn't stop from tearing it downAnd you were there at the turnCaught in the burning glowwwwwwwwwAnd I was there at the turnWaiting to let you knowwwwwwwwwwwwUwUYou told me yes, you held me highAnd I believed when you told that lieI played soldier, you played kingAnd struck me down when I kissed that ringYou lost that right to hold that crownI built you up but you let me downSo when you fall, I'll take my turnAnd fan the flames as your blazes burnWe can't wait to burn it to the ground
Henlo? I would like 1 piece of information pleaseAnd I need it in a hurry....like....yesterday....
>>16930678what if you don't travel? you 3d transform from a to b by jiggling the tesseracts
>>16930678It only breaks causality if you fly in a specific way to end up back where you started from before you left.So, just don't do that.
>>16930678Yes faster FTL breaks causality, because photons experience no time, so if you moved faster than a photon you would be reaching place Y from place X faster than any information could reach place Y from place X.Now, FTL isn't necessary, as I said photons experience no time, if you travelled AT the speed of light you would experience no time change from X to Y. However, for example, if |Y-X|= 1 million light years, then by the time you got to Y, 1 million years would have passed in X, o algo like that idfk. There's no getting around that; you can travel almost instantaneously in theory, but no one can ride the same photon at once.
Doesn't mass determine operating speed?I.E. The denser a mass is, the slower time passes near said dense mass object....(magnetic field interruption)So the energy required to transport a piece of "information" past light speed, would require the initial sending object to have an initial energy density, I.E. Mass, that slowed its information receiving/transcribing/reading time ratio down in proportion......evening out the time dilation difference....Inside of the super dense mass sending the information past light speed, time appears to pass very, very slowly, which means outside of it, time would look like sonic the hedgehog speedyboi....which means receiving information back on the outside looking in would like like an old boomer slowly opening a telegram with a letter opener while you, the outside observer low mass/density zoomer circles around them on your UniXeX electric Unicycle Zoomercycle *HONK**HONK*https://youtu.be/oonIKTzraxE?si=OLwWJLiJ-a0XbD2s
>>16930796Everything propagates at the speed of causality in spacetime all the time. There is zero experimental evidence of the contrary.
>>16930678Is as simple as saying breaking the speed of sound breaks the speed of sound, just using another words. Everything goes at the speed of causality in spacetime, light having no mass moves in space but not in time.
>>16930698>Albert JEWsteinAnon, after Abraham or Jesus, Einstein is possibly the most famous Jew to ever exist. It's really not necessary to call him a Jew; everyone is well aware.
>>16930820yes its called dark time
>>16930816this kind of shit is why i think relativity is fake and gay>twins paradox>solution is because one twin accerates and the other doesn't>system of RELATIVITY can't work unless you arbitrarily prefer one reference frame???also: so now that time passes slower for one twin (as established), surely seeing light move near the other twin now goes faster than light? Yet it can't go slower, or when he gets back, he won't be the younger twin. Shit makes no sense.
>>16930875>If an object moves faster than lightSilly contrarian, there's not necessarily an object moving FTL in this scenario, just a signal. Assuming the signal has a rest frame is unwarranted. You wouldn't claim the second postulate is false because light can move at the speed of light, would you?
>>16930911>where does your rotted undergrad brain see light in any of that?>superluminalI don't care if you identify yourself as "not talking about the speed of light" or what your favorite youtuber "science communicator" said, SR was a theory of light propagation and GR a theory of light propagation in an inhomogeneous medium from the very beginning, their main purpose is to massage the math in order to make the speed of light appear constant and simplify calculations.
>>16931210your previous schizobabble was about "light reaching" you in the thought experiment that supposes a particle (or information) travel at speeds greater c, which is conserved in the theory, yes. The thing people try to explain to you pops out of the simple math behind SRT. >something something youtubersyour h index is 0 and you can't follow HS math, who are you kidding?Fortunately you managed to be barely coherent enough to express that your proposed solution is that c is not conserved, which is valid, but I already gave you that way out. You're just showing a lack of understanding agreeing with me this indirectly.
>>16931273What qualifies as schizobabble is claiming that 1. causality has a speed, and 2. the speed of light has anything to do with it, and by extension 3. that SR/GR have anything special to say about it, though, all of which statements I contest.>muh credentials doe muhfuggaCongrats on getting your DEI degree and publishing ten papers about one salami sliced result with fifteen other people. But how does that contribute to the substance of your argument?
>>16930959>accuses me of graduating high schoolWoulda kept that to myself desu
>>16931022why does space have to be so scary? i understand the "space is fake and gay" posters they do it to protect their sanity
>>16931337congrats not even making it in HS but arguing loose semantics without any formal arguments>DEIunlike you I don't belong to a single minority group.
>>16930681>speed of light is the speed of causalityI keep hearing this, but I've never seen an actual explanation of why this is the case
>>16934161it's bullshit theoretics from people who get paid to write unfalsifiable bullshit as far as I'm concerned
>>16930678As long as FTL involves non-conventional travel (doing funky stuff with spacetime as opposed to just normally traveling through it) it doesn't break causality, it just leads to some interesting "paradoxes" where from some frames of reference an observer might reckon an effect preceding its cause.
>>16934161that's because it is a brainlet takeeinstein never claimed it was
>>16930681Yeah bro it's totally true 30 ly away that Michael Jackson is still aliveThis map is the territory stuff is wild.
Hello, another brainlet here. Would going FTL in a wormhole break relativity too?
>>16930863You have negative IQ
>>16931061there's 0 experimental evidence you're not jewish
>>16930678If it would, FTL would be impossibleThis was recognized immediately (over a hundred years ago) and impossible reality circuits were proposed to demonstrate the absurdity of such an interpretation.We kind of need it for sci-fi tho.
What if I go FTL inside of a wormhole that's inside of a black hole that's a hawking point inside of a supervoid, and then I throw a rock in front of me, and then the rock has a little explosive device on it that propels it forward after I throw it, and
and the black holes are merging and there's a third supermassive black hole nearby and that's nearby a fourth ultramassive black hole which is nearby a 5th hypermassive black hole and
>>16936916>>16936917it ends with everyone walking the dinosaur
The fact that there is a universal speed limit is just another proof that the universe is a simulation.Or somehow there are limited resources.If everything would propagate instantaneously everything you do would affect everything else in the universe and vice versa , going back and forth in an exponentially increasing wave. The universe would have collapsed in a black hole in the first 10^-n secondsThat's not to say that exceptions are not possible. But each one would have nasty consequeneces
>>16930678FTL travel is instant, so yes
What if you're manipulating the values of relative permeability and permittivity if the vacuum to artificially raise or lower the maximum value of c in your small region of space? You're not going "faster than light" you're just raising the speed limit. You also now remember LiJun Wang at the NEC Laboratory Princeton in year of our Lord 1999.https://www.scribd.com/document/208319/NEC-Time-Travel-Experiment-in-2000
If a true vacuum is impossible how do we know the speed of light in a vacuum?
>>16930780you can already travel to another galaxy in seconds (in theory). if you can accelerate arbitrarily close to speed of light in arbitrarily short amounts of time, from your reference it would be nearly instant and you could travel anywhere in the universe. to everyone on earth it would take millions/billions of years and of course in reality the technology needed to give you the practically infinite amounts of energy needed to do such a thing probably isnt possible, but theres nothing about the laws of physics that says you cant.
Some kinds would.Physics might allow the kind where you have a gate at both ends but your have to get there the slow way at least once to set up the gate
>>16936525Yes
