Is faster-than-light travel or communication possible?

Perhaps I should have quoted what it was you disagreed with:

And perhaps you should not make it a habit to disagree with known science with "what ifs".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

While classical quantum mechanics does not have an upper bound on signal propagation, disturbances in quantum field theory (the common element of outrageously well-tested theories like QED and The Standard Model) propagate at speed c. So quantum effects do not require FTL signaling to be possible; empirically the opposite is favored.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm interested in all the solutions to the EFE. For the warp or wormhole large amounts of negative energy is required. These metric solutions violate weak energy condition. The boundary of the wormhole must be held open by negative energy and negative energy is required to modify the spacetime in the FTL warp solutions. FTL is just what we call it even though AN explained it's not really FTL according to a relativistic definition.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're fantasy is "Physicists are living in a fantasy world...." You don't have a clue. You're complaining because scientists discovered a solution to the EFE which violates the weak energy condition. So what? There are interesting solution for sub-light warp. Manipulate spacetime to fuel the relativistic rocket.

 

Nimtz has been proven wrong several times, so the above is a bad example.

 

True but it's interesting experimental model that he thinks is correct while everybody else thinks it's wrong.

 

Nimtz is a respected scientist (in his field). Nevertheless, his insistence on having shown FTL communication has made him the butt of many jokes.

 

If wormholes can allow for such causality violations as the grandfather paradox and the "mad scientist paradox", I suspect that they are impossible

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUqxzH0652w

 

He is.

 

No it's not hypothetical. The geodetic effect was measured during the Gravity Probe B experiment. GR will not be falsified in it's domain of applicability. To much empirical support for that to happen now.

 

It is very important in known science to ask "what if". In science it is far from inappropriate to discuss possibiliites. very far. That was the purpose of the articles I posted, except for Nimtz and Chiao et al which claim to have already done it.

Even in my respose I said that I have no delusions that its been done. The purpose of my post was not to claim that it's been done. Nothing in my posts could rightly be read that way. The purpose was to object to this comment

was to establish that it dos have a basis in a part of physics. if it is every demonstrated might well be in quantum physics.

Then again as I read it over your comment "doesn't have any basis" is a bit vauge. It's like you're saying that "this thing here that doesn' exist doesn't have a basis in any branch of science". Weird.

 

First, the above quote was not mine, but AlphaNumeric's. Second, pure speculation is not a part of physics, as physics is a tested and accepted body of knowledge.

 

Please see where I wrote

 

Fact is that Nimtz has been proven wrong already.

 

Actually it can't be claimed that its a fact merely because someone published a paper disagreeing with Nimtz assumptions. But for this artilce I'll accept it. We've already acknowledged that notion several times. It made no difference since it was not the point I was making. The point I made was that superliminal communication is a subject of research in quantum mechanics contrary to the claim that it

It does have a basis and that basis is quantum mechanics. It seems however that the person who posted this meant something different than I assumed. He appears to have said it to mean "This thing that is unproven doesn't have any basis in any part of physics" which has no meaning to me. So I retract my response. I can't imagine what he meant by that.

Anyway, its the existance of those articles which made them useful for my purpose, not whether experiment showed them to be right or wrong. In fact one of those articles showed the opposite in its use of EPR. Now if I were to wager about it being right or not then I'd say Nimtz was wrong as is Chiao et al in Faster than Light?, Raymond Y. Chiao, Paul G. Kwiat and Aephraim M. Steinberg, Scientific American, August 1993. The abstract reads

This too may have been proven wrong.

Again, the point is that its being researched in the area of quantum mechanics. Nobody is making any claims that its been done. Okay?

 

Not if the "research" is flawed from get-go. Invalid "research" does not qualify as research.

 

Where in the world did you get that idea from?? The term research is defined as

No part of that definition implies that the results cannot someday be proven wrong. Some research just doesn't pan out. It doesn't mean that its not research. A ton of research has turned out to be wrong. It doesn't mean that its not research.

 

Not when you claim that you have discovered superluminal communication as Nimtz has been claiming for years DESPITE being shown wrong. This is no longer research, it is an attempt to mislead. So, what you quoted is a deliberate attempt at misleading.

 

There was nothing about what I said that implies "pure speculation". It's just speculation. Suggesting that one day some of the research in the area of FT communication might pan out is not pure specuilation. Its just speculation, plain and simple

Regarding the role of speculation in physics, I just happen to come across something on this point this morning when I was reading An Introduction to Quantum Physics by A.P. French. W.W. Norton Company 1978, page 55

A good example of the role of speculation in physics.

Pure speculation would be something like "What kinds of ships will aliens use to get to our planet?"

 

Equivocal nonsense.

Physics is a tested and accepted body of knowledge. What you seem to be thinking of is the scientific method, where speculation is but one of the steps toward building such a body of knowledge.

But this is just a straw man, as you disagreed with "doesn't have any basis in any part of physics". Just because you include physics terminology in fiction doesn't make it physics.

Like I have already said, perhaps you should refrain from disagreeing with tested physics using unfounded speculation.