Hacker News Reader

Comment by m3kw9 | Hacker News Reader

In layman terms does this mean we will get 0ms latency?

Not at all. Instantaneous communication can be used to send messages back in time, so it would be a much bigger deal if that was expected.

Can you expand on this? How can it be used to send messages back in time if both are timestamped to the micro/nano second?

I believe it is a current law of physics that even the propagation of information is limited to the speed of light. So, no.

Well, laws can change. Both legal laws and laws of physics. There have been several laws of physics in past centuries that have been found not to hold (not that it's very probable, but still possible).

Ha I don't think causality is going to change. That's a lot different from all those other times science changed. It's not only the underpinning of all physics, confirmed by literally every single scientific observation in the history of mankind--it's also just logically inconsistent to break causality. It makes no sense at all. Causes happen before effects, not ever the other way around.

I guess maybe we could someday find an exception to causality, but it would be a way bigger deal than any other discovery we've made. It would be a back to square one situation.

As they say, you can have FTL, relativity, or causality--pick two. We've really nailed down relativity and causality. It's not looking great for FTL. Trust me, it breaks my heart every time I think about it. But that's the way it is sometimes.

>it's also just logically inconsistent to break causality

Half of QM (or its interpretations) is also "logically inconsistent", though.

>Causes happen before effects, not ever the other way around.

That's from our own perspective though. In certain theories of the universe (even ones consistent with relativity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del_metric) time is not the one way stream we conceive it to be.

Interpretations have nothing to do with logical inconsistency. They've got even less to do with the Theory itself. You, on the other hand - are putting interpretations and the theories in one bucket.

Godel's metric have nothing to do with reality if you actually read about it's properties. For example, the universe described by it would have no reshift for distant objects.

Please, check your facts. Otherwise you sound just like an uneducated new-ager looking for "truth".

FWIW my wording was _current_ law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com