From: "Brian Atkins" <brian@posthuman.com>
| I think you would have to implement some kind of collision protocol such
| as in ethernet to prevent that :-)
:') Who knows, quantum computers cometh.
| Anyway, what you are describing is not the kind of paradox people keep
| going on about. It seems like whenever talk of FTL communications comes
| up, people start spouting off about the future, the past, paradoxes, etc.
| Just seems silly to me.
I agree. I don't see any practical application (like warning Nixon to
cancel the Watergate break in). In fact, the more I think about it, the
less likely the entire experiment (nyt) seems. What's really happening, I
think, is that the pulse is recieved visually before it *normally* would
be - not before it *happened*.
Anybody, correct me if I'm wrong.
In an extreme case, I might *percieve* FTL emissions from an event that
occured at a distance of 60 feet before you (at 6 inches) *percieve*
subluminal emissions from the same event. I don't, however, percieve the
event before it happens. It's all perception is my point - I think.
However, in the off chance that I am wrong on this, consider the following
"paradoxical" scenario:
In the hypothetical experiment below, the energy (electrons) exerted to
produce our initial lightwave (B-->F) (photons) was restored/never-exerted
once the transmission was aborted. At the same time, the transmission
(E-->C) would never have taken place if that energy was NOT exerted, so the
B-->F would have to be un-canceled.... so on and so forth... Beyond the
obvious "hey, that's impossible" response, consider the theory of
conservation of energy. Those photons were created by an exertion of
electrons which didn't actually happen - new energy was created without an
expenditure of old... Beam me up Scotty.
Anyway, paradoxes come up because the concept is intriguing and very
difficult (or impossible) to fully understand within the constraints of our
system of logic. In other words, paradoxes are cool.
Random thought: replace the experiment's second device (DEF) with a mirror
inside the cesium chamber.
| Ian Field wrote:
| >
| > Brian Atkins Wrote:
| >
| > > And I still don't see (assume for a moment they really can transmit
| > > light, and therefore information, faster than normal lightspeed) how
| > > sending light faster than normal would lead to any kind of paradox.
| >
| > Imagine the following:
| >
| > You have a lightwave controller (A), which controls a light transmitter
(B),
| > and which is connected to a light receiver (C). You have a similiar
| > configuration on the far end of the "tunnel" - let's say controller (D),
| > transmitter (E), and receiver (F).
| >
| > See diagram at http://enablia.dynip.com/public/unreal.gif
| >
| > In a particular experiment, I program A to send a signal through B which
is
| > recieved by F. I also program D to, at the moment it recieves a signal
| > through F, send a signal to C (via E). I then program A to abort the
| > transmission through B if it recieves a signal through C. Assume that
| > controller to peripheral communication costs 0 time. Let's also assume
that
| > data processing and code execution costs 0 time. (I'm asking for some
| > imagination here!).
| >
| > So, A tells B to send a FTL signal to F. D, upon recieving this signal,
| > tells E to send a FTL signal to C. A, upon receiving this signal (via
C),
| > aborts the original transmission WHICH HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. Paradox
| > anyone?
| >
| > Ian
|
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:19 MDT
