home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: sci.physics
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!uwm.edu!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!smsc.sony.com!markc
- From: markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden)
- Subject: Re: FTL communication in SR does not violate causality
- Message-ID: <1992Dec18.015730.16185@smsc.sony.com>
- Keywords: FTL SR causality Special Relativity
- Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
- References: <1992Dec9.113220.18185@smsc.sony.com> <mcirvin.724046110@husc8>
- Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 01:57:30 GMT
- Lines: 58
-
- I think I see the point where a flaw creeps into Matt McIrvin's argument,
- but the fault is at least partially mine. In my original article I said:
-
- MC> ... The existence of a preferred frame violates
- MC> the principles of Special Relativity (I believe) but it does not contradict
- MC> the mathematics of SR, and it's the math that has been confirmed over and
- MC> over by experimentation.
-
- Instead of being timid I should have said that my use of a preferred
- reference frame violates the principles of Special Relativity, period!
- Also, the "mathematics of SR" I refer to are only the mathematics of the
- Lorentz coordinate transform, which I *do* assume to be universally valid.
- I could have been more clear about these points.
-
- In article <mcirvin.724046110@husc8> mcirvin@husc8.harvard.edu (Matt McIrvin) writes:
- >If you just examine E1, E2, and E, there's no trouble. But consider this:
- >
- >Suppose that there is apparatus at rest in O2's frame that is just like
- >O1's, and vice versa. O2 can set up events F1 and F2 which are both at
- >the origin of O2's spatial coordinates; F1 follows E and F2 follows F1,
- >according to O2's time coordinate. F1 causes event F which is at the
- >origin of O1's spatial coordinates, which in turn causes F2, all of this
- >reckoned using O2's time coordinate. This must be possible if SR
- >applies and the apparatus works everywhere.
-
- Okay so far, except that the phrase "reckoned using O2's time
- coordinate" seems not wrong but misleading. F1 causes F causes F2
- is not reckoned in relation to any time coordinate; causality is an
- objective relation that holds in all reference frames regardless of
- time coordinates. It is a bit odd that the time coordinate of F1 can
- follow (i.e. be greater than) the time coordinate of F (in O2's frame)
- even though F1 caused F, which was why I was careful to say just what
- FTLC entails.
-
- >Now if O2's frame is moving at a sufficiently high speed relative
- >to O1, it's easy to see that F can *precede* E1 according to O1's time
- >coordinate.
-
- This is where the argument goes wrong. It's true that F can precede *F1*
- in O2's frame, or more exactly the time coordinate assigned to F in O2's
- frame can be less than the time coordinate assigned to F1 in O2's frame,
- but I don't see how you can show that F must precede *E1*. Without a
- specific example with all space-time coordinates spelled out explicitly
- I can't be sure that I'm addressing the point you have in mind, though.
-
- The rest of your argument is correct, in that having F precede *E1* would
- lead to a violation of causality, but I don't think you can show that F
- can precede E1. I don't want to give the mistaken impression that I'm
- promoting the bizarre "information forgetting" communication you describe
- or some equally unfair reworking of the words "communication" or
- "causality". You can use "communication" and "causality" according
- to their normal meanings, it shouldn't effect my point.
-
- >Matt McIrvin
-
- Mark Corscadden
- markc@smsc.sony.com
- work: (408)944-4086
-