OT: Relativity ,super-luminal communications and time travel (Was OT: Nuclear Waste (Was Re-Marketing Ada))

[dmytrylavrov@fsmail.net (Dmytry Lavrov)]

"Robert I. Eachus" <rieachus@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<Q8adnThtfsuTylSiRVn-uw@comcast.com>...
> Dmytry Lavrov wrote:
> 
> > It's really working experiment.But it have nothing with teleportation,
> > it's _old_thing_ but _only_now_ it's named as teleportation.That's bad
> > when such things are so widely published with so incorrect name just
> > only to show that now we have lots of new researches and discoveries.
> > 
> > There's no meaning of "teleportation" in science.
> > That experiment is more like to be telekines or telepathy than
> > teleportation.
> 
> We'll have to agree to disagree.  To me teleportation is a term that 
> describes making a exact copy of something at a different location,

Exact?

Here it's not a exact copy are teleported.It's anti-particle.For
light,it have perpendicular polarisation because there's no
anti-light.If we teleporting hidrogen atom with that method,we need to
make 2 hidrogen athoms,hidrogen and anti-hydrogen at same moment (from
energy)And we need third hidrogen athom to be teleported.
That applicable only to particles.And we don't need to teleport
particles anyway-we already have 'em at destination.

To "teleport" you,assuming that you are just big elementary
particle,we need you and your anti-copy to be maked in same
process,then need to destroy you and your copy,while your anti-copy
arrives to destination mirror :)At some moment just before destroy you
will be entangled with your anti-copy.

Also,if we will teleport you or me particle by particle,we anyway have
removing particle from body before "teleportation" as first step,so
making exact copy of that particle gives nothing.

That experiment,anyway,have absolutely nothing with teleportation even
in your meaning and it's very old thing only now named as
"teleportation".Incorrect promotion of science is bad.


> without the thing itself traversing the intervening distance. 

In that experiment,thing and anti-thing itself traversing that
distance.

> Teleportation in science fiction has used both moving the object itself 
> though some other dimension or dimensions, or a copying process. 

You can read Stanislaw Lem article about that(Summa Technologiae in
translation to English),analysis of sci-fil. IMO teleportation is a
way to build copy at distance using -normal-data-communication-.Any
other way is not a teleportation exactly.Source may need to be
destroyed in scanning(even theoretically),so that's not necessary a
duplication(but you anyway can make 2 copyes of same man while "he" is
destroyed).

> Whether the copy has continuity with its predecessor is of interest only 
> if you are being teleported.
> 
> Quantum teleportation incidently comes down on the continuity side of 
> that issue, which in part is why it can't be used to duplicate 
> something.  (If you could make two copies, one of them must not be the 
> original.)

Both could be original,IMO,if copyed very well.
Anyway i or you is a copy(many atoms replaced, in brain too) of me or
you month ago-but who cares ;-)

> 
> > Super-luminal communications lead to time travel,it's quite simple can
> > be derived from special relativity and it's 100% surely for me because
> > SR proved by experiments even if SR is incorrect a bit , but why that
> > papers are closely related and aren't referencing one to other?
> 
> Uh, did you understand the Lentz, et. al. result?  When I first saw it, 
> I felt as you did, that it implied time-travel.  But when you do the 
> thought experiment of moving the waveguide with respect to the labratory 
> reference frame, the time required for the signal to transit the gap 
> remains the same for all observers.
>

Will check,will check.But i saw it's proved in some book(fogot title)
many years ago,and proving looked right and was simple(SR is simple
enought and i can check it)

Remembering drawing from that book and proving:

                <-   -U                                     <-   -U
           z-transmitter A---------------------------->z-receiver A  
           We U=0                                         Mr.X U=0
           z-receiver B<-------------------------------z-transmitter B
                U   ->                                    U   ->
(all in "We" coordinate system)
U<c,of course."z-rays" speed may be >c(it  aren't necessary to be a
rays,it was named z-rays in that nice book)

We send signal to "z-transmitter"(transmitter of super-luminal
data,"emmits z-rays" :),it's sends to z-receiver A,then Mr. X routes
it to z-transmitter B(Mr X can use normal light to route data,in facts
X is not needed),then it comes to z-receiver B,and we can get it
before we sends,and if time is too short,we routes it again to A to
get necessary "negative time".

and some equations here...

distance from "We" to "Mr.X" = x :)

by ' here we mean system A, " mean system B.

time back we got at first step (to X) =Dt
Dt'=time needed to pass from 0 to x'

Dt=gamma * Dt' - gamma * u/c^2 x'

where gamma=(1-u^2/c^2)^(-1/2)

then back with same Dt. 

 x=x'/gamma , Dt'/x' = 1/Udata  < 1/c if z-data are super-luminal,and

Dt=1/sqrt(1-u^2/c^2)*(Dt' - u/c^2 x')

to make time phone we need 

Dt' < u/c^2 x' ,because x'>0,
Dt'/x' < u/c^2

x'/Dt > c^2/U,
so we need 
Udata>c^2/u  

And i have now a nice phone to talk with grand-grand-parent or to
order someone to kill our grand-grand-parent ( who maked that phone to
talk with me :).

Inpossibility to sent information faster-than-light was proved by that
cool anekdote with grandparent ;-).(inpossibility of time travel was
"given")


If i remember correctly there was test questions like how many steps
we need to send data to 100 years before for x=1 light year and u
=c/2, Udata = infinity.

Super-luminal data channel here does not rely on absolute speed. 



Probably you mean that with one back-time step(using only A line)
signal are far away and out of my light cone.But with 2 steps tricks
signal are where i stay and before i sent.

Dopler shift:No problem to compensate using right angles between Mr.X
,receiver and transmitter(lenght of A and B don't have to be the
same).
Here we assuming that distance from A to B is "small" and lenght of
super-luminal data channels is big.
.

(to someone who better know SR than me,please check for mistakes.)

> > I can even trust last two papers ;-). They shows that time travel and
> > superluminal is _maybe_ possible.Even don't have reason to non-trust
> > 'em ;-),i also think that it's maybe possible.
> > Even if it's right and proved there's nothing with time mashine or at
> > least time phone.
> 
> Have you looked at Hawking's recent work

Where?
And can i see the math?(at least  to check for simple mistakes ;-)

> on closed timelike loops?  As I 
> understand it, the only way you can use a black hole as a time machine 
> is to change its mass.  (Adding small black holes--or any large quantity 
> of matter will do.)  There is a shell around the black hole where there 
> are an infinite number of photons following closed timelike curves 
> (orbits).  These photon shells have no energy/rest mass in the 
> containing space, but an infinite amount of energy relative to anything 
> entering the ergosphere, so touch one and die.  But if you change the 
> mass of the black hole by dropping mass in, the shell inside of your 
> path will cease to exist and a new layer will form enclosing you.  If 
> your course is backwards in time, you can exit where two smaller black 
> holes are colliding to create the one you entered.
> 
> Time travel by this method may be possible, but talk about dangerous! 
> You need colliding black holes to get in, another collision where you 
> exit, and a microsecond error in plotting your course could be fatal.

Don't sure that it's even possible to "do the math".There's no proved
general field theory,and no quantum-gravitation theory yet.So ,here,we
will probably have some new law that disallows time travel ;-)

Also,even if everything is right,it's probably yet another way to see
your twidle young while you're old.

Also about name.Even without digging deep,"Closed timelike curve".If
it's closed,it's mean that for particle there's no future.Particle
stay on that loop.That's NOT the time mashine in any meaning,time
mashine 1:don't have scientific meaning too;2:it have only sci-fi
meaning that have nothing with looped particle or looped you.

If it's on a timelike loop,it's on a loop.Can't enter or exit.It's not
an ADA loop.And no exceptions ;-)


.............
Quite old theory that,i think,was developed to allow
time-travel:fatalism.You can't kill grantparent because can't kill.

Other time mashine:We feel,that our future depend to current
moment,pisics laws shows that.But for same reason current moment
depend to future.And we can't build time phone anyway-here it's
thermodynamics issue :).