“That the universe is odd is a given. But it may soon become less odd than it was.”

This quote was in The Economist of August 29th, 2026. It was in the Science & technology section.

I did not understand it but that didn’t stop me from being fascinated by the article.

Then, coincidentally, yesterday Patrice Ayme posted another similarly-themed post. I have his permission to reproduce that post. Again I did not understand it. 😉

ooOOoo

RELATIVITY FASTER THAN LIGHT

FTL FROM REDUCING THE DOMAIN OF DEFINITION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION

Abstract: Quantum Entanglement has been experimentally demonstrated with utmost certainty to go Faster Than Light, FTL. FTL is NOT signalling (yet!) However, the two notions are extremely close. Special Relativity is conventionally said to exclude Faster-Than-Light signaling because Lorentz transformations can reverse the temporal order of spacelike-separated events. We readjust that notion to make it Entanglement and FTL signaling compatible. 

For an explicit FTL signal with (u=2c), a perfectly ordinary Lorentz transformation indeed assigns a negative reception time in a sufficiently rapidly moving inertial frame.
But this does not demonstrate that physical time travel occurs; it demonstrates that coordinate-time ordering is frame-dependent for spacelike intervals.

The essay argues that the real assumption requiring examination is not the mathematics of the Lorentz transformation, but its unrestricted physical interpretation.
If FTL influences exist, they need not be required to possess the same relativistic transformation properties as ordinary subluminal processes (and they should not as they potentially come from completely different physics)..

The proposed solution is to introduce a preferred Cosmic Manifest Frame (CMF), identified approximately by the Cosmological Microwave Background, CMB, in which FTL propagation and causal ordering are physically defined.
Other inertial frames may assign negative coordinate times to the same FTL process, but those coordinates do not represent reversed physical causality.
Lorentz symmetry is thereby retained as an effective symmetry for domains where it has been experimentally validated, and theoretically deduced, while it is denied fundamental universality.
SQPR adopts precisely such a preferred causal structure, with nonlocal quantum influences propagating at a finite superluminal speed such as TAU (>>>>> c).
The proposal thus attempts to separate the mathematical freedom of spacetime coordinates from the physical ordering of causes and effects.

***

We consider first a concrete numerical example of a specific superluminal speed to make the conventional argument found in Special Relativity textbooks (which we think is erroneous) completely explicit.

The standard argument against Faster Than Light SIGNALING goes as follows:

“Given Special Relativity, SR, if you allow faster‑than‑light signaling, then the Lorentz transformation between inertial frames implies that some observers will see the signal arrive before it is sent. With two such FTL signals, you can construct a closed causal loop, i.e. a form of ‘time travel’ that violates causality.” 

We will show that the “closed causal loop” construction is superfluous to make this (erroneous) argument work. The traditional argument can be made more compact, no need for a loop. This irony is significant, because the existence of a sharper (erroneous) argument against FTL from SR shows that the physicists who pretend to have demonstrated that FTL is impossible from SR have not bothered to find the sharpest argument, possibly indicating that they find the subject unappetizing… Or could it be that they were afraid to be cut by the sharpness of the argument, because, as it turns out, the argument doesn’t even need a causal loop? … It’s that basic…

First let’s give a concrete example. Let the Faster than Light (FTL) signal speed be u = 2c. And let the speed of S’ relative to S be .6c. And the separation L be two light second (twice Earth-Moon). Computation shows that, BLINDLY using the Lorentz transformation, the FTL signal is received in S’ at MINUS .25 second. In other words, time travel.

We argue that this is absurd, and caused by a misuse of the Lorentz transformation by overextending its domain of definition over the spacelike subset of Poincaré spacetime. (Poincaré discovered and used Poincaré spacetime and its metric months or years before those who plagiarized him. In particular Poincaré found the full Lorentz Transformation, LT, using the most general argument; this is important because, in spite of his success using it, clearly Poincaré took Poincaré spacetime with a grain of salt; the present essay explains a plausible reason why; there is another; later, following Poincaré once again, Einstein confessed he didn’t like Poincaré spacetime… Make no mistake: Poincaré’s argument about getting LT from Poincaré spacetime was entirely mathematically correct; what was not done is the physical restriction we undertake below).

Recapitulation in the general case:

We set the frame S and S’ such that their space and time origin coincide x = x’ = t = t’ = 0. That’s event A. Event B is at (L,T) in S, such that L/T = u, superluminal: u > c.

What is the time of B in S’? T’(B) is: (T – v L/cc)γ 

If the signal is FTL, L> cTL. Then there exists some subluminal v high enough such that:

(T− vL/cc) < 0…. Thus t’(B) < 0.

In other words the FTL signal is received at a negative time in S’ … thus before it is sent. 

This is my sharper version of the erroneous argument many physicists have made against FTL.

***

GRAND RETURN OF ABSOLUTE SPACE:

Solution to the riddle of the Lorentz Transformation creating events which have not happened yet: Reject the claim that all inertial frames are equivalent  In other words, as observed in Physical Reality, I mean the cosmos out there, there is a preferred frame in the universe, the one in which the CMB is at rest. (Mach and Newton would opine that this absolute space gives us some hope of explaining inertia. Einstein developed General Relativity in the hope of explaining inertia… He completely failed in that hope, but then we got GPS from GR…)

So postulate a special frame in which FTL is defined and causality is enforced. This is the path of SQPR.

In other frames, you might get “backwards in time” coordinates, but you declare that only the preferred frame’s ordering is physically meaningful.

This does not even abandon standard Special Relativity formally, and certainly not in practice (all the usual formulas are still effective, say for GPS, but one cannot extend the domain of the Lorentz Transformation over the space-like domain). SR has no difficulty representing spacelike intervals. 

What we reject formally is the additional assumption that an FTLphysical influence must transform exactly like an ordinary subluminal signal, with every inertial observer’s time coordinate having equal causal status. 

The Lorentz transformation is mathematically valid on spacetime, but its physical interpretation as a symmetry of every possible causal process need not be valid. Clearly when Poincaré published on June 5, 1905, the Lorentz Transformation as a rotation of Poincaré spacetime, he could not have guessed the EPR argument of 1935 of the demonstration of FTL by Aspect in 1982 (the latter proving that there are causal processes which are not confined by the speed of light; this outside of the domain of the Lorentz Transformation).

***

We can send (not yet controlled) information faster than light (Bell style experiments). Yes the orientation of the device at A has a real physical effect at B, even if the interval AB is spacelike. That has been amply proven theoretically and experimentally. 

We do not reject Poincaré spacetime… After all, it’s the geometrodynamics of light in the first approximation! But it’s just a first approximation; by the way, that seems to have been the point of view of his creator Henri Poincaré, that’s why he talked about the “ether” so much… Similarly Einstein admitted that, in General Relativity, the speed of light varies… The “ether” was a placeholder concept for the sort of hyperspace in which Physical Reality is embedded and that yours truly advocates for…

There are very deep math reasons for this; the math was not yet developed at the time but Poincaré, the world’s greatest topologist then, may have guessed them..

Instead we posit a preferred frame, the CMF, Cosmic Manifest Frame, as given by the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background. Call CMF by the letter S (for Stationary).

• Causality is fundamentally defined.
• FTL influences propagate with some speed u>c. In the case of SQPR one cosmic quantum collapse/entanglement speed is hypothesized: TAU. 
• The Lorentz transformation is an effective symmetry only for certain classes of phenomena (e.g. electromagnetism), not a fundamental symmetry of all physics…. Just like light is not all of physics, and sure has little to say about the QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT machinery it is subjected to (see Aspect Nobel Prize winning FTL experiments). 

This is exactly the loophole that avoids the “FTL ⇒ time travel” argument.

By the way, this restriction of the Lorentz Transformation proposed here will no doubt do wonders to help avoiding causal time like loops around Black Holes…

As we are into grandiose semi poetic evocations, let’s go all the way. I have an entanglement-clock argument: which questions the elevation of coordinate time to fundamental physical time. In the present essay, I similarly question the elevation of Lorentz-frame equivalence to a universal causal principle.

That gives the essay a much deeper unifying thesis: coordinate transformations need not dictate physical causality. (Ironically that idea is nothing new: it led to the creation of Special and General Relativity; what’s new is to push it beyond the old epistemological frontiers, taking FTL and Entanglement seriously…)

Patrice Ayme

ooOOoo

Just because this entire post is beyond me, it does not mean that I should not publish it. Because there will be others, one hopes, that will understand the science and the mathematics. And the idea that ‘faster than light’ does exist is incredible.

• Communication
• Education
• Innovation
• Mathematics
• Musings
• People
• Science
• Technology
• Writing