🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bxvt8L.4s0@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
>The most fundamental problem is that it appears to make hash out of
>causality:  given any form of FTL communication (including FTL travel),
>you can set up situations where a suitably-chosen observer would see
>the cause-and-effect relationship reversed, with effect preceding cause.
>This does Bad Things to physics.

Not necesarily.  Consider, for example, "transactional" interpretations of QM.
As long as all allowed solutions are self-consistent, what Bad Things would it
do to physics?


>FTL travel conflicts so badly with modern physics that nobody is going
>to take the possibility very seriously unless/until it is demonstrated.
>The biggest objection to FTL travel is simply that we have no idea how
>it could be done.  At the moment, FTL is fantasy, not serious speculation.

If I recall correctly Kip Thorne has done theoretical work indicating that FTL
travel via wormholes might be possible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXen and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.