<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Sound clocks and sonic relativity · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.06870/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.06870/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Sound clocks and sonic relativity — mentioned by TeMPOraL</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18597097</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:1612.06870:18597097</guid><pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2018 07:25:03 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Things like this pretty much justify all the time spent procrastinating on HN. Thank you. (And also don&amp;#x27;t thank you, this is variable reinforcement at its purest.) So if you can formulate &amp;quot;sonic relativity&amp;quot; like this, what happens when you trick it to provide faster-than-sound signals? Say, you emit an acoustic signal in one place, and route an electric wire with sensors and actuators that transmit it outside of the medium and re-emit as sound closer to observer. I.e. a sound-world analogue to a wormhole. Can you some (or any) of the time travel trickery that is said to be implied by any…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/1612.06870/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>physics.class-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
