Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox

From: John Schoenfeld (j.schoenfeld_at_programmer.net)
Date: 01/29/05 

Date: 28 Jan 2005 18:46:10 -0800

Tom Roberts wrote:
> John Schoenfeld wrote:
> > Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>Any receiver will "receive" random signals. We normally call that
> >>noise. Your entire discussion is flawed. In essence you are
claiming
> >>that aliens located everywhere throughout the universe are sending
> >>"superluminal signals", and the noise in our radios proves it --
> >> NONSENSE!
> >
> > What you missed was that if the alien transmission CAUSED the noise
on
> > your radio then there is non-zero probability of information
exchange.
>
> You have no way of knowing that. If the received signal is truly
random,
> it cannot be corelated with those alien transmitters, and there can
be
> no such "information exchange".
>
>
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion
>
> That is describing a case in which sub-luminal motion is wrongly
> interpreted as "superluminal". It is irrelevant here.

You misspoke. And you forgot to qualify with "according to most
physicists". Most physcists also believed the perihellion advance of
Mercury's orbit was caused by Newtonian gravitional field pertubations,
before they were wrong. To conjecture cause of said observational
anomaly is far from proving such.

>
> >>And if by "nothing" you meant "no thing", then
> >>indeed no THING can travel faster than the local speed of light.
But
> >>there are phenomena other than things,
> >
> > That doesn't make any sense. Perhaps you would be better served
> > distinguishing between things physical, and things not physical.
>
> There is no THING that is "not physical".

Anything derivable a priori is such thing, and that there exist
entities not bound by space, time or "consciousness" has non-zero
probability. Even entity indescribable by number.

>
> >>>http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/4/7/8/1
> >>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/781199.stm
> >>>http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/07/20/speed.of.light.ap/
> >>
> >>Those are group velocity > c. But they did not measure the front
> >>velocity of their signals, and the speed limit applies to the front
> >>velocity (the velocity of information carried by the wave). In none
> >> of those experiments did any information or energy travel faster
than c.
> >>
> >>What does travel faster than c is an interference effect among
> >> multiple waves that individually travel slower than c.
> >
> > Was "interference effect" recorded recorded before, simultaneously
or
> > after the light signals arrived at the receiver?
>
> The waves are arriving before, during, and after the interference
effect
> known as "group velocity" arrived at the detector. Its arrival could
be
> completely predicted before its arrival by observing the phases of
the
> component waves, so it carries no information not already present in
the
> component waves, and _THEY_ travel slower than c. This is merely a
wave
> analogy of the "point of crossing for a pair of scissors can move
faster
> than c" -- no information can be carried.

Superluminal causality has non-zero probability of carrying
information, I say.

>
> Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox
    ... >> What you missed was that if the alien transmission CAUSED the noise ... physicists". ... > The waves are arriving before, during, and after the interference ... Superluminal causality has non-zero probability of carrying ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Episode from the history of physics.
    ... medium at all for there to be waves, ... Are you saying that a medium does not have to be present for there to ... This happens because, in their own words, physicists ... such results for the human understanding. ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Lightspeed exceeded
    ... Faraday's constants at what speed "EM waves" might be expected to ... And whenever one of the mathematicians mentioned some simple ... I think that mathematicians are to theoretical physicists rather like ... And theoretical physicists are to engineers like mathematicians are to ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.
    ... That's becusae lots of detours always appear that weren't on the ... Most of the detours exist because several physicists ... >looking waves, in my opinion. ... There exists no reason for a debate over particles vs waves, ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Division by Zero in Nature, and Decomposition of Time.
    ... That's becusae lots of detours always appear that weren't on the ... Most of the detours exist because several physicists ... >looking waves, in my opinion. ... There exists no reason for a debate over particles vs waves, ...
    (sci.astro.amateur)
Quantcast