Superluminal information transfer paradox
From: John Schoenfeld (j.schoenfeld_at_programmer.net)
Date: 01/26/05
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: Optics"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: CWatters: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Jim Black: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 26 Jan 2005 11:31:22 -0800
I have a question about superluminal information transfer. It is known
that a superluminal signal may be transmitted, but that information
cannot accompany it.
In this case, the sender transmits a superluminal signal which causes a
random signal to be recorded by the receiver, superluminally. But since
the receiver recorded a random signal, the probability that it
precisely matches the senders signal is greater than 0. Thus, given
sufficient communications the probability that at least one set of
information gets superluminally transmitted approaches certainty.
To prohibit these possibilities, one could argue that the receiver will
never receive a matching signal superluminally. But withdrawing
possibilities from what the receiver can possibly record is to imply an
order to what it is being record - an order which can be exploited to
communicate information superluminally.
Thus, if the receiver records random signals then there is a
possibility of superluminal information transfer, if it is not random
then it's implicit order can be exploited to transfer information.
Isn't this a paradox?
- Next message: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: Optics"
- Next in thread: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: robert j. kolker: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Uncle Al: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: CWatters: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Sam Wormley: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Jesse Mazer: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Jim Black: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Bilge: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Reply: Tom Roberts: "Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|