Jump to content

Travelling faster than the speed of light would mean entering a parallel universe?


Jalopy
 Share

Recommended Posts

According to Einstein, if you go faster than the speed of light, you go back in time. 

Obviously you can't go back in time in the literal sense of the word, but you can go back in time in the sense that you can enter a parallel dimension where t=-1 compared to the present universe where t=0. 

Is that true?

 

Edited by Jalopy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Jalopy said:

According to Einstein, if you go faster than the speed of light, you go back in time. 

Obviously you can't go back in time in the literal sense of the word, but you can go back in time in the sense that you can enter a parallel dimension where t=-1 compared to the present universe where t=0. 

Is that true?

 

No.

Superluminal speeds are inconsistent with causality: there are situations where you can get a response to a signal before you send the signal.

Depending on what you mean by parallel dimensions, they are science fiction or an interpretation of QM. Not actually science itself. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2022 at 6:12 AM, swansont said:

No.

Superluminal speeds are inconsistent with causality: there are situations where you can get a response to a signal before you send the signal.

Depending on what you mean by parallel dimensions, they are science fiction or an interpretation of QM. Not actually science itself. 

Isn't it also true that the many worlds interpretation of QM cannot be verified by inductive methods and is therefore extremely unscientific? That's what I've heard, but you'd probably know for sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, MSC said:

Isn't it also true that the many worlds interpretation of QM cannot be verified by inductive methods and is therefore extremely unscientific? That's what I've heard, but you'd probably know for sure.

It's an interpretation, not a theory. i.e. it's there to aid in figuring things out. I don't think that makes it "very unscientific" It would be like saying using ROY G BIV as a mnemonic to remember the spectrum is unscientific. It's not claiming to be science, and it's not contrary to science, so that label doesn't apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.