Re: FTL transmission?

From: Brian Atkins (
Date: Wed May 31 2000 - 20:39:58 MDT

I think you would have to implement some kind of collision protocol such
as in ethernet to prevent that :-)

Anyway, what you are describing is not the kind of paradox people keep
going on about. It seems like whenever talk of FTL communications comes
up, people start spouting off about the future, the past, paradoxes, etc.
Just seems silly to me.

Ian Field wrote:
> Brian Atkins Wrote:
> > And I still don't see (assume for a moment they really can transmit
> > light, and therefore information, faster than normal lightspeed) how
> > sending light faster than normal would lead to any kind of paradox.
> Imagine the following:
> You have a lightwave controller (A), which controls a light transmitter (B),
> and which is connected to a light receiver (C). You have a similiar
> configuration on the far end of the "tunnel" - let's say controller (D),
> transmitter (E), and receiver (F).
> See diagram at
> In a particular experiment, I program A to send a signal through B which is
> recieved by F. I also program D to, at the moment it recieves a signal
> through F, send a signal to C (via E). I then program A to abort the
> transmission through B if it recieves a signal through C. Assume that
> controller to peripheral communication costs 0 time. Let's also assume that
> data processing and code execution costs 0 time. (I'm asking for some
> imagination here!).
> So, A tells B to send a FTL signal to F. D, upon recieving this signal,
> tells E to send a FTL signal to C. A, upon receiving this signal (via C),
> aborts the original transmission WHICH HAS ALREADY TAKEN PLACE. Paradox
> anyone?
> Ian

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:12:19 MDT