Skip to main content

Superluminal communication

Superluminal communication is the term used to describe the hypothetical process by which one might send information at faster-than-light (FTL) speeds. All empirical evidence found by scientific investigation indicates that it is impossible in reality.

Some theories and experiments include:

* Group velocity > c experiments
* Evanescent wave coupling
* Tachyons
* Quantum non-locality

According to the currently accepted theory, three of those four phenomena do not produce superluminal communication, even though they may give that appearance under some conditions. As for tachyons, their existence remains hypothetical; even if their existence were to be proven, attempts to quantize them appear to indicate that they may not be used for superluminal communication, because experiments to produce or absorb tachyons cannot be fully controlled.

If wormholes are possible, then ordinary subluminal methods of communication could be sent through them to achieve superluminal transmission speeds. Considering the immense energy that current theories suggest would be required to open a wormhole large enough to pass spacecraft through it may be that only atomic-scale wormholes would be practical to build, limiting their use solely to information transmission. Some theories of wormhole formation would prevent them from ever becoming "timeholes", allowing superluminal communication without the additional complication of allowing communication with the past.

The no cloning theorem prevents superluminal communication via quantum cloning. However, this does not in itself prevent faster-than-light or superluminal communication, since it is not the only proposed method of such communication. But, consider the EPR thought experiment, and suppose quantum states could be cloned. Alice could send bits to Bob in the following way:

If Alice wishes to transmit a '0', she measures the spin of her electron in the z direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |z+>B or |z->B. If Alice wishes to transmit a '1', she measures the spin of her electron in the x direction, collapsing Bob's state to either |x+>B or |x->B. Bob creates many copies of his electron's state, and measures the spin of each copy in the z direction. If Alice transmitted a '0', all his measurements will produce the same result; otherwise, his measurements will be split evenly between +1/2 and -1/2. This would allow Alice and Bob to communicate across space-like separations, potentially violating causality. But violation of causality is not sufficient as proof of no superluminal communication. So superluminal communication remains an open issue.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Characteristics of Mass Communication

Five characteristics of mass communication have been identified by Cambridge University's John Thompson. Firstly, it "comprises both technical and institutional methods of production and distribution". This is evident throughout the history of the media, from print to the Internet, each suitable for commercial utility. Secondly, it involves the "commodification of symbolic forms",as the production of materials relies on its ability to manufacture and sell large quantities of the work. Just as radio stations rely on its time sold to advertisements, newspapers rely for the same reasons on its space. Mass communication's third characteristic is the "separate contexts between the production and reception of information", while the fourth is in its "reach to those 'far removed' in time and space, in comparison to the producers". Mass communication, which involves "information distribution". This is a "one to many" f...

Conclusion

Open communication climates encourage employees through supporting them, through allowing them to participate in decision making, and, through trusting them, which assures the integrity of information channels. Ultimately, the openness of any communication climate depends upon the character of the participants. Openness often demands courage because the communicator operates with lowered or eliminated defensive barriers, even when standing up to verbal assault. Because open communicators have to articulate their positions in meetings, public arenas, and in print, they must be secure individuals, confident in their own positions, ability, and authority. Yet, while open communication climate may make formidable personal demands, such openness ultimately rewards both the individual and the organization in providing an environment where people thrive and enterprise flourishes.

Trusting Environments

All parties in information exchange must tell the truth as they perceive it. They must also ensure that information is correct. Credibility is any employee's greatest asset. A reputation for carelessness, lying, deceit, or manipulation undercuts all future messages. The result of credibility is trust; it underpins all human relationships. Employees have to believe their information sources. If, for example, at weekly meetings, the staff hears contradictory information about project plans, decisions, or salary, they will dis­miss all information because they cannot confidently choose which to believe. If one week they are told the start-up date is November 14, the next week November 20, and following week November 7, they will understandably dismiss all the information as not credible. Repeated instances of passing such contradictory information will corrupt the integrity of the communication channel. People quickly dismiss information sources that prove to be wrong or untrustworthy...