I have heard this mentioned several times with this exact wording, that faster than light travel would break/violate causality and I do not exactly understand why and how it would do that. Could someone more well-versed in physics explain to me why that would be the case? Or is it not the case? (Yes, I am fully aware, that faster than light speeds are impossible in real life, but I am more curios about how it would hypothetically affect physics, were it possible). I am somewhat familiar with physics and more so with mathematics (engineering student), if that helps anyone to explain it at an appropriate level.

  • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Here’s a concrete example:

    Say a ship leaves Earth traveling half the speed of light, but it carries a communication device that can communicate with Earth “instantaneously” (i.e., faster than light). From Earth’s frame of reference, time on board the ship is slowed down by a factor of 0.866, while from the ship’s frame of reference, time on Earth is slowed down by the same factor. (This isn’t some trick of perception—the geometry of spacetime distorts in such a way as to make both these observations true simultaneously.)

    Now suppose a year has passed on Earth, and we use the device to communicate with the ship ”instantaneously”. From Earth’s frame of reference, the ship has currently experienced only 316 days of elapsed time, so that’s when they receive the signal according to their clock. But from their frame of reference, Earth at that point has only experienced 274 days of elapsed time—so when they send their “instantaneous” reply, it arrives on Earth three months before the original signal was sent.

    • surepancakesOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      From Earth’s frame of reference, time on board the ship is slowed down by a factor of 0.866, while from the ship’s frame of reference, time on Earth is slowed down by the same factor

      Why is time on earth slowed down from the ship’s perspective? Shouldn’t it be faster? Like if earth perceives that the time on the ship is passing slower shouldn’t the people on the ship perceive the time on earth as passing faster to compensate?

      Also, I have quite a hard time understanding how time exactly slows down. Is it sort of as though we adjusted the time step duration (tickrate, more precisely) of a physics simulation in an area (making everything happen slower/faster there in relation with the rest, where the original timestep is kept)? (Without losing precision and all those problems that occur in a simulation normally) Or is this analogy flawed and that is why I’m not getting it?

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Why is time on earth slowed down from the ship’s perspective? Shouldn’t it be faster?

        According to special relativity, all non-accelerating frames of reference are equally valid, so the observations are symmetric: both Earth and the ship see the other moving away at 0.5c, so they both see the other slow down.

        Now it’s true that if the ship turned around and returned to earth at 0.5c, it would be the ship’s clock that was behind earth’s, and not the other way around—but that’s because, when the ship turns around, it accelerates, and while it does so the whole non-accelerating frame of reference thing goes out the window. After it finishes turning around, the point in earth’s timeline the ship judges to be simultaneous with its own will have jumped forward in time—so that even though it observes earth-time moving slower than its own during both the outbound and return trips, the time jump as it turns around will more than compensate.

        (Or equivalently, you could say that after turning around, the ship observes its own past history on the outbound trip to have been slowed down even more than earth’s.)

        • surepancakesOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Okay. Thank you! This explanation made it click for me (now I think I get the original example too). Here the real cause of the violation is the instant communication, isn’t it? If the communication was done via radiowaves (which as far as I know also travel at the speed of light) it would not be violated, because of the time it takes for the information to arrive from the Earth to the spaceship and back, is that correct? Is this why (as I have read/heard on several occasions) the upper bound for the speed of information is also the speed of light?

          • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Exactly.

            When I say the parties observe each other slowing down, or observe the simultaneous point in the other’s timeline jumping around, they don’t observe this in real time unless they’re using faster-than-light communication. Using conventional means, it’s only after receiving the signals and compensating for the redshift or blueshift that they can reconstruct the other’s past timeline relative to their own.

    • perviouslyiner@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Has anyone actually proven no violation of causality? Wikipedia seemed to suggest that it’s not physically impossible to have a wormhole, take one of the ends on a round trip so that it doesn’t age as much, and you’d be left with a situation where you can go in one end and come out in the past.

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        No—“no violation of causality” isn’t a physical law that can be formulated, much less proven. It’s just our intuitive feeling that anything physically possible should also be comprehensible.