The article is a review and methodological study of the problem of causality in the context of superluminal communication. It is shown that special relativity strictly links the speed of information transfer with the structure of space-time: transmitting a signal faster than light inevitably leads to a violation of causal relationships and the emergence of closed timelike curves (CTCs). The work provides a formal definition of causality through the Minkowski interval (s² = c²Δt² - Δx²). If the interval is spacelike (s² < 0), signal transmission is impossible without violating causality. The mechanism of paradoxes is explained through Lorentz transformations: in superluminal transmission, the order of events changes depending on the reference frame, and a signal can arrive before it was sent. A combination of direct and reverse superluminal signals creates a time loop. A philosophical illustration uses metaphors from "Alice in Wonderland" ("Sentence first, verdict afterwards") and Yuri Kukin's song, showing that in a world with CTCs, events lose linear order and time becomes a loop. Classical ways of protecting causality are discussed: Hawking's chronology protection conjecture, the no-communication theorem (quantum entanglement does not transmit information), and the many-worlds interpretation (isolating paradoxes in branches). The final part examines the MBM model (change of the ontological selector S). It is discussed whether transmitting a signal through a fold between S and S' violates causality. Two options are formulated: either causality in S is violated, or the signal is isolated in S' (another universe) and the paradox is resolved through the ontological volume Ω. The final answer to this question is left open. Causality is a structural property of our space-time, and any model of superluminal communication must either protect it or admit its violation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: