INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION
IS INSTANTANEOUS COMMUNICATION POSSIBLE?
DOES IT VIOLATE OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAWS OF PHYSICS?
In
order to visualize the communication problem let us start with one of the
previously used relativistic cases (see Fermisquestion.com) shown in Fig
1. Here we have a frame of reference
moving past our frame at a velocity of 0.4C, four-tenths of the speed of
light. Our time, in Fig. 1 is exactly
zero TU’s (time-units). Note times in
the other frame. One of their clocks,
for example, at X’=50 reads -20 TU’s and that clock is at approximately +46
distance units along our X axis. This is
of course a representation of a moment in time (our time) but in the moving
frame this situation is spread out over an infinite amount of time. Specifically in just the range shown in
Fig.1, the scene in the moving frame is spread over 100 distance units, and 40
time units. We learn very quickly in
special relativity that what is considered simultaneous in one frame is not so
in any other relatively moving frame.
Fig.
2 shows the same relativistic situation but at a different time. Here we can
see what happens as time moves ahead.
Distance here, as before, is collapsed to a singe dimension, X and the
time in our frame is 40 TU’s.
Question: How can we show the situation from the
viewpoint of both systems on one diagram? See Fig. 3.
Here the blue shaded lines and circles represent the moving frame. This image, although created as a computer
graphic,was not computed and plotted by software thus the plots are
approximate.
Consider
the blue line labeled “view of x’ frame when all t’ clocks read zero”. The blue discs along that line show a “0”
next to them which represents the time at those clocks. Thus, in the moving frame, everyone along the
blue line (in our past and future) experiences the moment of
simultaneous zero time. It seems
counter-intuitive that those in the moving frame (along that line), and
everyone in our frame at zero time each feel certain of the validity of their
own zero time particularly when the clocks in both frames seem so
disconnected.
In
Fig. 3, the time axis is labeled “Universal Relative Time” and will be
explained later. For the present
discussion the time axis represents the time in “our” frame and when we
experience time=zero TU’s we consider only a horizontal line passing through
zero of the time axis. The small blue
disks represent the moving frame clocks with clock readings shown next to some
of them. The red grid lines provide the
time and distance coordinates in “our” frame of reference. Note the correspondence to Fig. 1 taking note
of the X distance along the bottom of the image.
We
are fully aware that the members of the moving frame synchronized their clocks
with each other using the very same techniques we used. They are just as confident that their time
system is as valid as ours. And yet, it
seems that differences are irreconcilable.
We
set up Fig. 3 in the same way we set up the earlier graphics: We assume that both frames of reference are
synchronized such that when the origins of both systems cross each other, the
clocks at the two origins read zero.
In
Fig. 4 we show, in green, the time lines of signals emanating from our origin
with various velocities measured in our frame of reference. We are showing “Faster Than Light”, FTL,
signals as though they are real. We can
do that as explained in Fermisquestion.com.
We wll assume that we have programmed a linear array of strobe lights to
simulate those signals allowing us to observe the behavior of the signals in
differing frames of reference. Note the
signal shown going in the plus X direction at 2.5 times the speed of
light. (It is seen to travel 50
X-distance units in 20 time-units). Note
that that signal lines up with the blue line which represents those clocks in
the moving frame which have a zero reading.
Thus this signal, which is moving at 2.5C in our frame is also a signal
which is seen in the moving frame where every clock has the same reading,
zero. That means that this signal is
moving infinitely fast in the moving frame.
This is another, more convenient view, of what was discussed
earlier. The 2.5C velocity in this case
is the negative reciprocal of the relative velocity of the two frames,
0.4C. (From the viewpoint of the moving
frame, our frame is moving along the negative X’ direction).
Next,
consider Fig. 5. Here we show the plots
of signals of various speeds which were sent on their way from the moving
system’s origin when the clock there read zero.
The speeds of the signals, V’, shown in Fig. 5, are speeds measured in the moving frame. Those speeds, except for the speed of light,
C, will always be different when viewed in a different frame.
Of
interest in Fig. 5 is the fact that any signal emanating in the moving frame
going in the increasing X’ direction will always move up, in the direction of
increasing time. That is to say those
signals move into our future. However,
some FTL signals moving left are seen going into our past. In particular, a signal going left in the
moving frame with a velocity of 2.5C will appear in our frame as infinitely
fast going left. Furthermore, any signal
greater than 2.5C going left in the moving frame will be seen going backward in
time in our frame! Thus we can conclude
that by using two different signals traveling at two different speeds (each
greater than 2.5C) transmitted from the moving frame’s origin, communication is
possible between two different points in time at the same X location! (A signal of velocity -10C is shown as an
example of a signal moving backward in time).
Thus,
this paradox provides a strong argument against the existence of FTL
signals. Sort of. There is however a loophole. A very narrow one. Of all the possible infinite number of FTL
signals there is a single one for which the above presented time paradox does
not exist. If it were possible to make a
case for a special frame of reference, a universal frame which encompasses the
entire universe, and if it were also possible to generate an infinitely fast
signal in that frame, then the general injunction against FTL signals would not
apply in just that case.
IS
A SPECIAL, UNIQUE UNIVERSAL FRAME POSSIBLE?
Einstein
was not aware of the expansion of the universe when he formulated ideas of
special relativity. Even allowing for
the expansion of the universe, special relativity is special in the sense that
SR frames of reference are inertial, that is, non accelerating. Space in SR is flat, thus SR applies to a
limited region of a non-flat universe.
One
can, however, construct a special frame of reference that is special within a
limited region. Consider measuring an
angle to every visible galaxy out to some distant limit. Then make a spectral measurement of each
radial velocity. This might include
millions of measurements. That’s
OK. If a vector summation of every
measurement yields a vector of nearly zero velocity then our velocity relative
to the universe is also nearly zero and we are considered to be “co-moving”. Considering the expanding balloon analogy … a
stationary ant on the expanding balloon would be, in a sense, non-moving
relative to the geometry of its balloon universe. Wherever in the universe this vector-velocity
summation is made, only a co-moving observer will obtain a zero result for that
region of the universe.
If
the result of the measurement is a non-zero velocity vector, then that vector
may be used as a correction factor to
measurements made in the measurement frame in order to find the proper
co-moving values in the region.
Next,
What about time? Once a co-moving frame
is established, the time since the big bang may be determined by backtracking
the motion of the galaxies to the beginning of time. Clearly, however, some model of the universe
and its evolution with time would be needed here and it is assumed that all
sufficiently advanced societies would have worked this out and have reached the
same conclusions. Universal time
standards could be established using vibrational frequencies of certain atoms
which would hold true wherever in the universe the measurement is made.
Thus
with a universal standard time measured from the big bang, TBB, and a unique
geometrical frame of reference and any location, the entire special frame of
reference is defined for a local region.
What remains is to seamlessly hook up all frames everywhere in the
universe and the theoreticians should be able to do that. The seamless hookup is not, however,
essential to draw conclusions from this view of geometry.
Fig.
6, taken from Ned Wright’s Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm is
presented here as an example of a representation of a universe having
critical mass density. Time in this
diagram is shown, as in the previous diagrams,
along
the vertical direction with any constant time as a horizontal line. The present time, is the uppermost row of
triangles. In Fig. 6, all galaxies,
(triangles) are considered to be stationary on this diagram, and are thus
co-moving. They are thus expanding with
the universe and each has a velocity relative to every other which is exactly
proportional to the distance separating them.
We
now return to Fig.3. At this point in
the discussion, we will consider that the situation shown here represents a
co-moving frame of reference. The time
axis shown here, “Universal Relative Time” is now based on absolute time, TBB,
with an offset to provide a convenient zero.
Any frame moving relative to this frame is a non-co-moving frame and
would be represented by tilted world lines as shown by example in Fig. 3.
Now
we establish some rules. We allow for
the existence of an infinitely fast signal (IFS) in the co-moving frame, and
ONLY in the co-moving frame. No other
IFS signals are allowed in any other (non-co-moving) frames. These restrictions guarantee that communication
paradoxes will not exist between two points in time at the same location with
any configuration of frames. Fig. 3
shows that the IFS moves only horizontally (thus never backward in absolute
time) and regardless of any tilt of a moving frame, time paradoxes will not
result.
It’s
not clear that there is any injunction against the existence of FTL signals
were it not for unacceptable paradoxes.
But as explained above, there is none for the one special case of an IFS
in and only in co-moving frames.
How
can we generate an IFS signal? Maybe we
have a starting point in quantum mechanics with entangled particles. It is well understood that there is no known
way to use the entanglement phenomenon to send manually generated information
at infinite speed. But, on the other
hand, the study of entanglement might provide some clues that might lead to a
different understanding of the way the elements of our universe are
interconnected.
An
important question arises at this point.
Consider the following:
A technological society, such as ourselves
perhaps, discovers a technique for generating an IFS but hasn’t worked out all the details. All clocks are properly synchronized and the
experiment is tried and indeed communication between two points is established
and the delay between the time the signal was sent and a reply received is
virtually zero. However, the signal does
not appear at the same clock reading wherever it is detected within the
frame.
After
some study, it is finally realized that the reason for the different clock
readings is that the frame of reference is not co-moving and the difference in
the readings reveals that fact and also provides a way of actually measuring
the co-moving error, and thus the local absolute velocity.
The
question is: What is there about the
signal, or perhaps about the non-co-moving frame of reference that causes the
clock readings to be different from each other?
Is there something physically different about the non-co-moving space
that can provide a tangible explanation for this result? One possible answer might be, and this might
be a very undesirable pill to swallow, that there is an aether of sorts. We would not wish to resurrect the aether
that was already shown to be non-existent in the Michelson-Morley
experiments. That was a luminiferous
aether … light bearing aether. The
aether we need has nothing to do with light but is needed to support, in some
manner, an IFS.
Thus
the aether we need permeates all of space throughout the universe and is itself
precisely co-moving with the expansion of the universe. Therefore all co-moving frames of reference
are “stationary” with respect to this aether that they are immersed in.
It
should be mentioned again that although IFS communication in non-co-moving
frames reach back in time as measured by local clocks, paradoxes will not
result because the IFS never goes backward with respect to absolute cosmic
time, TBB, at any location.
Now
... What is “nowness”?
We
don’t think too much about a feeling we might call for want of a better word
... “nowness”. We sit and talk across
the room to each other and we are quite sure we are experiencing a common
feeling of the present. When someone
will be on Mars and we experience many minutes of delay we will still not have
any difficulty with time awareness. What
happens, however, if we are part of a spaceship convoy, say a light-month in
length and we fly past another such convoy going in the opposit direction with
relative velocities between us of say half the speed of light? Here we are then, in pretty much the same
local region of the universe and we look across at each other. Clocks are, of course, nowhere near in agreement. We look along our convoy and we have a
definite sense of nowness knowing how we synchronized our clocks. So do the flyers in the other convoy. Here a sense of nowness becomes a little more
difficult to understand. Suppose
telepathy is real. Telepathy, we presume
works at infinite speed. Since constant
velocity frames are all equivalent can both frames have an infinitely fast
telepathy? What about nowness when we
think in terms of intergalactic distance?
Can we share nowness with with someone in Andomeda? Can we even possibly define how we would
establish such a thing?
Special
relativity gives us the transformation equations to transform space and time
values between different frames of reference.
But our inner sense of time is unprepared to operate on such a scale of
space and velocity. Can we consider that
we and the Andromedans are sharing an actual nowness even tho there is no known
way to confirm it.
An
infinitely fast signal, IFS, appears at every point in the universe at the same
cosmic time ... time since the big bang.
Look at fig 4 .. every point in
any frame of reference, regardless of speed and clock readings which differ
from our clocks, every point which can
be considere NOW exists only along the horizontal line at time=0. An IFS reaches exactly those points and none
other above or below. At any later
time, the IFS is still horizontal in this picture and can still only reach
points along a horizontal line.but later than before. Thus IFS signals can produce no
paradoxes.
Heinrich
Hertz created the best electrical spark he could within the confines of a small
laboratory. He was able to observe a
tiny spark in an adjacent room across a spark gap in a loop of wire. Did he somehow imagine that a shock to an
electromagnetic medium was what was needed to produce a wireless signal? Amazingly, Hertz felt the experiment was not
important and that there would be little use for the “waves” he detected. Could we somehow produce a similar powerful
shock to a spacetime medium and discover a yet unknown mechanism for communication?
Are
the Andromedans waiting to hear from us?
No comments:
Post a Comment