I Can Tachyonic Antitelephone Overcome Causality and Chronology Protection?

Falcus
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Now, first off I am punching well above my weight here but oh well. I am doing an extended project on theoretical methods of space travel and was doing some brief reading in the middle of writing about Miguel Alcubierre's warp drive for hyper fast travel within general relativity. I came across the suggestion of using tachyonic particles which lead me to the tachyonic antitelephone. It said that this would possible violate causality, firstly I do not fully grasp causality I don't think so an explanation of this as simple as possible would be nice, secondly, I know that the warp drive is suggested to violate causality but is affected by the chronology protection conjecture as to prevent closed timelike loops, does this same principle not apply to the tachyonic antitelephone? What I have said may just be a load of rubbish as as I say I am just a bit out of my depth but worth a try.

Thanks in advance
Falcus
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Falcus said:
firstly I do not fully grasp causality I don't think so an explanation of this as simple as possible would be nice
Imagine you follow this thread for a while, after some time you decide that the question has been answered, and send back all that information to you yesterday. As you (yesterday) knows the answer, you do not create the thread. But the thread exists...
Alternatively, imagine someone now sends you the text in the first post to you in the past, and imagine you just copied it to create the thread. Who wrote the thread?

There are a few possible solutions to this problem:
- self-consistency: something prevents you from sending the information back in time, or even if you do you still start the thread for some reason. Inconsistent universes cannot exist, therefore the universe is consistent
- causality: chains like "A leads to B leads to A (or not A)" do not exist (chronology protection conjecture)
- those time travel things lead to alternative timelines in some way
 
  • Like
Likes ComplexVar89
Falcus said:
...firstly I do not fully grasp causality I don't think so an explanation of this as simple as possible would be nice...

Say there are two events, A and B, and according to you A causes B. So for instance A could be someone throwing a switch at one location and B could be a light coming on at another location. It can be shown that if the transmission of the signal from the one location to the other travels faster than the speed of light, then there exists another frame of reference, traveling at some speed relative to you, for which event B occurs before event A. That violates causality - in that frame an observer would determine that the light came on before the switch was thrown.
 
  • Like
Likes Falcus
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
Back
Top