Can information travel faster than light?

[MeJennifer]

I don't know what you mean, but information can't be transmitted at the speed of light.

I beg to differ. If you look into a laser I can assure you that information is transferred at the speed of light.

 

[George Jones]

I beg to differ. If you look into a laser I can assure you that information is transferred at the speed of light.

I meant to echo what the poster had written; i.e., I meant to write "transferred instantly," but my fingers typed "transmitted at the speed of light."

 

[MeJennifer]

I figured that something like that was happening :)

 

[azzkika]

light is susceptible to gravity. is gravity constant, irrespective of distance??
if gravity increases the closer it's mass is, then as light approaches mass, it should in theory speed up, but i don't know enough about gravity to make this assertion.for light to travel at a constant speed it would need any influencing forces to be constant, so if gravity differs then light speed would differ also?? if gravity is variable and increases with nearness of mass then surely as light closes in on huge gravity it's speed increases beyond it's normal speed.
now as light is a medium of information if the above thought(nothing more - I'm no scientist and know little of physics) is correct, if light was used as a medium and sent to a black hole for example, as it nears the black hole the information would speed up faster than normal light speed. this is an amateuers assumption. so if this was the case information would be traveling faster than the speed of light where the information originated. however, if gravity is variable, then what is the true speed of light if it is subject to these variances??

 

[thomasxc]

information can travel faster than light. but it is never useful information.

 

[George Jones]

information can travel faster than light. but it is never useful information.

Can you give an example?

It might be that not everyone uses the same definition for the term "information".

 

[DaveC426913]

information can travel faster than light. but it is never useful information.

Care to elaborate? Or were you just kidding?

Even "useless" information is quite useful. At the very least, its arrival can tell you that the sender is sending. Beef that up and you've got Morse Code. Now you can send an Encyclopedia.

Information cannot travel faster than light.

 

[thomasxc]

yes. let's say man A always wears one blue sock and one red sock, but never on the same feet. if you see him take off one shoe and see that its a blue sock, them you know, faster than light, that the other sock it red. michio kaku's "parallel worlds" explains it better.but that's what i got out of it.

 

[George Jones]

yes. let's say man A always wears one blue sock and one red sock, but never on the same feet. if you see him take off one shoe and see that its a blue sock, them you know, faster than light, that the other sock it red. michio kaku's "parallel worlds" explains it better.but that's what i got out of it.

No, information hasn't traveled faster than light. A few posts before your post I wrote

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1802204#post1802204

Read this.

 

[thomasxc]

ahhh. i see. thnx. i wasnt sure if i was right or not. that clears things up...

 

[Green Zach]

Wouldnt the simple answer be just that every particle was propelled at the rate which the stick was moved? let's say.. 10m/s? nothing goes faster than the speed of light... but the atoms in the stick all move at the same velocity... i think you just need to see the stick as a separate body. if you had a stick from Earth to Mars then pushed it a bit then instantly saw a reaction on Mars even thou it should take light a bit of time to get there, the entire body of the stick would move so its technically not transferring info faster than the speed of light... its just really big lol. technically you would also only be able to observe the stick moving at the speed of light like a wave of change if you were to watch that happen. that's my little nontechnical reasoning

 

[DaveC426913]

if you had a stick from Earth to Mars then pushed it a bit then instantly saw a reaction on Mars even thou it should take light a bit of time to get there, the entire body of the stick would move so its technically not transferring info faster than the speed of light...

Information doesn't have to be transferred by light, it can also be transferred mechanically.

If your proposal were correct (that the stick were perfectly rigid, and pressing on one end would instantly move the other end) then you would have an instant communications system between Earth and Mars. You'd just attach a telegraph clicker to each end of the stick.

But SR specifically prohibits perfectly rigid objects. Any object is made of matter. Matter can only move at speeds < c. That means the molecules of the stick can only transfer their motion to other molecules at < c. In fact, much less than c - only at the speed of sound in that material (which ofr Earthly materials is a mere few multiples of 1000mph).

 

[Razzor7]

The concept of no rigid bodies makes sense to me, but does this imply that there is no indivisible unit? Or has this already been demonstrated by other areas of physics?

 

[DaveC426913]

The concept of no rigid bodies makes sense to me, but does this imply that there is no indivisible unit? Or has this already been demonstrated by other areas of physics?

I believe the concept of indivisible units was a problem of the ancient Greeks. It's certainly been resolved with the atomic theory of matter. We now know that the atom is the smallest unit of matter (unless you split hairs about subatomic particles).

 

[Sam G]

[First post here, go easy on me please:shy:]

Is this similar to the disappearing Sun question? If the Sun instantaneously disappeared, we on Earth would not see it's disappearance for the several minutes it takes for light to travel that far. However, how long would it take for the gravitational effects to be disrupted?

Or in other words, how fast does gravity travel and is it faster/slower than light?

 

[Razzor7]

I believe the concept of indivisible units was a problem of the ancient Greeks. It's certainly been resolved with the atomic theory of matter. We now know that the atom is the smallest unit of matter (unless you split hairs about subatomic particles).

Are subatomic particles rigid?

 

[DaveC426913]

[First post here, go easy on me please:shy:]

Is this similar to the disappearing Sun question? If the Sun instantaneously disappeared, we on Earth would not see it's disappearance for the several minutes it takes for light to travel that far. However, how long would it take for the gravitational effects to be disrupted?

Or in other words, how fast does gravity travel and is it faster/slower than light?

Gravity is all around us. Changes in gravity travel in waves. The waves move at the speed of light. So, if the Sun disappeared, we would not know it for 8 minutes.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are subatomic particles rigid?

subatmoic particles are points; they have no physical dimension. They influence each other by their fields. Changes to their fields propagate at the speed of light.

 

[MeJennifer]

subatmoic particles are points; they have no physical dimension. They influence each other by their fields. Changes to their fields propagate at the speed of light.

In that case you might want to explain what you mean by:

Information doesn't have to be transferred by light, it can also be transferred mechanically.

 

[DaveC426913]

subatmoic particles are points; they have no physical dimension. They influence each other by their fields. Changes to their fields propagate at the speed of light.

In that case you might want to explain what you mean by:

Information doesn't have to be transferred by light, it can also be transferred mechanically.

Why? Is it ambiguous?

Mechanical forces ultimately come down to forces between subatomic particles in atoms, which are still, ultimately, fundamental forces governed by c.

The point that the poster was making was he thought that the only way we could transmit information was by light, which is limited by c, and that a stick might bypass that.

 

[Razzor7]

subatmoic particles are points; they have no physical dimension. They influence each other by their fields. Changes to their fields propagate at the speed of light.

Ahh... I still suffer from Classical Syndrome.

 

[Sam G]

Mechanical forces ultimately come down to forces between subatomic particles in atoms, which are still, ultimately, fundamental forces governed by c.

The point that the poster was making was he thought that the only way we could transmit information was by light, which is limited by c, and that a stick might bypass that.

This is quite intriguing, please tell me if the following would be correct:

I have a laser pointer with a mechanical switch/lever attached to a rod that is exactly 1 light minute long. This rod would run the same direction that the laser points to and is a two piece apparatus, or a rod inside a pipe, which would allow for an on/off indicator at the opposite or long end. Essentially this would be a long mechanical button that pushes and pulls the lever of the laser switch.

Now this thing is up in outer space with a person holding each end. It would seem to me, that if I were on the long or indicator end of this thing, I could push the rod/button to the 'on' position and see the light from the laser after 1 minute.

Then, the other person on the laser end could switch the lever off -moving the rod/button into the off indicating position on my end- allowing me to know that I would see the light go out in 1 minute. The actions by the other person would change the information of the on/off indicator on my end and it would be received exactly 1 minute sooner than seeing the light, right?

What I think you're going to tell me is that when the person on the other end manipulates the switch -I will see both the light and the indicator on my end change 1 minute later or at the same time on my end. It would also be true then that when I push the rod/button to the 'on' position and even though the laser is only 1 light minute in length -it would actually take 2 minutes for me to see the light from the laser.

Is that right?

 

[DaveC426913]

This is quite intriguing, please tell me if the following would be correct:

I have a laser pointer with a mechanical switch/lever attached to a rod that is exactly 1 light minute long. This rod would run the same direction that the laser points to and is a two piece apparatus, or a rod inside a pipe, which would allow for an on/off indicator at the opposite or long end. Essentially this would be a long mechanical button that pushes and pulls the lever of the laser switch.

Now this thing is up in outer space with a person holding each end. It would seem to me, that if I were on the long or indicator end of this thing, I could push the rod/button to the 'on' position and see the light from the laser after 1 minute.

Then, the other person on the laser end could switch the lever off -moving the rod/button into the off indicating position on my end- allowing me to know that I would see the light go out in 1 minute. The actions by the other person would change the information of the on/off indicator on my end and it would be received exactly 1 minute sooner than seeing the light, right?

What I think you're going to tell me is that when the person on the other end manipulates the switch -I will see both the light and the indicator on my end change 1 minute later or at the same time on my end. It would also be true then that when I push the rod/button to the 'on' position and even though the laser is only 1 light minute in length -it would actually take 2 minutes for me to see the light from the laser.

Is that right?

I don't really understand your apparatus. I don't understand what a 'long end' is, or how many lengths the light or the rod is moving.

But the upshot is that the light will take one minute to travel one length of your device. The switch will actually take much longer than one minute - it will take as long as the speed of sound travels through that material, which might be only a few thousand miles per hour.

 

[yuiop]

information can travel faster than light. but it is never useful information.

Can you give an example?

It might be that not everyone uses the same definition for the term "information".

I know what thomasxc is getting at here and George is right that we have to evaluate carefully or even redefine exactly what we mean by "useful information". When quantum entanglement is carefully evaluated it seems nature can communicate at a sub operating level at speeds that are effectively instantaneous and infinitely faster than the speed of light. This quantum communication channel does not seem to be available at a level that can be used by sentient beings to communicate faster than the speed of light. Now this statement requires quite a lot of elaboration so I hope you will bear with me as I try to explain better. When I stated that entangled particles can "communicate" instantaneously with each other I mean that that a measurement made on one entangled particle has an instantaneous causal effect on it entangled partner over great distances and much faster than the speed of light. Despite this instananeous causal connection between the entangled particles it can not be used by two spatially separated observers to communicate useful information to each other at superluminal speeds. For this discussion I will define "useful information" as information about an event in space in time. For example the statement "Bob knows Anne has a red sock in her box" is useless information while "Bob knows Anne opened the box and saw a red sock at 12.30 pm on Saturday 26/07/2008" is useful information.

Care to elaborate? Or were you just kidding?

Even "useless" information is quite useful. At the very least, its arrival can tell you that the sender is sending. Beef that up and you've got Morse Code. Now you can send an Encyclopedia.

Information cannot travel faster than light.

Imagine two distant civilisations that are very advanced but have not learned to live in peace with each other. They each have powerful laser weapons that can destroy each others home worlds and there is a cold war of mistrust. It would be very desirable to have some sort of early warning system in this situation to know if they are under attack but once one of the the lasers is activated, any early warning system would require superluminal communication. Can quantum entanglement be usefully employed here? Anne and Bob are peace loving and they decide to give it a go. A red sock in placed in one box and a blue sock is placed in the another box. Bob picks a box at random and Anne has the other and neither know what colour sock they have in their box. In fact these are magic quantum socks and they each have a grey sock in their box but as soon as one box is opened it decides to to be blue or red and sends an instaneous signal to the other box that turns it into the opposite colour. Anne travels off to infiltrate the enemy civilisation while Bob stays at home. Anne is successful in her infiltration and finds out the enemy are about to activate the death laser in a pre-emptive attack :O She quickly opens her quantum box and finds she has a red sock inside. By opening the box and seeing a blue sock inside, Anne has caused the sock in Bob's box to turn red instantaneously. Anne now knows Bob has a red sock and if Bob happened to open his box he would have the information "Anne has a blue sock". Unfortunately Bob has no information about when Anne opened her box so the information is useless as an early warning that a laser attack has been launched. Bob is about to be fried to a crisp and as far as he is concerned having an early warning that an attack is underway so he can take avoiding action is useful information, while knowing instaneously what colour sock Anne will see if and when she opens her box is useless information. It does not matter what pre agreed code system they have for colour of socks or even if they have many boxes and open them at pre-agreed times they can not use the "magic quantum socks" to communicate information about events in space and time faster than the speed of light. This is despite the fact the socks CAN communicate causally with each other faster than the speed of light. (I justify this below)

...
Here's what I think you're trying to say.

Two boxes are side-by-side. Put a cat in one of the boxes and a dog in the other. Separate the boxes by some distance. Two people, Ted and Bob, the boxes open the boxes simultaneously (in some inertial frame). If Ted finds a dog in his box, then he knows instantaneously that Bob found a cat in his box. Ted knows this before there is enough time for Bob to send a signal to Ted, if signals propagate more slowly than the speed of light.

But, in order to know Bob's result, Ted already had information before he opened the box. He knew that one box contained a cat and the other a dog. No information traveled faster than the speed of light.

The example I gave of the blue or red socks or your example of dog or cat does not really illustrate the truly weird quantum entanglement is or why it is necessary to conclude that the entangled particles CAN communicate faster than the speed of light or indeed why they MUST communicate faster than the speed of light. To understand this it is helpful to imagine each box has two compartments. On compartment always contain an animal (dog or cat) and the other always contains a sock (red or blue) and the following rules apply:

1) Opening one compartment of a box to see what is inside locks the other compartment for good. You can never find out was inside the other compartment of the box.
2) If Anne sees a red sock then Bob will ALWAYS see a blue sock if he opens the sock compartment of his box.
3) If Anne sees a blue sock then Bob will ALWAYS see a red sock if he opens the sock compartment of his box.
4) If Anne sees a cat then Bob will ALWAYS see a dog if he opens the animal compartment of his box.
5) If Anne sees a dog then Bob will ALWAYS see a red sock if he opens the sock compartment of his box.
6) If Anne sees a dog then Bob will SOMETIMES also see a dog if he opens the animal compartment of his box.

The rules are exactly the same if the names of the observers are switched and it does not matter who opens their box first.

Now imagine a third person (Harry) who has the job of loading the boxes for Anne and Bob so that no matter which compartments they choose to open, the above rules are obeyed. Harry's job is easy if only the first 5 rules are considered but rule 6 is the killer. In order to obey rule 6 Harry must occasionally load a dog into both Anne's and Bob's boxes. This is fine if both Anne and Bob choose to open their respective animal compartments. But what if Anne finds a dog and Bob opens the sock compartment? Rule 5 says the Bob should find a red sock so Harry loads a red sock into Bob's sock compartment to cover that eventuality. If both Anne and Bob open the sock compartments they should find opposite coloured socks to obey rules 1 and 2 so harry loads Anne's sock compartment with a blue sock. But what if Bob opens the animal compartment and finds a dog and Anne decides to open her sock compartment? Rule 5 (with the names reversed) says Anne should find a red sock in her box, but Harry has put a blue sock in there already to comply with rules 1,2 and 6. Clearly Harry can not pre-load the boxes to cover all the eventualities without violating one of the rules. This is where the quantum wierdness comes in. Bell's inequalities mathematically prove there is no realistic deterministic method to pre load the boxes to satisfy quantum rules. Harry's pre-loading the boxes is what is sometimes referred to as "hidden variables". Experimental evidence rules out hidden predetermined variables and this is often referred to as violating Bell's inequalities in the literature. The only logical explanation of quantum entanglement that agrees with actual experiments is that the particles (the boxes) communicate faster than the speed of light with each other and opening one box and seeing what is inside instantaneously changes the contents of the other box.

In fact quantum entanglement is a little wierder than I have already described. I described each box as having two compartments of which you are only allowed to open one compartment to make it easier to visualise. A better description is a box with only one compartment and you have to ask a question before you open the box. So if Anne asks "What kind of animal is in my box?" she will find either a dog or a cat when she opens the box and no sign of socks anywhere in the box. If Anne asks "What colour socks are in my box?" she will find either a red sock or a blue sock and no hint of a dog or a cat or traces of fur in her box. What she sees when she opens the box depends on what question she asks of the box before she opens it. So if Anne asks what type of animal is her box and opens it to discover a dog, a signal is sent to Bob's box saying the contents are allowed to be cat, dog or red sock but blue sock is not allowed. If Bob asks what kind of sock is in his box then there is 100% probability of there being a red sock inside and nothing else. If he asked what kind of animal is in his box then the it may be a cat or sometimes a dog. So this is wierder than Schrödinger's half alive, half dead cat because Bob's box contains an entity that is part dog, part cat and part sock and whether it materialises as a living animal or a red sock when Bob opens the box depends on what question Bob asks before he opens the box. I hope this analogy gives you an idea of just how weird or magic quantum effects are ;)

 

[Sam G]

I don't really understand your apparatus. I don't understand what a 'long end' is, or how many lengths the light or the rod is moving.

But the upshot is that the light will take one minute to travel one length of your device. The switch will actually take much longer than one minute - it will take as long as the speed of sound travels through that material, which might be only a few thousand miles per hour.

When I say 'long end' I mean the opposite end from the laser.

I'm imagining the rod is 1 light minute in length and would only move about a quarter of an inch.

Still, your answer is much removed from what I was thinking. I imagined the rod would move all at once but, you say it would move even slower than what I'd thought you'd say.

How do both ends of the rod not move at the same time?

 

[MeJennifer]

This is despite the fact the socks CAN communicate causally with each other faster than the speed of light. (I justify this below)

I would not go as far as calling that a fact.

At any rate this discussion seems to be appropriate in the Quantum Mechanics section of this forum.

 

[yuiop]

When I say 'long end' I mean the opposite end from the laser.

I'm imagining the rod is 1 light minute in length and would only move about a quarter of an inch.

Still, your answer is much removed from what I was thinking. I imagined the rod would move all at once but, you say it would move even slower than what I'd thought you'd say.

How do both ends of the rod not move at the same time?

Imagine a very rubbery or springy rod. When you hit one end it compresses so that for a short time one end is moving while the other is not. A steel rod seems very rigid but it can still be compressed. Relativity states there is no such thing as an infinitely rigid or incompressible rod. Instaneous movement of both ends of a rod requires a rod to be infinitely rigid.

 

[Sam G]

Imagine a very rubbery or springy rod. When you hit one end it compresses so that for a short time one end is moving while the other is not. A steel rod seems very rigid but it can still be compressed. Relativity states there is no such thing as an infinitely rigid or incompressible rod. Instaneous movement of both ends of a rod requires a rod to be infinitely rigid.

Ok. I think I understand that. But it sure is weird. What would cause steel, or say I make it from diamonds, to loose it's rigidness?

Let's say I change from a rod to a long string on a pulley at both ends. Would the same rules apply?

 

[MeJennifer]

What would cause steel, or say I make it from diamonds, to loose it's rigidness?

Acceleration!

 

[yuiop]

Ok. I think I understand that. But it sure is weird. What would cause steel, or say I make it from diamonds, to loose it's rigidness?

Let's say I change from a rod to a long string on a pulley at both ends. Would the same rules apply?

Yes.

Imagine a rubber band with a weight on the end. You can pull one end while the other remains stationary. A cable made of the toughest material such as carbon nontubes or kevlar that is one light minute long is pretty much like an elastic band. Relativity effectily puts a limit on how tough a material can be.

Look at a slow motion film of a car in a crash test and you will see steel is not at all rigid.