Skip to main content

Science: Gravity as a Communications Mechanism?

Does gravity move at the speed of light? For instance, if I were able to change some energy into matter, how long would it take for other matter to begin to feel the attraction of the matter I created? I assume someone out there knows the answer.

If you could convert energy to matter and back again in an amazingly concise manner, and do it at a specific frequency, and if you could detect such changes in gravity at a specific frequency, you could conceivably use gravity as a communications mechanism. That's not likely to happen during my lifetime, but it does make for some interesting science fiction.

Comments

Shrutarshi Basu said…
Yes, gravity does "travel" at the speed of light. But I feel like Gravitional communication would be an incredibly wasteful method of communication. A simple laser beam would get the same speed for far less cost. Good idea though.
metapundit.net said…
I guess it's back to work on your quantum entanglement walkie-talkie.
Eddy Mulyono said…
that would make an interesting covert channel...
jjinux said…
From Jesse Montrose:

I put that idea into my (still unfinished) NaNoWriMo novel last year :)

But I just read this:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Anonymous said…
In David Weber's Honor Harrington series the 'good guys' develop this an a FTL communications system.

Good concept
jjinux said…
Crazy.
Unknown said…
Well, there is at least a way to turn matter into energy. It's sort of like a one-way hash, however. It's also called an "atomic bomb". ;-)
jjinux said…
While it's true that an atomic bomb does indeed send a message, it's not quite the communications mechanism I had in mind ;)

Popular posts from this blog

Ubuntu 20.04 on a 2015 15" MacBook Pro

I decided to give Ubuntu 20.04 a try on my 2015 15" MacBook Pro. I didn't actually install it; I just live booted from a USB thumb drive which was enough to try out everything I wanted. In summary, it's not perfect, and issues with my camera would prevent me from switching, but given the right hardware, I think it's a really viable option. The first thing I wanted to try was what would happen if I plugged in a non-HiDPI screen given that my laptop has a HiDPI screen. Without sub-pixel scaling, whatever scale rate I picked for one screen would apply to the other. However, once I turned on sub-pixel scaling, I was able to pick different scale rates for the internal and external displays. That looked ok. I tried plugging in and unplugging multiple times, and it didn't crash. I doubt it'd work with my Thunderbolt display at work, but it worked fine for my HDMI displays at home. I even plugged it into my TV, and it stuck to the 100% scaling I picked for the othe

ERNOS: Erlang Networked Operating System

I've been reading Dreaming in Code lately, and I really like it. If you're not a dreamer, you may safely skip the rest of this post ;) In Chapter 10, "Engineers and Artists", Alan Kay, John Backus, and Jaron Lanier really got me thinking. I've also been thinking a lot about Minix 3 , Erlang , and the original Lisp machine . The ideas are beginning to synthesize into something cohesive--more than just the sum of their parts. Now, I'm sure that many of these ideas have already been envisioned within Tunes.org , LLVM , Microsoft's Singularity project, or in some other place that I haven't managed to discover or fully read, but I'm going to blog them anyway. Rather than wax philosophical, let me just dump out some ideas: Start with Minix 3. It's a new microkernel, and it's meant for real use, unlike the original Minix. "This new OS is extremely small, with the part that runs in kernel mode under 4000 lines of executable code.&quo

Haskell or Erlang?

I've coded in both Erlang and Haskell. Erlang is practical, efficient, and useful. It's got a wonderful niche in the distributed world, and it has some real success stories such as CouchDB and jabber.org. Haskell is elegant and beautiful. It's been successful in various programming language competitions. I have some experience in both, but I'm thinking it's time to really commit to learning one of them on a professional level. They both have good books out now, and it's probably time I read one of those books cover to cover. My question is which? Back in 2000, Perl had established a real niche for systems administration, CGI, and text processing. The syntax wasn't exactly beautiful (unless you're into that sort of thing), but it was popular and mature. Python hadn't really become popular, nor did it really have a strong niche (at least as far as I could see). I went with Python because of its elegance, but since then, I've coded both p