TL;DR — This is a thought experiment. We use shadows—absences of light with no mass or energy—to create an apparent faster-than-light cause→effect mapping across a huge baseline. Nothing physical outruns . Instead, we redefine the bookkeeping of “information transfer” so that a declared convention (shadow position as the trigger) collapses the problem. Einstein isn’t overturned—he’s finessed.
The Setup (Two Paths, One Choice)
-
Board: Imagine a vast “board” stretching millions of miles with two marked paths: A and B.
-
Actions: Each path maps to a different action: X for A, Y for B.
-
Choice: At the near end, I choose which shadow to send: Shadow-1 → A or Shadow-2 → B.
-
Observers: At the far end, two observers wait at A and B to trigger X or Y the instant the relevant shadow arrives.
-
Key geometric fact: The edge of a shadow can sweep across the board superluminally because it isn’t a physical object or signal—it’s a moving boundary condition. With the right geometry (source, occluder, distances), the shadow speed can far exceed c.
Result: My local choice (which shadow I move) leads to a distant action (X or Y) apparently faster than any light signal could traverse the same distance.
What This Is (and Is Not)
✅ What we are doing
-
Redefining conventions. We treat shadow position as the operative trigger for cause→effect, expanding what “information” can mean beyond particles/waves.
-
Using a non-physical carrier. A shadow carries no mass, no energy. It’s a geometric absence we can coordinate against.
-
Stress-testing our bookkeeping. We show that under this convention, cause→effect can look superluminal while physics stays intact.
❌ What we are not doing
-
Not violating relativity. No object, particle, field energy, or usable signal outruns c.
-
Not enabling paradoxes or time travel. There’s no way to send physical information FTL to create causal loops.
-
Not “overturning Einstein.” Relativity’s structure remains; we’re changing the rulebook we humans use to describe simultaneity and information.
Why a Shadow Can Be “Faster Than Light” (and That’s Fine)
A shadow’s “speed” is purely kinematic and conventional—it’s about how a boundary (light vs. no light) sweeps across a distant surface. With large distances and small angular motions, the linear sweep can be arbitrarily large. No energy rides that edge, so nature’s speed limit isn’t involved. The trick is geometry, not new physics.
What Changes If You Accept This Convention?
-
Causality bookkeeping. We allow absence to act as the trigger. That expands the language of “information” to include environmental conditions and coordination rules, not just traveling signals.
-
A clean split: The universe’s rules (can’t push energy faster than ) vs. our rules (what counts as a valid trigger or message). We alter the latter—and the problem collapses.
“Einstein, Finessed” (Why This Matters)
Einstein taught us that simultaneity is a convention. In that spirit, we declare a shadow-trigger convention: distant actions are keyed to shadow arrival, not to a light-synchronized signal. Physics stays the same; our description changes. The effect is convention-relative but operationally real—observers can run it and watch X or Y fire “too fast” for a light messenger.
FAQ (fast)
Isn’t this cheating?
It’s productive cheating—like Alexander and the Gordian knot. You don’t violate the rules of the knot; you reframe how it’s solved.
Can I send a real message FTL?
Not with matter/energy. You can pre-declare that “shadow at A means X; shadow at B means Y,” but the physical medium still obeys c
This is about conventions, not new signaling channels.
So what’s the contribution?
A crisp demonstration that changing conventions (what counts as information/trigger) can produce apparent superluminal causality—useful for clarifying where physics ends and philosophy (our definitions) begin.
So what’s the contribution?
A crisp demonstration that changing conventions (what counts as information/trigger) can produce apparent superluminal causality—useful for clarifying where physics ends and philosophy (our definitions) begin.