[HN Gopher] "I survived the TCP transition" (2013) ___________________________________________________________________ "I survived the TCP transition" (2013) Author : agomez314 Score : 130 points Date : 2022-08-22 14:54 UTC (8 hours ago) (HTM) web link (blog.google) (TXT) w3m dump (blog.google) | kerblang wrote: | [Cue 32-bit IP snark] blah | dboreham wrote: | The transition to IPv6 basically spanned my entire career (in | networking, I had a previous career as a hardware engineer). My | first task was to participate in the IPNg mailing list because | the company I had just joined had an OSI stack, and one of the | NG proposals was to bolt TCP on top of OSI's lower layers | (TUBA). And this morning I spent some time on the phone to my | ISP asking when/if they will roll out IPv6 in my area. 30 year | span. | dsr_ wrote: | In 1994 I was talking to my colleagues about IPv6 and they | asked how soon we would need to start transitioning. "Not | this year," I said. "Maybe think about it next year in the | budgeting process." | bombcar wrote: | IPv6 will roll out finally in 2049 or something, and | immediately be replaced with IPv10. | Bluecobra wrote: | I believe that was around the time BGP migrated from v3 to | v4 (CIDR support). It's pretty neat that change got pushed | through so quickly. Granted the Internet was much smaller | then (< 1500 AS's and 20K routes). Makes you think if work | on IPv6 started earlier everyone could have migrated over | in one swoop. | 082349872349872 wrote: | Obligatory t-shirt pairing: https://www.rightontheline.com/wp- | content/uploads/2019/03/Sc... | googlryas wrote: | Never thought I'd see Cerf in a t-shirt. I just assumed he was | born and would die in a 3-piece. The man made POTUS look like a | schlub when he accepted his Medal of Freedom. | shagie wrote: | (dig dig dig...) | | The original tweet for any who want that link is | https://twitter.com/webfoundation/status/1105425858913816576 | | (scroll, scroll... oh neat) | | The back of the shirt is | https://twitter.com/vgcerf/status/1105467776477679616 | VictorPath wrote: | In thanks for his decades of work getting the Internet going, | Postel spent the months before he died getting trashed by | anonymous government officials in the Washington Post and | elsewhere. | rospaya wrote: | Why was that? | fanf2 wrote: | There was a huge controversy over governance of the Internet, | in particular the DNS, because it had become clear that | Network Solutions had been handed a licence to print money as | the monopoly controller of the DNS, and they were providing | very poor service (filling in forms over email, very slow | response times, $100 fees) and inconsistent enforcement of | decency rules. | | Part of the response was the IAHC which came up with the | template for the fix: break up the monopoly by splitting | registries and registrars, force Network Solutions to | relinquish some of its TLDs, and create more TLDs. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAHC | | This was not immediately successful, until Postel (as IANA) | instructed the root DNS operators (other than Network | Solutions) to get the root zone from IANA instead of from | NetSol. This caused an _epic_ shitfest, as a result of which | Postel reverted the root zone change, and the US NTIA got | moving and started the foundation of ICANN. | | The company now known as Verisign is the direct successor of | NetSol, and they still control .com and .net, and feed the | root zone to the other root server operators. | zwieback wrote: | I started my coding career in the early 90s and at that time | there were a buttload of non-TCP network protocols running on | small computers (Macs, PCs, etc.) Netware, LANtastic, AppleTalk, | Netbios stuff... Even though they all had something going for | them I'm glad they have been steamrollered by TCP/IP | johngalt wrote: | To this day I think ATM was an interesting approach. Virtual | circuit switching with quality of service capabilities designed | into the protocol. If nothing else, it is a great example of a | complex and optimized protocol losing vs a ubiquitous and | simple protocol. | kuon wrote: | IPX worked very well for LAN games, it required no | configuration. Compared to how difficult it is to play together | now (steam friends. xbox...), it was much better. | | Of course it had drawbacks, but for that it was great. | Wohlf wrote: | TCP LAN games were also easy to set up. | EamonnMR wrote: | The difference between then and now is less protocol and more | pervasive authentication. | jandrese wrote: | That's just LAN play dying off in favor of (routeable) | Internet play. If developers wanted to they could add IP LAN | play to games, but there's just not enough demand. | contravariant wrote: | I can see why it died off. There were preciously few ways | to have LAN play over a distance without weird connection | issues. At some point I recall that Hamachi did work fairly | well, but that meant you still had to rely on a third party | in the end. | | Even now it's only somewhat doable to do it without relying | on 3rd parties by using wireguard. So I can see why relying | on a third party became the default. | Thlom wrote: | I remember back in the 90's and early 00's my cousin and | his neighbors had a neighborhood LAN going. They had | stretched I believe Ethernet cables across the street and | from house to house. It might actually have been coax | cables in a ring network of some sorts. Anyway. They had | an IRC server going and shared files and played games. | Seemed like good times. | bombcar wrote: | The assumption is that if you're on an IP network, you | already have addresses, etc (because you're routable to the | internet). | | IPX/SPX worked without that assumption; it was bog simple | to find some IPX cards, shove them in the computers, | connect them, and go, even if you knew nothing. | | The closest for TCP/IP would be to support gaming over | link-local links (those 169.* addresses) but everything is | assumed to be on the internet now. | | And if you have TCP/IP for the internet, rarely do you care | or need anything else for local comms. | jandrese wrote: | You could also do it over multicast. | | The big downside is that if some people are on WiFi then | they'll be reduced down to 802.11b speed. | | A better solution would be to do server/player discovery | via multicast and then stitch up unicast links for the | actual gameplay. | WorldMaker wrote: | That's all IPX/SPX was was link local multicast. I see | all the "no configuration" required love for it in | surrounding comments, but I suppose few remember the | failure states when it didn't work as expected, including | drowning an entire switch (or worse token ring) in | multicast noise. I know I hit IPX/SPX config hell a few | times over the years in home LAN gaming, and I can't | believe I was that alone in it, so I'm assuming the | nostalgia goggles are in play in some of these "it just | worked" memories. | | > A better solution would be to do server/player | discovery via multicast and then stitch up unicast links | for the actual gameplay. | | That's basically what most mDNS applications do today | (the modern standards compliant name for used to be | called Bonjour): use .local multicast for service | discovery and then often use that to bootstrap to unicast | links. It's not a bad way to go, with the only caveats | that to get good mDNS support in Windows I believe that | you still have to dig into WinRT components rather than | old school Win32 sockets APIs and that especially seems | to cramp many games from even trying to use it for LAN | discovery today despite it being a mostly reliable | standard in 2022. | bombcar wrote: | Most people did the "two cards connected" setup and let | it work - or already had an IPX/SPX network setup and | running and used that (Doom could crash them IIRC). | | Few people actually _built_ IPX networks, let alone | routed them, etc. | jandrese wrote: | IMHO Bonjour/mDNS adds a lot of points of failure and | doesn't really buy you much. It's so easy to just open a | multicast listener port on a specific address and port | and then just send out UDP packets to communicate. | bombcar wrote: | Yeah, anything actually doing it today will do something | like multicast/bonjour and then do direct links. | | Though I have seen games that apparently use an internet | service to coordinate direct links ... | eklavya wrote: | I seem to have never had a reliable and working mDNS on | any OS. Would not recommend. | bluedino wrote: | Way back when I first started working for a small networking | outfit, we were informally split into 'Team Red' and 'Team | Blue'. Everyone agreed that Novell was on the way out, and | the younger guys with their MCSE's made up most of Team Blue. | I had un-officially started 'Team Yellow' and was sticking | Linux boxes in when I could. | | Anyway...one afternoon I was at a law office installing some | legal library software (or something), and one of the younger | lawyers asked me into his office. He had a couple copies of | Warcraft and Command & Conquer, he had installed them on a | couple of the office computers but couldn't get network play | going. | | Not really knowing what I was doing, I opened up the | properties dialog for the network adapter, added the IPX/SPX | protocol, and started the game up on two computers. | | It worked! It was that simple. I remember the guy pulling a | $50 out of his wallet and handing it to me. And, since they | were within walking distance of our office, I got invited | back over a couple times and we played a lot of games (and | drank a lot of beer) over there. | rjsw wrote: | I have AppleTalk compiled into the kernel on the machine I'm | using to type this, have also done some work on adding CHAOSNET | to it. | didgetmaster wrote: | I worked at Novell in the late 80s, early 90s. In the LAN | world, IPX/SPX worked pretty well but it was certainly | steamrolled by TCP/IP. | | Since I started out in the testing department, I not only had | to deal with a bunch of protocols (IPX, NetBios, etc.) but I | also had to deal with a bunch of stuff at the physical layer. | Instead of everything being Ethernet, we had Token-ring and | ArcNet cables running everywhere. | zwieback wrote: | Yup, I worked on a PC-to-Mac networking server product and we | tested with TokenRing as well. Massive hardware but good | performance. We also had a lot of coax wire in those days. To | this day I still look down on twisted pair and the garbage | Ethernet connectors we use now. | anyfoo wrote: | Electrically, there's not much reason to look down on | Twisted Pair. It is an ingenuous way to achieve what coax | does as an unbalanced transmission line with, well, a | twisted pair of wires that form a balanced (differential) | transmission line. You might need to add some shielding in | some situations, but that's just a piece of foil. | | Most importantly, the two wires that make up the pair | really just are common single-ended wires, not elaborate | coax or anything else. | | A single coax transmission line supporting 10Gbps Ethernet | would likely be much more expensive than the little bundle | of twisted pairs we typically use nowadays. | | In many ways, for its applications, twisted pair and RJ45 | connections are better than coax wiring with BNC. | cesarb wrote: | > Electrically, there's not much reason to look down on | Twisted Pair. | | Yeah, but mechanically, the RJ45 plug with its finicky | easily breakable plastic tab can be an annoyance. And | it's easy to see that the pin ordering is not ideal, with | the pair in the middle splitting another pair. AFAIK, | there exists a more robust connector (the M12 connector), | but it doesn't seem to be that common. | robocat wrote: | > finicky easily breakable plastic tab | | That is not really the fault of the RJ45 specifications. | The choice is available between cheap breakable | connectors or reliable well-designed connectors: it isn't | the fault of the specification that cheap is often | chosen. | | > the pin ordering is not ideal | | A very minor nitpick. And designed that way for specific | reasons. | | I like that it works well, was backwards compatible, and | the connectors, wiring, and tools are cheap, available, | and abundant. 1000Base-T is amazing technology (even if | we are blase about it!) | nomel wrote: | I've been using multi-gig [1] over short runs of cheap | cat 5 cable just fine. Actually, I only have one span | that links at 5G. The rest are short enough for 10G with | cat-5e, with 100m achievable with Cat-6! Talk about | incredible! | | 1. https://community.fs.com/blog/what-is-multigig- | ethernet.html | anyfoo wrote: | > And designed that way for specific reasons. | | Do you know that reason? I was wondering in my other | reply. | garaetjjte wrote: | It's some legacy from scheme used in RJ connectors used | in telephony, where first pair was on connector center | and it continued outwards with each pair (like this, | where each digit is pair: 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4). T568 only | retains this scheme for two pairs, maybe they realized | that splitting last pairs across entire 8 pin connector | would be unwieldy. | | Nothing stops you from wiring connectors different way | though, to the annoyance of anybody splicing that cable | in the future :) | anyfoo wrote: | True, the plastic tab can be annoying, but I guess the | sheer abundance of patch cables nowadays means the | cheapness of the connector, while retaining pretty good | ease of use (better than many others), makes up for that | drawback. Maybe something slightly more resilient could | have been designed within the same parameters, had people | known just how ubiquitous that connector would become. | | Maybe M12 is that, but it looks way more expensive at | first glance. Possibly more laborious to | connect/disconnect, too, with its screw-locking? Seems to | be better for applications where a secured connection is | more important (transportation is mentioned). | | And yeah, the 1000base-T pin ordering seems unusual. I'm | curious about the history there, because even 10base-T | (where I thought Ethernet for Twisted Pair begun) had | this really weird pinout, which does not support my | initial theory that it was because Ethernet kept | progressively adding more differential pairs: | https://www.arcelect.com/10baset.htm It may well be | because they added the original two pairs to a pinout | that already carried something else, but the diagrams | don't say what those other lines were for, so if anyone | knows... | | According to those same diagrams, though, it seems to be | more common to split up the pairs than not, which now | makes me wonder if there is any benefit to that? | tmm wrote: | > but the diagrams don't say what those other lines were | for, so if anyone knows... | | Telephones. Telephones are why. Those other two pairs | were often used for voice communication. If you had four- | pair station cabling, the pairs were provisioned on the | modular jack from the inside out. So line one was the | blue/blue-white pair on the inner pins, line two was the | orange/orange-white pair on the next two pins, and so on. | | Ethernet comes along and lots of places where you'd want | a network connection already had a phone jack with two | pairs unused, so for signal integrity reasons those are | moved to the outside and used for data, leaving the inner | two pairs where they were to be used for voice. | | But why 4 pairs in the first place? | | Just about the time that Ethernet was transitioning from | coax to twisted pair, the digital PBX was taking over | from key systems (1A2) and reduced the number of wires | required for a business telephone from 25 pairs (or more | ... secretarial sets often had 100 or more pairs) per | station down to 4 (for HORIZON[0]) and later two pairs | (DIMENSION and eventually Merlin, Definity, etc.). So if | you're wiring a new building, you can just run one | CAT-3[1] cable to each desk and use the first two pairs | for voice and the second two for data[2]. | | [0] OK, for the pedants out there, HORIZON wasn't ever | very popular and really pre-dated Ethernet, but the | telecom world moves kinda slow [1] Wasn't really CAT-3 | until the early 90s [2] Not on the same jack, but by | using pins 1, 2, 7, and 8 for data, you can plug the | wrong cable in without risk of hurting the phone or your | computer's network card | anyfoo wrote: | That makes perfect sense now, thanks. | | > so for signal integrity reasons those are moved to the | outside and used for data | | I'm not sure about that bit, though. Would keeping the | pair together not help with signal integrity? | toast0 wrote: | I think the advantage of ethernet pinout vs always having | adjacent pairs is that it can also be used for a two-line | phone or token ring which both use the two inner pairs | nested. | | I've seen somewhere that a pair of the two outer lines | didn't have sufficient performance, so the outer pairs | needed to wired side by side instead, but I don't have a | reference. Also, there's a reasonable question of why use | one inner pair and one outer pair, and not both inners or | both outers. | pavon wrote: | I'm glad IP took over everything, but I wish that TCP hadn't | become practically mandatory. There are some other really | useful transport layer protocols, like SCTP that are great to | use on a LAN, but good luck getting them to work on the | internet. The only way to do anything other than TCP is to | layer/tunnel it over UDP, and even that has less support than | TCP. | rjsw wrote: | I'm part way through adding support for SCTP to the NetBSD | firewall. Have done the basic filtering stuff, still working | on doing NAT for it. | jeffparsons wrote: | Fortunately that era is coming to an end. With QUIC (layered | on top of UDP) being the basis for HTTP/3, very few networks | will outright block QUIC traffic as many have done with UDP. | | And my experience with QUIC so far has been delightful -- | it's everything I've wanted for decades when TCP was too | restrictive and UDP too anaemic. | msla wrote: | Not to mention the Real Person All Grown Up Protocol Stack, | OSI, which of course was going to displace this ARPANET | childishness with protocols like the X.212 data link layer | that, like all data link layer protocols, provides checksumming | and resending and distinguishes between connection-oriented and | connectionless communication, plus X.400 email which, | naturally, uses the simple, comprehensible, easy-to-implement | X.500 directory service, for email addressing inherently tied | to your employer and physical address. | | Or OSI will crash and burn and we'll all pretend it was just a | model from day one, and insist that TCP/IP is best understood | using precisely the kind of strict layering the IETF explicitly | rejected in RFC 3439. Y'know, whatever reinforces the notion | that we never lose. | | https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc3439 | anyfoo wrote: | Heh, I remember attending trade shows in a time when X.400 | and X.500 were all the rage. | | Always a bad sign when another protocol comes along and calls | itself "lightweight", as in LDAP, the "lightweight directory | access protocol" merely based on X.500. | | SMTP is also the "simple" mail transfer protocol, but it's | not based on X.400 in any way and was apparently replacing... | FTP! | arky22 wrote: | dn3500 wrote: | It was almost a non-event for us. I was at a university computer | science lab. We were already running tcp/ip before the transition | on our Vaxes. We had a TOPS-20 system but rather than transition | it, we just retired it. We made very little use of the relay | services. | elurg wrote: | So when is everybody transitioning to QUIC? | arky22 wrote: | davidwihl wrote: | thatoneguy wrote: | Meanwhile, Windows 95 didn't install TCP/IP by default when | setting up a new network card. It was such a problem in the late | '90s / early '00s still that it was an interview question for my | university dial-up support job. | bombcar wrote: | That was right around the time of the Internet Memo of fame. At | the time '95 came out it was HIGHLY argued what would take off | (and for awhile it seemed AOL/CompuServe were winning). | | But the writing was already on the wall. | glonq wrote: | Ah, fond memories | http://www.hawaii.edu/its/micro/pc/tcpip9x.html | | It _sucked less_ than fooling around with Trumpet Winsock on | Win3.1 though! | agomez314 wrote: | Some background: new leadership at ARPANET demanded all hosts to | switch from the old protocol (NCP) to the new one developed by | Cerf and Kahn (TCP). This change caught many by surprise, and the | migration was a long and painful one for teams. "The transition | from NCP to TCP was done in a great rush...occupying virtually | everyone's time 100% in the year 1982. _Nobody_ was ready " | (Janet Abbate, Inventing the Internet, MIT Press 1999) | AdamH12113 wrote: | Needs a (2013). | | The article was posted on January 1, 2013, the 30-year | anniversary of the deadline for ARPANET nodes to switch over to | TCP. The next New Year's Day will thus be the 40th anniversary. | agomez314 wrote: | added. Thanks! | jsight wrote: | The parenthesis in the title confused me. What transition | happened in 2013? Oh, the article was from 2013 but was about | something that happened in 1982. | samstave wrote: | "Hi, I'd like to have a TCP transition." | | "Hello, would you like to have a TCP transition?" | | "Yes, I'd like to have a TCP transition." | | "OK, I'll get you a TCP transition." | | "Ok, I will have a TCP transition." | | "Are you ready to have a TCP transition?" | | "Yes, I am ready to have a TCP transition." | | Network Error (tcp_Error) | jvanderbot wrote: | Off topic: | | I met Vint Cerf at a Keck Institute for Space Studies [1] | workshop on computing infrastructure in deep space. He was | knowledgeable, energetic, funny, and volunteered to take notes | for an all-day working session. The goal was to lay out | requirements and benefits of flying servers to orbit around | distant bodies for on-site analysis. You can get a _lot_ of data | from cameras, but you can 't send _nearly any_ of it back, so do | interactive data reduction on site, right? | | He was at Google Loon at the time, working on their delay- | tolerant networking & dynamic routing for their baloon-internet | architecture. He's been super active in the NASA community | working on their delay-tolerant networking architecture. The | whole stack is really beautiful. In space, you know when nodes | are coming over the horizon because they are in regular orbit, so | you can plan routes for the future using "contact-graph routing", | and use store-and-forward to massively increase throughput. | (e.g., orbiters hold data automatically until they are in sight | of the next hop). Nothing you can do about latency, with speed of | light and all that though :) JPL has an open-source | implementation maintained by Scott Burleigh, another really neat | person, and I think JHU/APL does too. [2] | | Anyway. The guy is smart, sure, but he's also immediately | influential: You can't help but agree with him when he pushes | these simple, effective ideas naturally. | | 1. https://kiss.caltech.edu/ | | 2. https://sourceforge.net/projects/ion-dtn/ | EddySchauHai wrote: | He gave a talk at a company I used to work at on the history of | the internet and his thoughts on its future, it was really cool | to listen to him talk on these subjects! | nominusllc wrote: | I'd love to see a video of this. Unfortunately archive.org is | drawing a blank on this name. Do you perhaps have a link you | can share to slides or video? | jedberg wrote: | > Nothing you can do about latency, with speed of light and all | that though | | Why do we take this for granted? I understand the laws of | physics and all, but 120 years ago we didn't think humans could | fly through the air, and now we have a million+ humans flying | every day, and occasionally one goes to outer space. | | Why do we consider communication faster than the speed of light | so unbreakable? | [deleted] | tialaramex wrote: | "The speed of light" is probably not what you think it is. | | This constant, c, is actually about how time (one of our four | dimensions, often labelled t) is related to the three spatial | dimensions (often x, y, z). | | Light goes that fast (in a vacuum) because from the light's | point of view that's how those dimensions are related, it's | not really a "speed limit" it's up against, any more than | you'd consider it a "time limit" that hours have sixty | minutes in them. The light is just moving through time as | well as space, and that's how it has to work. | | So, because it's about the relationship between time and | space, what you're talking about with "faster than light" is | actually a time machine. | | Now, you might notice that before the aeroplane there were | birds (and bats, and insects, but lets focus on birds). | Clearly flying _is_ possible, a sparrow can do it. But you | may have noticed from the lack of time travelling visitors | that _time travel_ does not seem to be possible. | jedberg wrote: | I knew that about the speed of light (but thank you for | writing it out). My knowledge of entanglement is limited, | but haven't we observed entangled particles seemingly | communicate faster than light? | | While time travel may not be possible, maybe time traveling | data is? | dsr_ wrote: | No, we have not. | | We have observed that we can generate a pair of particles | and separate them, and when we look at the close one, we | now know that the far one has the complementary property. | You can't use that to send information. You could use it | as a shared secret, but you still had to move the | particle out where your recipient is for them to use it. | | You can take a flashlight and shine it at the moon, and | if you sweep the beam back and forth, you can make the | notional front of illumination move faster than the speed | of light -- but you can't modulate the signal faster than | the propagation velocity c. | | Time travel into the future is easy. Time travel into the | past doesn't work in this universe. | ynik wrote: | Entanglement doesn't involve any form of communication. | | Only the imaginary "wave function collapse" is faster | than light. But collapse isn't actually part of quantum | mechanics: there's no formula that would tell you when | collapse is triggered. The many world interpretation | doesn't have any wave function collapse at all; and it's | a valid interpretation of the underlying maths. Any "wave | function collapse" is merely an interpretation trick to | map the quantum world back to the classical world as | experienced by humans. You can't build technology out of | imaginary physics. | tambourine_man wrote: | Nope, it's a common misunderstanding. While the particles | are entangled regardless of distance and the action is | instantaneous (at least, that's one way of interpreting | it) there's no way to actually transmit information. | | You may try to come up with clever encodings for electron | spins, but you'll see that you end up having to know a | priory what the other end had. It's a long topic to | discuss on a HN thread but a quick YouTube search will | get you interesting videos. | nly wrote: | If time travel isn't possible how come we're all moving | in to the future right now? | teddyh wrote: | "If flying is impossible for me after I have jumped off | this tall building, how come I am currently moving | through the air towards the ground at high speed?" | didgetmaster wrote: | The lack of time travelling visitors may only indicate that | 'backward' time travel is not possible. It could be that | 'forward' time travel will be possible sometime in the | future. (And by 'forward', I mean faster than the normal | movement through time we all do every nanosecond) | dagss wrote: | Entering and awakening from a coma comes pretty close... | gpderetta wrote: | That's relatively trivial by going at relativistic speed. | AnIrishDuck wrote: | This is even a thing at non-relativistic speeds. | | Proper operation of GPS requires a time correction [1] | because the system's satellites are moving at significant | speed from the perspective of ground observers. Their | onboard clocks are therefore moving relatively faster | through space, and thus relatively slower through time. | | This is measurable at the nanosecond scale, and must be | taken into account every time something uses GPS. | | 1. https://www.astronomy.ohio- | state.edu/pogge.1/Ast162/Unit5/gp... | [deleted] | arccy wrote: | We've been flying with hot air balloons for over 200 years, | and we've seen birds (heavier than air) fly. It's always been | considered possible, we just didn't know how to apply that to | humans. | | We still haven't seen anything in nature that even hints to | the possibility of faster than light | recursive wrote: | Considering it breakable probably doesn't get you much. Ok, | it's breakable. Now we just have no idea what to do. If | anyone could demonstrate a proof of concept, I'm sure we'd be | considering it much more broadly. | snowwrestler wrote: | It's not so much that we take it for granted, the issue is | there is so far no contradicting evidence. Humans could see | other animals flying, but we don't see things going faster | than the speed of light. | t-3 wrote: | > we don't see things going faster than the speed of light. | | That would be physically impossible to see in the first | place, wouldn't it? | pixl97 wrote: | We would see some side effect of it depending on the | exact nature of reality and time. Since we don't see | things from the future randomly appearing now, nor do we | have cherenkov radiation occurring in places that it | shouldn't in open space it seems unlikely FTL is | occurring. | fbanon wrote: | 120 years ago we knew that some things can fly, because we | saw birds. We just had to figure out how to do the same with | humans. | | On the other hand, we have never encountered anything in | nature that goes faster than the speed of light. That's a | pretty good hint that it's impossible to do so. | Jtsummers wrote: | People had flown before the first powered flights, so 120 | years isn't a good measure for that. You probably have to go | back a lot further to find natural philosophers or physicists | asserting that manned flight was totally impossible. Maybe | claims that heavier than air vehicle couldn't fly would be | more recent. | | Hot air balloons had been around since the 1700s, and gliders | were developed in the 1800s. Those were the first "heavier | than air" aircraft, and a manned glider was flown by the end | of the 19th century. Powered flight was an extension of that | model. | | We have no model of faster than light communication (or | travel) that holds up to scrutiny, let alone has been | demonstrated. | gpderetta wrote: | Also birds. | mecsred wrote: | Even if we could go back 120 years, just knowing it's | possible to create aircraft doesn't do much without the | domain knowledge to build one. | | FTL may or may not be possible via physics we don't | understand. Until we have that physics and a system to | exploit it FTL is a very real constraint to work around. | Don't mistake "Nothing we can do" for "nothing we can ever | do". | zasdffaa wrote: | The only reason to post this is to troll. | jedberg wrote: | Based on the downvotes I'm getting, it would appear a bunch | of people agree with you, but I promise it is not. I | genuinely want to understand why we consider this an | unbreakable limit when we have in the past broken | previously thought "unbreakable" limits. | zasdffaa wrote: | Ok I take your bona fides but why not just search? There | are 186,283 sites covering this, so a quick <https://html | .duckduckgo.com/html?q=why%20speed%20light%20lim...> | would have helped avoid irritating people, I mean you now | have more info at your fingertips than any 10,000 people | had collectively up until say 1980 and you don't even | type a query? | jvanderbot wrote: | Never mind any down-votes, this is a reasonable question, and | many here at HN would relish the opportunity to answer. | shagie wrote: | As an aside, the PBS space time video The Speed of Light is | NOT About Light : https://youtu.be/msVuCEs8Ydo | | As an aside to the aside - as I rewatch it I quickly notice | how young he looks (and then note the date is 2015 on there - | one of the early ones and the production is less refined). | | You may also like The Geometry of Causality | https://youtu.be/1YFrISfN7jo | ynik wrote: | Because of relativity. The speed of light is also the speed | of causality. Assuming the theory of relativity isn't totally | wrong, then if faster-than-light communication is possible, | then so must be time travel. | http://www.physicsmatt.com/blog/2016/8/25/why-ftl-implies- | ti... | rightbyte wrote: | Why would information of an event, e.g. light bulb lit up | by pushing breaker, decide the causality? Can't you just | back track from a model that the breaker is closed then the | bulb lits up? | moomin wrote: | The bulb lights up _after_ you close the breaker. | dboreham wrote: | > Why do we consider communication faster than the speed of | light so unbreakable? | | Because it's the definition of the simulator we inhabit. c | isn't some random thing to do with light that we observe and | find curious, it's literally the nature of the universe. The | universe is "a place where the speed you can propagate | information is : c". The speed of light follows from that, | not the other way around. | | So if that's breakable, then we made some very big invalid | assumptions over the past 200 years. | | Also, it's questionable that "we didn't think humans could | fly through the air". Obviously some people did think that | was possible, otherwise they wouldn't have tried to do so. We | had birds and bats as existence proofs too. And balloons. | NateEag wrote: | A combination of pragmatism and hubris. | | pragmatism: our best current theories about the universe | suggest that the speed of light is a constant. Until someone | proposes a theory with more explanatory power that suggests | otherwise, we might as well do our work with the assumption | that it's correct. | | Hubris: our best theories are clearly not complete (see dark | matter, conflicts between general relativity and quantum | mechanics, and similar), yet we mostly treat them not as | provisional theories subject to change, but as ironclad laws | by which we may live our lives. Humans don't do well with | uncertainty. | | (Disclaimer: not everyone lives that way. As far as I can | tell most who do have something like this combination of | ideas in their heads.) ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-08-22 23:00 UTC)