Genady

Supernova Explosions (Astronomy and Astrophysics Library): Branch, David, Wheeler, J. Craig: 9783662550526: Amazon.com: Books

Give me a bit more detailed scenario and I'll try.

But it could.

It is a very narrow view.

I did not say anything about a paradox being true. I don't even know what it means.

According to a major school of thought in psychology and philosophy, concepts exist separately from their various sensory, motor, and affective representations. Using a triangle example, Kemmerer in Concepts in the Brain (pp. 253-254, Oxford University Press) says,

They would rather travel back each to their own past, wouldn't they? So, they may even arrive there not as one object at all.

Breaking laws of electrodynamics and energy conservation would be quite a big deal. It would lead to breaking of quantum electrodynamics, quantum field theory, gauge theory, standard model, thermodynamics, etc.

This scenario breaks the laws of electrodynamics. It breaks the law of energy conservation. Etc. If such a scenario possible, the physics is all wrong.

Magnetism and electricity are effects of electromagnetic field. Light is waves in this field. Photons are excitations of this field.

The electron travelling faster than light in water does not break any physics because physics in fact says that it cannot move faster than the speed of light in vacuum. Light itself does not set a limit. The limit is the speed, c. Light and any other massless particle move in vacuum with this speed, c. This is the connection to the "speed of light."

Yes, it does. The electrons in your "phone", in the past, start moving without a physical cause.

Yes, it does.

OK, next time. When the object is something more interesting than soul. DNA, for example.

How can I know what is a metaphorical DNA?

If you write it down, it exists on paper, which is outside of our brain.

May it be this: Unsolved Problems in Number Theory (Problem Books in Mathematics, 1): Guy, Richard: 9780387208602: Amazon.com: Books

This is not a way to get peer reviews. You need to clearly describe your research in a clear format such as Abstract - Introduction - Materials and Methods - Results - Discussion. Then peer reviewers will relate and respond to its content.

Humans create lighthearted things of this type, which, contrary to the ChatGPT's compilations, are not empty of content. See, for example, Picasso at the Lapin Agile - Wikipedia:

Why wouldn't you get peer reviews from a scientific journal in the corresponding field of science?

Yes, you're right. That was how it started. However, I did not discuss her claims as I did not see the video. (Perhaps this led to this thread being split.) I wanted to point out that causality violation appears in SR as a result of FTL also without a signal being sent back in time.

No, I don't. I know that causality is violated. Assuming that a 'signal' moves faster than light leads to violation of causality. This is my whole point. See the OP here: https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/130520-paradox-split-from-is-ftl-actually-possible/

The Lorentz transformation gives times of the same two events in another observer's frame knowing their times and coordinates in the first observer's frame.

Yes, it took time 1 in the A's frame: the signal left the source at time ts=0 and arrived at the target at time tr=1.

Let's say some signal moves with twice the speed of light in observer A's frame. It is sent, the event S, at time ts=0 from the origin xs=0. At the time tr=1 it arrives at the distance coordinate xr=2, where a detector blows a bomb. This is event R. Observer B moves with the speed v=3/5 c along the x axis, with their x axes and origins coincide. In the B's frame, the event S occurs at ts'=0, xs'=0. The event R in his frame occurs at tr' = gamma*(tr - v*xr/c2) = 5/4 * (1 - 6/5) = -1/4 i.e., 1/4 before the event S.