Exactly how is causality violated by superluminal travel?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the implications of superluminal (FTL) travel, particularly tachyons, and how such travel might violate causality. Participants explore the theoretical framework of special relativity, the relativity of simultaneity, and the conditions under which causality could be violated in different inertial frames.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that causality could be violated locally with tachyons, questioning how this occurs in practical scenarios.
  • One participant explains that due to the relativity of simultaneity, different inertial frames can disagree on the order of events, leading to situations where a tachyon signal could be received before it was sent in some frames.
  • Another participant seeks analogies or spacetime diagrams to understand the transformations and how FTL signals could lead to causality violations, specifically questioning the conditions necessary for such violations to occur.
  • Some participants suggest that if two observers are at rest relative to each other when sending FTL signals, there may be no violation of causality, while others emphasize that FTL signals must travel backwards in time in some frames, leading to potential contradictions.
  • A participant expresses confusion about how to physically realize configurations that demonstrate causality violations, particularly in relation to the initial synchronization of observers' clocks.
  • There is a discussion about the concept of "now" in relativity, with participants questioning whether there is an absolute time or if "now" varies with different frames of reference.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of FTL travel for causality. Multiple competing views remain regarding the conditions under which causality may or may not be violated, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the application of mathematical transformations and the physical realizability of scenarios that lead to causality violations. The discussion reflects a reliance on specific definitions and assumptions that may not be universally accepted.

  • #31
DrGreg said:
No, it assumes the observers are inertial and therefore can't travel faster than light, but you can measure any events at all. My post that I linked to begins with three events, without any mention of motion.

OK. Right. I have this simpler scenario. Its very simple- I hope.

Bob (the cause) kills Alice (the effect) with a laser beam that takes 10 minutes to arrive at her location.

Alice's friend (Martha) sees the dead Alice and jumps into an FTL rocket to try to reverse the death. She travels back to Bob at 5 times the speed of light. So at 5c time goes backwards and she arrives at Bob a minute before he fires his laser and implores him not to shoot.

Bob is prevented from shooting. But Alice is already dead.

Now t1 = t2/SQRT(1 - vSQUARED/cSQUARED)
= t2SQRT(1 - 25)
= t2SQRT(-25)













If something cannot be explained simply then you do not understand it. (Einstein)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Assume light travels a planks length in one clock tick - and also assume that this is ontologically how light (or information) travels in space-time.

Then Lorentz corrections can be applied and all is dandy as we know already.

Now, assume that in one click of the clock an entity can travel multiple planks lengths instead of just one - steps. The previous Lorentz correction is no longer applicable.

That 'entity' could be a wave-function that travels in single steps and leaves no trace of its path. Why no trace? Because it jumped in one step. A wave-function is not information per se - it is 'knowledge of quantum states'. So it is allowed to go ftl.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
LaserMind said:
OK. Right. I have this simpler scenario. Its very simple- I hope.

Bob (the cause) kills Alice (the effect) with a laser beam that takes 10 minutes to arrive at her location.

Alice's friend (Martha) sees the dead Alice and jumps into an FTL rocket to try to reverse the death. She travels back to Bob at 5 times the speed of light. So at 5c time goes backwards and she arrives at Bob a minute before he fires his laser and implores him not to shoot.
An object emitted at speed 5c at the event of Alice's death, going at 5c in the direction towards Bob, reaches Bob 12 minutes after he fired the laser.

Also, the whole idea of Alice jumping into an FTL rocket is inconsistent with SR. Massive particles (like the ones in her body) can't be accelerated to, or past, the speed of light. The energy required to accelerate her to speed v goes to infinity as v→c.

LaserMind said:
If something cannot be explained simply then you do not understand it. (Einstein)
Only if you take this as a definition of what it means to understand something. I don't think that would make sense though. Physics is no longer about things that can be explained in simple terms. That doesn't mean that physics can't be understood.

SR is however one of those things that can be explained in simple terms. Spacetime diagrams are by far the simplest.

LaserMind said:
Assume light travels a planks length in one clock tick - and also assume that this is ontologically how light (or information) travels in space-time.
The Planck length has no special significance in special or general relativity. It only becomes relevant in quantum theories of gravity. Do you want to analyze this scenario using relativity or a quantum theory of gravity? What quantum theories of gravity do you know? :wink:
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
5K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 137 ·
5
Replies
137
Views
11K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K