Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 7th May 2009 22:24 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 362376
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The article isn't "quite technical"
by daedliusswartz on Fri 8th May 2009 01:31
in reply to "The article isn't "quite technical""
RE: The article isn't "quite technical"
by Alleister on Fri 8th May 2009 15:23
in reply to "The article isn't "quite technical""
RE[2]: The article isn't "quite technical"
by boldingd on Fri 8th May 2009 19:45
in reply to "RE: The article isn't "quite technical""
The idea outlined (and i agree it isn't much) would probably avert relativistic effects, since there is no movement within spacetime as the idea is to move a part of spacetime itself.
Any time you beat light-pulse somewhere (through a vacuum), you will have traveled in time. What clever trick you used to beat the light pulse does not change the fact that you have traveled between two events faster than a pulse of light could, which is an entirely sufficient fact to establish that you have potentially traveled in time.
Potentially because not everyone will agree about whether you have traveled in time or not: if it is not possible for a light-pulse to travel between two events - like if they are happening a light year apart, but only a second apart in time - then not all observers will agree on what order the events happen in (or, really, how far apart in time they're happening). Some people would say you arrived a long time before you left, others might say you took your sweet time making the trip.







Member since:
2006-01-11
It has very little technical content, just a bit of speculation.
In any case, even with tricky physics you can't get FTL travel without time travel, because of the connection between space and time in special relativity.