Sending information faster than speed of light?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of information transmission and the implications of faster-than-light communication. Participants explore scenarios involving light signals and the nature of information, questioning whether correlations can be considered as information and discussing the reliability of information received from natural phenomena versus constructed systems.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a scenario where shining different colored lights at two people could imply faster-than-light information transfer, suggesting that the observer could infer information about the distant person based on the light they see.
  • Another participant counters that correlation does not equate to information, asserting that no actual message was transmitted between the two observers.
  • A later reply questions the reliability of information received from distant sources, suggesting that changes could occur in the information before it is observed.
  • Participants discuss the implications of entropy on information, with some expressing surprise at interpretations that suggest everything is possible, while others emphasize that physical laws still apply.
  • There is a mention of the potential for deception in the interpretation of distant astronomical observations, with a humorous analogy about a distant galaxy possibly being a trick.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the nature of information and whether correlations can be considered as valid communication. There is no consensus on the implications of entropy or the reliability of information from natural versus constructed sources.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of defining information and communication, as well as the potential for misunderstanding in the context of physical laws and entropy. The discussion remains open-ended without resolving these nuanced points.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring concepts in physics, information theory, and the philosophical implications of communication and observation in the universe.

howabout1337
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Say I am in the middle of two people that are 2 lightseconds (we'll call this unit a distance that speed travels in 1 second) away from me. They are 4 lightseconds away from each other. So these two guys are my friends, and before they moved to 2 lightseconds away from me, I told them, if I am shining a red light at one of you, that means I am shining a green light at the other person.

They tell me OK, and they move 2 lightseconds away from me. So I shine a red light at one of them, and a green light at the other. So the guy that sees the green light says "hey! the guy that is 4 lightseconds away from me is seeing the red light, and I only know this in 2 seconds!" VOILA! information have just traveled faster than the speed of light
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Come on. We all know the information came to him from 2ls away and took 2s.

Of course, you could have lied, in which case it is disinformation.
 
howabout1337 said:
So the guy that sees the green light says "hey! the guy that is 4 lightseconds away from me is seeing the red light, and I only know this in 2 seconds!" VOILA! information have just traveled faster than the speed of light
Correlation is not information. No information was sent 4 lightseconds. I.e. there is no way for the person at one end to use this method to encode a message to the person at the other end.
 
aha! I set you guys up! I knew you were going to answer that.

Now to my next question. Whenever we receive information, how do we know that the information might not have changed regardless? maybe the light 10 billion lightyears away that we are just getting now might actually be a monster, that turns into light at some point that it crosses through the universe. After all, entropy says everything is possible, just the matter of chance, how often it is going to occur.

Yea of course I am a person, and I can lie, and they will never know. Now, what if the two guys make a machine, that is maybe as accurate as any information can be. That when one side of the machine sends out a green light, the other side would send out a red one.

How much more reliable are information from "nature" than information from something that can make choices? How do we know our "detectors" are not lying to us, and we might be getting false information?
 
DaleSpam said:
Correlation is not information. No information was sent 4 lightseconds. I.e. there is no way for the person at one end to use this method to encode a message to the person at the other end.

Oh man, so they can't communicate. Communication = information. Alright I get it, thanks.
 
howabout1337 said:
After all, entropy says everything is possible, just the matter of chance, how often it is going to occur.
This interpretation of entropy is news to me. I thought that even when entropy is considered, things still had to obey the laws of physics.

Yea of course I am a person, and I can lie, and they will never know.
It's always possible, of course, that what we think is a galaxy 13 billion light years away is just some joker holding up a picture of one.
 
Bill_K said:
This interpretation of entropy is news to me. I thought that even when entropy is considered, things still had to obey the laws of physics.

Bill_K I cracked up when I read this...I'm sure this "interpretation" of entropy is general in nature, and assumes the laws of physics do apply to the phrase "everything is possible", nearly to the point of your retort...why wouldn't they?

Bill_K said:
It's always possible, of course, that what we think is a galaxy 13 billion light years away is just some joker holding up a picture of one.

And from a causality perspective it makes no difference if it is, presently.
 
Last edited:
howabout1337 said:
Oh man, so they can't communicate. Communication = information. Alright I get it, thanks.

This thread lead me to read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information...wow physics is a ridiculously deep subject. Anyways, I suppose what you're suggesting is a "field" of physics. I can't understand it in the slightest :-p
 

Similar threads

Undergrad One way speed of light
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
1K
High School Why Do Events Freeze For Me at the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Undergrad Time dilation and the human body
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
High School One-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 93 ·
4
Replies
93
Views
6K
Undergrad Ships passing each other at near light speed
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
709
Undergrad Can the intersection point of two light beams exceed the speed of light?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
High School Would We See the Same Light After Traveling Back to Earth Faster Than Light?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Why is the constant speed of light so unique?
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Undergrad A question about the speed of light and electromagnetism
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
High School Let me ask a thing about the Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K