The Nightstar Zoo

Actually I think the solution here is that every hypernet node, that is, essentially every spot in the galaxy inhabited by technological people, is effectively within a few light-seconds of every other such node. There's no FTL-based time travel because nobody ever goes far enough away to go far enough back in time to make a difference... except Kevyn, once.

I believe it was explicitly stated at some point that all those issues were essentially swept under the rug because the story either becomes suck or weird if it isn't.

Teraport wormholes don't really involve FTL travel, do they? When you teraport from one side of the galaxy to another, you're taking advantage of temporarily weirdly-shaped space. You don't travel anywhere near the speed of light . . . instead, one side of the galaxy and the other are temporarily just a few inches away from each other (if even that far), and you just hop over at a reasonable normal speed.

Right?

Teraport is problematic in a way wormgates weren't. Wormgates were actually a non-causality-violating FTL before we explored their guts, because they were transported STL, and introduced a "preferred" reference frame: Namely, your reference frame had to be compatible with the wormgate. Whether or not time travel is occurring (it is) is actually unimportant as long as causality remains intact.

Teraports, on the other hand, allow someone to essentially teleport arbitrarily, without a "setup cost" that must be paid in STL. You could, therefore, teraport someplace, accelerate, and teraport back, and end up back before you started.

Or you could, anyway, if the entire thing hadn't been handwaved under the rug.

I saw this in PLoS ONE, and remembered this old thread. So as an update:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0033423

Three attempts (by the same guy) to replicate the experimental results that started this longer-than-usual forum thread have not been successful.

At least for the Shlock 'verse, we have to work it backwards.

Given: Wormhole gates are FTL travel, however handwaved.
Given: Teraport gates are FTL travel, as they use Plank-scaled wormholes.
Given: FTL communication exists, because we see it used.
Given: Many-worlds theory does not apply.

Therefore: Causality is constantly being violated.
Therefore: There is no free will.

But: Nobody and nobody, not even Pete, can predict thoughts or actions of themselves or others.

And: If people don't know what they are going to decide to do the next moment, then
free will is simulated within the mind of God, and the universe is therefore
held together by His efforts.

Therefore: The existence of FTL poses not a technical problem, but a theological problem.

So: Ask the Rev for his answer. I'm sure he was trained in his seminary regarding
how to face this.

I didn't see this thread last year, but I stopped reading around when OP said "QE is just a theory,"

It peeves me when people misuse the word 'theory' in a scientific context, it refers to a hypothetical model of reality has been extensively tested and is useful for making predictions about the consequences of various circumstances. I believe the problem stems from fundamentalist anti-evolution propaganda. Even if you went out and built a time machine tomorrow, QE would still be a useful theory, but the boundaries of where to apply that theory would be better known. Which is precisely what happened with newtonian physics vs relativistic physics. Newtonian physics is wrong, but it's still incredibly useful in everyday engineering, and similarly even if QED is ultimately incomplete or situational, it's still incredibly useful.

The worst part of it isn't even the absence of free will, but the fact that someone can do something like literally going back in time to blow themselves up before they set out on this trip. The existence of freeform FTL makes this not only possible, but trivial. A purely wormgate-only FTL system could be set up that didn't create closed timelike curves, but teraports make it trivial to do it. The author has handwaved the matter under the rug, so we don't have to worry about it.

Yes; I feel the same way when people argue that evolution is "just a theory," and they don't believe it. I usually counter by saying that Newton's "Law of Gravity" is just a theory and suggest they disbelieve it real, real hard and see if they can fly.

Too many people don't understand what "theory" means to scientists. The common belief of what theory means is actually closer to "hypothesis." The other complaint I hear about scientists is that they keep chaning their minds every time they run an experiment. Well, yeah--that's the point. New data either substantiates or refutes parts of a theory. Generally, a theory has several possible interpretations, and experiments are devised to determine which, if any, interpretation is valid. As you get more data, you refine your theory. It's like the question "Is a photon a particle or a wave?" Experiments were run, and the answer was "it depends." There are several ways to interpret the results of these experiments, and all are valid in some circumstances, and none are privelaged to be called "absolute truth." There are no physical laws. There are simply observations and interpretations. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation states that an attractive force (as opposed to an ugly force?) equal to gMm/r²; General Relativity says that mass warps space. Which one is true? Both.

In one of my college physics classes, the professor said he was going to prove that there was no such thing as a magnetic field. He set up a mathematical model of two electrons moving relative to each other in wires. Each electron was moving "inside" its wire at roughly 0.95 C, which is a common velocity factor for electrons in copper at room temperature. He then calculated the force on the electrons caused by their electrostatic fields and applied the relativistic mass increase to them. Maxwell's equations dropped right out. The electromagnetic force can be considered a phantom force which is simply a manifestation of relativity because electrons, especially when moving in "permanent magnetic" materials, move at relativistic velocities. Two different and perfectly valid ways (the math works perfectly both ways) of viewing the same effect. Now, which one is right? Some people would say "both." I say "There's no such thing as right and wrong here." You use the model which works in your situation. If you want to predict the lunar eclipse, it's easiest to just assume that the Earth doesn't move and that the moon rotates around it. If you're on the moon, you'd assume the Earth is fixed relative to the moon (remember that the moon is tidally locked to the Earth except for some libration). Just use whatever model is easiest. That's where Galileo blew it with the Church. If he'd just said "I have a mathematical model which simplifies the calculations if you just assume the Sun is the center of the Solar System, even though we know it isn't," he'd probably have gotten away with it.

_________________
===============================================
"A sufficiently-advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Arthur C. Clarke
"Sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology."
Jack L. Chalker
"Magic is just another way of saying 'I don't know how it works.'"
Larry Niven

I know the causality/FTL/relativity bit, and that FTL might be possible if causality can be violated. But sorry, even if spontaneous time travel of particles is possible, the idea that particles can tunnel backwards in time in a sufficiently organized and large-scale way to even resemble any effect in a brain is as ludicrous as the idea that you can reverse the spin on the quarks in your nose by sneezing.



"Just a theory" is a big red flag. Yes, science continually advances and quantum electrodynamics is cutting-edge physics. There are bound to be new discoveries that change what we know. But QE is a theory in the same way that evolution is a theory. It has predictive power, and its predictions are backed by evidence. It has industry applications (see quantum dots).



Or they may be reacting to other stimuli that allow them to anticipate the event; eg. perturbations in the air or the water, the smell of a predator, movement, etc. Brains have had millions of years of being selected for pattern recognition to anticipate threats.



Computers are actually much more sensitive to noise than brains, as they are less redundant. One effect of this is that satellite computers require specially designed radiation-resistant chips to work, but the same ionizing radiation doesn't prevent human brains from working (though it can cause cancer).

Actually, the answer to that question is "No." It's an energy packet, which is neither particle nor wave. The math which predicts how photons work produces effects which could be mistaken for wavelike or particlelike behavior in particular contexts, but is distinct from either.