You mean one of those parsec long, infinitely strong, mass-less rulers they sell at Home Depot?

You could substitute the ruler for the dot of light from a laser pointer aiming at a wall.
If you spin it quickly on a very distant wall you could move the dot much faster than light.
You should see the Tachyon effect of it's image move faster than light and backwards.

However, and this is the key.

the objects moving faster than c are not able to carry classical information faster than c

You can't use that FTL velocity to send a message because whatever method you create to modulate that dot has travel at c to get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

 

You could substitute the ruler for the dot of light from a laser pointer aiming at a wall.
If you spin it quickly on a very distant wall you could move the dot much faster than light.
You should see the Tachyon effect of it's image move faster than light and backwards.

However, and this is the key.
You can't use that FTL velocity to send a message because whatever method you create to modulate that dot has travel at c to get there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyonic_antitelephone

Funny you should mention a laser pointer. That's actually how the idea hit me in the first place. I was playing around with a laser pointer and noticed how fast it appeared to move along the opposite wall with only a slight twitch form my hand. Things fell together from there.

Very interesting topic indeed....

 

You could substitute the ruler for the dot of light from a laser pointer aiming at a wall

I'd argue that this substitution changes the the system dramatically and you then not talking about the same thing at all. The dot of light' is not a real real physical object, just a perception, and therefore is not limited by the laws of physics.

A ruler would be.

 

I'd argue that this substitution changes the the system dramatically and you then not talking about the same thing at all. The dot of light' is not a real real physical object, just a perception, and therefore is not limited by the laws of physics.

A ruler would be.

Everything in this universe is limited by the laws of physics. I think he was just referring to the movements themselves, which can be calculated with little effort. The same principle applies--slight movement while pivoting at one end makes the other end move much faster.

 

Everything in this universe is limited by the laws of physics.

You perceive a 'spot' move at FTL speeds, but nothing is actually moving FTL.

The processes that support perception and imagination are demonstrably under the influence of the physical laws, but not the realized results are not.

 

You perceive a 'spot' move at FTL speeds, but nothing is actually moving FTL.

The processes that support perception and imagination are demonstrably under the influence of the physical laws, but not the realized results are not.

Hmm, I guess I'm not following. I understand that perception is not always reality, but in the case suggested earlier perception is not important. I guess I'm a little confused about why you're going down that road....

 

I am going down the road because the situation of the laser and the ruler are totally different.

Folks are talking about something moving in the direction we see the 'spot' move, when in actuality nothing is moving.

The only things moving are the photons coming from the laser, bouncing off the target and producing the reflected light we see as a 'spot'. However they are only moving in a straight line from the point of emission to the point of reflection and are not moving in the direction we perceive the 'spot' to move.

So, nothing is moving in the direction the 'spot' is moving in. Nothng at all.

However, with a ruler, something would be trying to move. The end of the ruler is, and it would fail.

...but in the case suggested earlier perception is not important.

1) Which case was that?

2) We are humans (a groundless assumption, I agree) so when is perception not important? Not really trying to take this off topic as the answer consumes the lives of philosophers, but just looking for your perception on the question.

 

I am going down the road because the situation of the laser and the ruler are totally different.

Folks are talking about something moving in the direction we see the 'spot' move, when in actuality nothing is moving.

The only things moving are the photons coming from the laser, bouncing off the target and producing the reflected light we see as a 'spot'. However they are only moving in a straight line from the point of emission to the point of reflection and are not moving in the direction we perceive the 'spot' to move.

So, nothing is moving in the direction the 'spot' is moving in. Nothng at all.

However, with a ruler, something would be trying to move. The end of the ruler is, and it would fail.

Ah, I understand your point now. You are absolutely right.

1) Which case was that?

The case of one end being moved slightly and the opposite end "moves" much faster. The concept is the same--the length (radius) determines the "speed" on the opposite "end", due to the properties of a circle. (Notice all the " " in the previous sentences).

2) We are humans (a groundless assumption, I agree) so when is perception not important? Not really trying to take this off topic as the answer consumes the lives of philosophers, but just looking for your perception on the question.

I was misunderstanding your post before, but now that I understand it better I see you were on topic. I wasn't thinking about the real-world effects, I was thinking about the mathematical theory behind the apparent movement itself.

Sorry for the confusion.

Matt

 

The laser pointer example points to something we think is happening with 'strange' sources of EM radiation seen from 'pulsars'. The source field and generator of the EM waves are thought to be moving at superluminal speeds as a group and this creates a special signature for emissions that we can recreate in the lab.

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/events/nmsymposium/Nov2010/talks/aschmidt_NMsymp_Nov_2010.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0405062v1.pdf

By building meta-material structures with active electronics we could build devices that are impossible with normal passive structures. It should be possible to create superluminal waveguides and antennas to direct (light speed) energy into narrow beams and move that energy long distances with much higher efficiencies than those possible today.
https://www.lanl.gov/collaboration/...as-potential-for-deep-space-communication.php

 

The laser pointer example points to something we think is happening with 'strange' sources of EM radiation seen from 'pulsars'. The source field and generator of the EM waves are thought to be moving at superluminal speeds as a group and this creates a special signature for emissions that we can recreate in the lab.

http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/events/nmsymposium/Nov2010/talks/aschmidt_NMsymp_Nov_2010.pdf
http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0405062v1.pdf

By building meta-material structures with active electronics we could build devices that are impossible with normal passive structures. It should be possible to create superluminal waveguides and antennas to direct (light speed) energy into narrow beams and move that energy long distances with much higher efficiencies than those possible today.
https://www.lanl.gov/collaboration/...as-potential-for-deep-space-communication.php

I would like to see more work done...at least as far as I know...in the area of using already existing Gravitic Lensing to project tight beam transmitions as mentioned above to multiple light year distances.

We know this is possible as we see it happening all over the Galaxy and to a much greater extent...Universe as multi-billion light year distant Galaxies get resolved to us by such lensing.

Although such lensing is on a smaller scale within our Galaxy...using various Star Clusters or perhaps even Stellar Super Giants or Black Holes...may provide a way for such transmission.

Split Infinity

 

I would like to see more work done...at least as far as I know...in the area of using already existing Gravitic Lensing to project tight beam transmissions as mentioned above to multiple light year distances.

Split Infinity

I don't much like the idea of sending tight beams into space, you never know who will pick the line on the other end.

 

I don't much like the idea of sending tight beams into space, you never know who will pick the line on the other end.

Good Point.

But many already know we are here.

Split Infinity