# Thread: FTL communication

1. i'm trying to figure out why it can't be done. the speed of light (SOL) is approx. 300,000 km/s. now if we had a space ship or base 150,000 km away, sending a FTL message would take (let's say) 0.4 s, 0.1 sec faster than SOL.

let's just say Peter, working on a space station 150,000 km away, wants to chat with his wife Mary on earth. so from the moment he hits 'enter', it will take the message 0.4 sec to reach Mary.
at 0.4 sec, Mary get's a notification that a new massage arrived.
let's say she was waiting right by the 'communicator' so she will start reading the message at 0,4 sec.
then she will write a reply, let's just say she replies to 'everything ok?' with a simple 'yes' and hits enter at 1 sec, to send it back to Peter.
so the reply will reach Peter 1.4 sec after his message.

i just can't understand, why the reply would/could/should reach Peter before his initial message.
because even so the message was send FTL, light itself is measured by time.

i just can't understand it.

2.

3. Originally Posted by curious mind
i just can't understand, why the reply would/could/should reach Peter before his initial message.
It wouldn't (necessarily). To create a scenario where a reply could be received before the message is sent is fairly complex and requires Peter and Mary to be moving at significant velocity relative to one another. I'm probably not up to it right now...

This might help: Why FTL implies time travel (tachyon pistols)

4. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by curious mind
i just can't understand, why the reply would/could/should reach Peter before his initial message.
It wouldn't (necessarily). To create a scenario where a reply could be received before the message is sent is fairly complex and requires Peter and Mary to be moving at significant velocity relative to one another. I'm probably not up to it right now...

This might help: Why FTL implies time travel (tachyon pistols)

awesome, i'm at sync with my brain again. TYVM.

5. Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?

6. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.

7. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.
Isn't it more correct to say it is the Higgs Field that imbues particles with mass, rather than the boson? Since the proposed Higgs Boson has mass, it too aquires that from interacting with the Higgs Field.

Right?

MW

8. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.
Isn't it more correct to say it is the Higgs Field that imbues particles with mass, rather than the boson? Since the proposed Higgs Boson has mass, it too aquires that from interacting with the Higgs Field.

Right?

MW
Whilst what you said may be correct, I'm not sure it is more correct than what he said, just different.

The Higgs mechanism is an explanation as to how particles get mass. If that mechanism is a field (the Higgs field), then its force carrier is the Higgs Boson.

9. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.
Isn't it more correct to say it is the Higgs Field that imbues particles with mass, rather than the boson? Since the proposed Higgs Boson has mass, it too aquires that from interacting with the Higgs Field.

Right?

MW
Strictly speaking you are absolutely right - it is the interaction of a particle with the Higgs field which results in its mass, and the mechanism works on itself also, giving the Higgs boson its own mass. I wasn't careful enough while formulating my statement. A small point, but very well spotted !

10. And this will be confirmed by the CERN committee, the Higgs particle, no?

11. Maybe, we shall see. Still collecting and analyzing data. There are hints of a signal there, but not enough to state it has been found, or that what was found is exactly what was expected.

12. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.
Isn't it more correct to say it is the Higgs Field that imbues particles with mass, rather than the boson? Since the proposed Higgs Boson has mass, it too aquires that from interacting with the Higgs Field.

Right?

MW
Strictly speaking you are absolutely right - it is the interaction of a particle with the Higgs field which results in its mass, and the mechanism works on itself also, giving the Higgs boson its own mass. I wasn't careful enough while formulating my statement. A small point, but very well spotted !
I must admit I don't understand what force the boson carries; need to do some investigation on the subject.

13. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Maybe, we shall see. Still collecting and analyzing data. There are hints of a signal there, but not enough to state it has been found, or that what was found is exactly what was expected.

This is why I asked previously if any connection will be attempted between FTL and the Higgs particle. I mean, they are looking for a G.U.T, right?

14. Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Just out of interest though, are physicists trying to use the idea of the Higgs particle as a way of explaining FTL?
No, the Higgs particle doesn't have anything to do with FTL travel; it is a mechanism used to explain why and how elementary particles acquire mass.
Isn't it more correct to say it is the Higgs Field that imbues particles with mass, rather than the boson? Since the proposed Higgs Boson has mass, it too aquires that from interacting with the Higgs Field.

Right?

MW
Strictly speaking you are absolutely right - it is the interaction of a particle with the Higgs field which results in its mass, and the mechanism works on itself also, giving the Higgs boson its own mass. I wasn't careful enough while formulating my statement. A small point, but very well spotted !
I must admit I don't understand what force the boson carries; need to do some investigation on the subject.
Well, it doesn't really carry any force as such, unless you want to regard the breaking of electroweak symmetry as a new fundamental force of nature, which you could do as a matter of fact. It's a matter of definition, and the scientific community seems to have decided not to do this at the moment. The Higgs is classified as a boson because it has an integer-valued spin ( spin 0 ), as opposed to half-integer spin fermions. All particles of integer spin ( 0,1,2... ) are by definition bosons regardless of whether they carry force or not; the ones that carry force are more precisely termed vector bosons.

15. Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver
Originally Posted by MeteorWayne
Maybe, we shall see. Still collecting and analyzing data. There are hints of a signal there, but not enough to state it has been found, or that what was found is exactly what was expected.

This is why I asked previously if any connection will be attempted between FTL and the Higgs particle. I mean, they are looking for a G.U.T, right?
Yes, you are right, we are looking for a Grand Unified Theory in the sense that it can unite three fundamental forces into a common framework ( gravity excluded ). The formalism for this would be relativistic quantum field theory, which already incorporates relativistic principles, and therefore does not allow for any FTL phenomena.

16. To me the OP is just complete nonsense, it is word salad.

17. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Well, it doesn't really carry any force as such, unless you want to regard the breaking of electroweak symmetry as a new fundamental force of nature, which you could do as a matter of fact. It's a matter of definition, and the scientific community seems to have decided not to do this at the moment. The Higgs is classified as a boson because it has an integer-valued spin ( spin 0 ), as opposed to half-integer spin fermions. All particles of integer spin ( 0,1,2... ) are by definition bosons regardless of whether they carry force or not; the ones that carry force are more precisely termed vector bosons.
Thanx, Markus, that helps some.

18. Mod note to all: please try to avoid nested quotes. Apart from wasting disc space, it makes the argument very difficult to follow. Thank you

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement