= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
wedrifid comments on Particles break light-speed limit? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (170)
Does that work? Once you beat light don't you just win the speed race? The in-principle upper bound on what can be influenced just disappears. The rest is just engineering. Trivial little details of how to manufacture a device that emits a finely controlled output of neutrinos purely by shooting other neutrinos at something.
I think so; with any noticeable faster than C, can't you just ping-pong between paired receiver/emitters, gaining a little distance into the past with each ping-pong? (If you're only gaining a few nanoseconds with each cycle, might be expensive in equipment or energy, but for the right information from days/weeks in the future - like natural disaster warnings - it'd worth it, even ignoring hypercomputation issues.)
"Yeah, I only go a little into the past each time, but I make it up in volume!"
What's that a quote from? I'd just Google, but you changed a word or two, I think.
I doubt Silas was thinking of this, but it reminded me of SNL's "First Citiwide Change Bank" commercial.
I just made it up, trying to be silly. It's just an application of the standard "low margin, make it up on volume". It barely even makes sense as a joke, since the idea is actually sound (or at least not unsound on its face). If you can go any amount into the past, then you could, it seems, stack the process so that you go as far as you want into the past.
Go Mr. Parker!
I'll be honest, reading that link, that show sounds terrible.
I like it. They used difficult and expensive time travel to undo major catastrophes.
Well, I'd say there's a significant chance you'd end up with a boom instead, for invoking the (quantum) chronology protection conjecture.
That wouldn't necessarily stop you in all cases, though. It just means you need quantum computer-level isolation, or a signal that doesn't include any actual closed timelike curves - that is, you could hypothetically send a signal from 2011 Earth to 2006 Alpha Centauri so long as the response takes five years to get back.
Hmm, I don't think most variants of chronology protection imply inherently destructive results. But your remark made me feel all of a sudden very worried that if is real this could be connected to the Great Filter. I'm almost certainly assigning this more emotional weight than the very tiny probability that is at all justified.
I don't know about you but the emotion I associate with the possibility is fascination, curiosity and some feeling that we need a word for along the lines of entertainment-satisfaction. It's just so far out into far mode that it doesn't associate with visceral fear. And given the low probability it is one instance of disconnection of emotion to knowledge of threat that doesn't seem like a problem! :)
Don't worry, I'm pretty sure it'd be a tiny boom. ;)
No free energy, after all.
How does this relate to free energy?
If there was an explosion big enough to cause worldwide destruction, where would the energy come from?
Hey, I'm not the one who broke physics. Take it up with CERN! ;)