Re: Superluminal information transfer paradox

From: John Schoenfeld (j.schoenfeld_at_programmer.net)
Date: 01/28/05 

Date: 28 Jan 2005 10:17:36 -0800

Bilge wrote:
> John Schoenfeld:
> >
> >Bilge wrote:
> >> John Schoenfeld:
> >> >I have a question about superluminal information transfer. It
is
> >known
> >> >that a superluminal signal may be transmitted, but that
information
> >> >cannot accompany it.
> >>
> >> That isn't correct. A signal carries information, so if
information
> >> can't propagte faster than light, then neither can a signal.
> >
> >The unwary reader is getting the impression that nothing can travel
> >faster than light,
>
> That should be ``astute reader.''
>
> >when in reality there is weak theoretical basis
> >(some QFT models) and strong empirical evidence to suggest
otherwise.
>
> Bzzzzt. There is no theoretical basis for superluminal amything.

As I suggested in my previous post, some QFT models do not require the
alegbra of the causal completion of space-time to be equivalent to the
algebra of space-time. This means that under certain circumstances
Lorentzian maximum frame velocity does not apply. If one only considers
Relativity, this result is underivable.

> >The question is whether or not information can be transmitted
> >superluminally.
>
> The real question is why you (and others) find it more satisfying
> to try and ``overthrow'' relativity at the level that relativity
> is simply a fact rather than put the same effort into studying
> enough basic physics to understand what the real questions are.

You are now moving the argument into a personal one and attacking my
motivations instead of the content of my argument. If my argument is
wrong, so be it. But perhaps you would be better served elaborating on
your "superluminal anything is impossible" argument by explaining why
in the context of Local Quantum theory this result is not always hold
(I recommend you familiarize yourself with Haag-Kastler.)

> There is a lot of interesting physics in every subdiscipline, yet
> the only ones that are constantly an issue on this newsgroup are
> the ones that were answered long ago.

This is a red herring which you are raising to divert the argument. If
I'm wrong then explain why this result does not always hold in Quantum
theory.

> >I outlined in my original post that if anything travels faster than
> >light, then information can sometimes be carried. This means that a
> >receiver has a non-zero chance of recording superluminal
information
> >and it means that an infinite set of receivers would record all
> >superluminal (finite)-information instantaneously.
>
> I know what you outlined. What you outlined is wrong.

If you cannot show why, your argument is only opinion.

> [...]
> >"Comparing datasets" is a common red herring raised by priests, but
> >such comparisons are unnecessary. The receiver always assumes the
> >information is valid at the physical layer (otherwise it would be
> >constrained by c/2). Half-duplex information receivers like
televisions
> >and radios are perfect examples of this.
>
> I suggest, ``Kolmogorov Complexity and It's Applications,''
> vitanyi and li, ``The Physics of Information,'' ed. Zurek, W.,
> and john preskill's web site at caltech on quantum information.

I am very familiar with the work of Kolmogorov, and it does not help
your argument at all. Instead it is the basis of my argument, and that
is that the Kolmogorov zero-one law dictates superluminal information
exchange can occur as a tail event.

I also see you have omitted the links which I previously posted. I have
restored them below.

> 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/

Also, observations in astronomy show an apparant superluminal motion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superluminal_motion

Quantcast