Re: Why it is impossible to reverse temporal ordering in superluminal information transfer.

From: ZZBunker (zzbunker_at_netscape.net)
Date: 11/13/04 

Date: 13 Nov 2004 04:31:33 -0800

"Greysky" <greyskynospam@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:<F8Ued.18268$nj.6342@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>...
> "If you can move faster than light you will go backwards in time"
>
> This is the paradox most trundle out to show how impossible it is to either
> move or communicate superluminally. In the case of communicating devices, a
> straight forward interpretation of the lorentz transform equations used in
> relativity theory will mean at speeds V>C, t < 0. If you are using some
> superluminal communication scheme, for example, in some reference frame that
> is reletivistically accelerated with respect to the transmitter frame, it
> will be
> possible to experience the reception of information before it is generated.
> This needs closer looking into. A good question to ask is "How may we
> decide a transmission we are listening to is indeed being sent from the
> future in this manner?"
>
> There is no easy way to determine this without having prior knowledge of the
> transmitter frame, something which is not assumed in conventional
> information transfer theory
> so should also not be assumed in superluminal information transfer
> frameworks. If we have learned
> one thing from researchers running EPR style experiments where superluminal
> entanglements
> have been demonstrated, it is this: You need a point of reference to compare
> to or it is impossible to see if such a connection has been made. In the
> case
> of EPR experiments, the researchers need to compare their data at a later
> time at which point they are able to tell whether such a connection has
> taken place or not.
> But, this is non immediate. The only way it can be immediate requires a
> God-like (omnipresent) perspective.
> If some third party is able to view both the sender and the receiver from
> his own reference frame
> he may -or may not- see temporal reversibility, but this is not a valid
> solution for the persons conducting
> the experiment because the third party is outside the light cones of the
> individuals conducting the experiment,
> and can not communicate his results to them until a later time. This is a
> valuable insight into future FTL schema: it can
> only be party to party, and not third party without also admitting potential
> causality violations. In my experiments,
> P2 probability wave generation does indeed satisfy this 2-party requirement,
> as there is currently no method to
> allow a third party to directly influence information flow without the use
> of a remote access point, which by its very
> nature introduces a proportionate time delay which keeps time positive
> valued. This is but one fundamental difference between
> FTL "radio" communications and conventional radio communications, and also
> points out why the term 'radio' is not an appropriate
> adjective to use with superluminal communications.
>
> In fact, there are only two solutions to the so-called paradox of global
> causality violation owing to temporal effects:
> 1) Negative values for transform results while valid mathematically, are a
> phenomenologically disallowed state in
> reality, or, 2) because of the limitations of physical processes, even if
> experimenters are communicating superluminally,
> they will never be in a position to observe causality violations caused by
> their own actions. Either way, if you can
> never see causality being violated by your own actions, it is a meaningless
> exercise to consider anything you do is not
> allowed by present theory.

  It is not impossible to reverse temporal ordering
  in any "physical" system. Since all temporal "ordering"
  means in Relativity is that Euclid invented
  Geometry, and not Einstein and Schroedinger.

  It is impossible to reverse entropic ordering
  in FTL. Since if you did that would that imply
  sci.relativity knew things about physics,
  rather than just String Theory, which is known to be
  physically impossible.

  

>
> Greysky
>
> www.allocations.cc
> Learn how to build your own FTL radio

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cross Application Communication
    ... > establish a connection (e.g. socket base solution, ... Can we need to standardize with other third party ... > application on the format of the data. ... If you want you app always running you could write a service, and communicate with it ) ...
    (microsoft.public.pocketpc.developer)
  • Re: Why it is impossible to reverse temporal ordering in superluminal information transfer.
    ... > so should also not be assumed in superluminal information transfer ... > If some third party is able to view both the sender and the receiver from ... > and can not communicate his results to them until a later time. ... > they will never be in a position to observe causality violations caused by ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Can XP Home Client talk to an NT40 Server?
    ... >It is possible they may see one another and be able to communicate in a ... >workgroup, but most likely you have a domain with the NT server in the ... There is a third party that allows this. ... Greg R ...
    (microsoft.public.windowsxp.general)