Subspace is the answer of course!

  • seaQueue@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Uh, no shit? That’s how light works once you’re able to travel at relativistic speeds - communication over interstellar distances using light is going to take ages.

    Even within our own solar system interplanetary travel will have significant communication time delays.

    Edit: also, we already know that matter and light can’t exceed c, but I wouldn’t be surprised if we discover that other forces (gravitation, or another that we haven’t understood yet) can transmit information at speeds >c. I wouldn’t be surprised if we turned to quantum entanglement for instantaneous communication over extreme distances either.

    • xkforce@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gravity travels at c. The Alcubierre drive tried to use bubbles in spacetime to “bend the rules” in order to result in apparent >c velocities but recent simulations indicate the bubble becomes unstable when attempting to exceed c.

    • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      1 year ago

      My first thought was ‘no shit’ as well. There’s a horrible heartbreaking anime about that… Voices of a Distant Star.

      other forces … can transmit information at speeds >c

      I sadly disagree. Even if we figure out a way to instantaneously transport ourselves across the universe, there will be some shitty clause in fine-print that says we can’t go back, or it took 0 time for us but 1 billion years for everything else.

      Check out this video by Anton Petrov:

      https://odysee.com/@whatdamath:8/woah!-someone-just-sent-an-impossible:4

      • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        or it took 0 time for us but 1 billion years for everything else.

        That’s just time travel with extra steps!

      • Jamie@jamie.moe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        They’re probably referring to quantum entanglement, which affects the entangled particles instantly.

        • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but you can’t interfere with quantum entangled particles, if you do you break the entanglement. So it isn’t usable as a method of communication.

        • anotherandrew@lemmy.mixdown.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Something I’ve not been asked to get through my head about QE: If observing the entangled particle destroys the entanglement, doesn’t that mean we’d need “containers” of entangled particles to send a bunch of information?

          • ∟⊔⊤∦∣≶@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            You can’t send information with entangled particles. You just learn the state of the other particle by inference when you observe the first particle.

      • xkforce@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        For a variety of reasons, no information is actually transferred. Quantum entanglement can not be used to get around the limits imposed by relativity.

      • INeedMana@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        So it’s not like: when I affect the hue (some attribute) of my half, the other half will change too? That has always been my understanding of it

        • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, measuring one particle collapses the entanglement and they no longer affect each other. It is a one time thing. You can’t modify them after they have been observed.

            • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nope. Because you don’t know when it will collapse,. Imagine you have 2 balls, a red and a blue. They are both put in boxes and each ship takes 1 box. After you travel a long distance you open your box. You have just collapsed the “superposition” of what color the balls were. You now know what color both balls are, but you don’t know if the other person has looked in their box yet.

              I think a lot of people get confused by the term “observe” when talking about collapsing quantum uncertainty. Observing requires a photon to interact with the particle which is what caused it to “choose” what state it is in.

    • SpacetimeMachine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      C is more than just the speed of light. It is the speed of Causality. No information can travel faster than C in a vacuum. Gravitational waves already reach us faster than the light from events that cause them (i.e. neutron star collisions) Because small particles slow down the light over long distances, as they absorb and then re-emit the photons.

    • SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with information traveling ftl is, that you’re very quickly running into paradoxes. So just by logic wanting to keep intact, I feel like ftl communication will be impossible

      • bluGill@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Logically it makes sense, but the real world is years and often we don’t use the right logical systems. It makes logical sense to most people that a heavy object falls faster then a light object ,but we know that is false (and a also a non obvious logical system that also shows it is false)

      • justJanne@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        If you actually calculate the maximum speed at which information can travel before causing paradoxes, in some situations it could safely exceed c.

        For two observers who are not in motion relative to each other, information could be transmitted instantly, regardless of the distance, without causing a paradox.

        The faster the observers are traveling relatively to each other, the slower information would have to travel to avoid causing paradoxes.

        More interestingly, this maximum paradox-free speed correlates with the time and space dilation caused by the observers’ motion.

        From your own reference frame, another person is moving at a speed of v*c. The maximum speed at which you could send a message to that observer, without causing a paradox, looks something like c/sqrt(v) (very simplified).

    • Jamie@jamie.moe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      By the time we invent any sort of lightspeed travel, we’ll have long conquered quantum entanglement. If you have a signal transferred over a properly quantum entangled technology, the signal would transfer instantaneously.

      • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Another option would be tiny temporary Einstein Rosen bridges. Sure the energy requirements would be hideous, but if we’ve figured out how to exceed C, I don’t think we really care about energy costs anymore.