Post #174,079
9/14/04 12:35:34 AM
|
It is clear the speed of light must be exceeded.
If it cannot be done by physics, then it must be done by metaphysics.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #174,105
9/14/04 2:03:27 AM
|
Not a joke!
-drl
|
Post #174,175
9/14/04 11:05:12 AM
|
I believe and nearly always have...
the Speed of Sound Barrier and the Speed of Light Barrier are things that need to be "Broken" in order to get to the next stage of travel. In effect a Technology Based Barrier. Breaking the Speed of Sound was doable only because of the magnitude was rather managable when the technology and the will were both sufficient. Much along the line of Quantum Technology being discoverd and researched today. I believe these are also link unexplicably. Sort of like Entangled Atoms. Entangled atoms affecting each other miles apart nearly (to me at least) proves that FTL travel *is* possible. Thereby the first 0.001" of the 10^6 Mile tall Iceberg has been exposed, giving an idea of the probable magnitude of the problem presented. The best part of this whole line of thinking: People used to think going faster than 100 MPH would kill you, period. It was believed that you would be crushed to death by the force of the Earth's gravity. HAH! -- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #174,176
9/14/04 11:16:36 AM
|
The problem with C is that it's a hard limit.
Peter
[link|http://www.debian.org|Shill For Hire]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Blog]
|
Post #174,178
9/14/04 11:21:51 AM
|
I don't think we'll ever exceed C myself.
The difference between C and sound are quite a bit - C is literally the fastest any object can travel, whereas sound was just an engineering limitation.
Now, whether or not we can find shortcuts AROUND C, that's another thing entirely.
Powered by the Hammer of the Gods
|
Post #174,370
9/15/04 12:03:00 AM
|
OT: What's C++ all about, then? :)
Two out of three people wonder where the other one is.
|
Post #174,376
9/15/04 12:21:01 AM
|
:-)
|
Post #174,409
9/15/04 10:44:48 AM
|
Demonstrating that you can't
Just when you thought you'd gotten to C, C's still larger. :-P
Cheers,
Ben
About the use of language: it is impossible to sharpen a pencil with a blunt axe. It is equally vain to try to do it with ten blunt axes instead. -- Edsgar W. Dijkstra
|
Post #174,413
9/15/04 10:48:58 AM
|
Hmmm
(C++) objects can't move faster than C?
Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #174,414
9/15/04 10:58:15 AM
|
Simple
That's the infinite mass expansion you get...
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #174,179
9/14/04 11:22:50 AM
|
Re: I believe and nearly always have...
They are fundamentally different "barriers". Sound barrier is just a misnomer for the development of a shock front (Mach cone) by an object going faster than sound. Light "barrier" is an intrinsic property of spacetime. In fact the essence of relativity is that there *is* no "light shock front" in vacuo. (There is a phenomenon called Cerenkov radiation that can be qualitatively understood as a light shock front in a material medium in which the effective SOL is less than C.)
[link|http://dept.physics.upenn.edu/balloon/cerenkov_radiation.html|http://dept.physics....ov_radiation.html]
In vacuo, a Mach cone for light is in principle impossible. Can't overstate this - nothing in our physical world will ever go faster than C. These facts are not open to any doubt, and are constantly verified in particle accelerators and cosmic ray studies.
-drl
|
Post #174,181
9/14/04 11:27:36 AM
|
There is no evidence that they affect each other
The Everett Interpretation explains all of the known phenomena of QM without concluding that there is any non-local "instantaneous interaction" going on with quantum entanglement.
Since the differences between interpretations are (as far as we know) fundamentally untestable, no other interpretation can manage to realize any usable information transfer at speeds above C.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #174,196
9/14/04 12:04:18 PM
|
Replying to my own... to address the others.
Peter said: The problem with C is that it's a hard limit.
I didn't intimate that I didn't understand this. I just meant to say it is a technology barrier more than anything. C maybe Hard Coded. But that doesn't mean M isn't which infact it isn't. Making M "non-existant" would nake thing easier to do.
Thane said: The difference between C and sound are quite a bit - C is literally the fastest any object can travel, whereas sound was just an engineering limitation.
Now, whether or not we can find shortcuts AROUND C, that's another thing entirely.
Exactly. C sound are/were technology based barriers. Really the only thing we are missing is the technology... and just ignoring C as a limit is what will prolly happen. Or some type of shortcut as you point out.
Ross said: They are fundamentally different "barriers". Sound barrier is just a misnomer for the development of a shock front (Mach cone) by an object going faster than sound. Light "barrier" is an intrinsic property of spacetime. In fact the essence of relativity is that there *is* no "light shock front" in vacuo. (There is a phenomenon called Cerenkov radiation that can be qualitatively understood as a light shock front in a material medium in which the effective SOL is less than C.)
You missed my point about them being technology based. The issue at hand was something that was able to be handled mainly because the technology was there at the right place, and the Will to do it (or Hubris as others have said) was there in specific quantity. And in all reality, there could be a shock-wave front for light just as there was for the Sound barrier.
Ross continued: In vacuo, a Mach cone for light is in principle impossible. Can't overstate this - nothing in our physical world will ever go faster than C. These facts are not open to any doubt, and are constantly verified in particle accelerators and cosmic ray studies.
Thinking, without the "physical bounds", could you surmise, that quantum mechanics maybe different than either you or I understand it? What about finding that things smaller than atoms (the stuff atoms are bound from) actually have no mass. Whereas being able to excite them... maybe perhaps we become "ethereal or non-massive"... I want you to understand, throwning theory at this discussion will do nothing but make it flounder. I am talking about technology, that right now, humans as a race, have neither the ability nor the understanding needed to do this. Either some type of Enlightenmnet is needed, or research producing this knowledge is needed.
Ben said: The Everett Interpretation explains all of the known phenomena of QM without concluding that there is any non-local "instantaneous interaction" going on with quantum entanglement.
Since the differences between interpretations are (as far as we know) fundamentally untestable, no other interpretation can manage to realize any usable information transfer at speeds above C.
Yes, I understand this point. Well taken. No other interpretation can manage to realize any usable information transfer at speeds above C, *YET*. Maybe never.
-- [link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg], [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwetheyNo matter how much Microsoft supporters whine about how Linux and other operating systems have just as many bugs as their operating systems do, the bottom line is that the serious, gut-wrenching problems happen on Windows, not on Linux, not on Mac OS. -- [link|http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1622086,00.asp|source]Here is an example: [link|http://www.greymagic.com/security/advisories/gm001-ie/|Executing arbitrary commands without Active Scripting or ActiveX when using Windows]
|
Post #174,183
9/14/04 11:30:04 AM
|
Metaphysics wise
Perhaps the question is not whether we can successfully exceed the speed of light. The real question is whether we can make light go faster?
|
Post #174,195
9/14/04 12:03:09 PM
|
Re: Metaphysics wise
The problem is, the term "speed of light" is a misnomer. It's a parameter characteristic of the world (like Planck's constant) that happens to have the dimensions of a velocity. It's not really the speed of anything - light happens to go at that speed because it is massless. Any other massless thing will also go at that speed. And anything that goes at C, only goes at C - that is, can never be brought to rest.
Likewise, Planck's (reduced) constant has the dimensions of angular momentum, while not in itself being the angular momentum of anything in particular. It turns out that a measurement of angular momentum will always produce an integral multiple of 1/2 hbar.
-drl
|
Post #174,198
9/14/04 12:08:02 PM
|
No...
It turns out that a measurement of angular momentum will always produce an integral multiple of 1/2 hbar.
Perhaps it should do that, but I have great confidence in the ability of your average student in a physics lab to actually get any (im)possible value when they actually try to do that measurement.
Cheers,
Ben
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
|
Post #174,207
9/14/04 12:55:53 PM
|
Re: No...
I had a friend who measured the refractive index of something and came up with 6! :)
Of course I meant "measurement" in the sense of the measurement problem, the "other half of quantum mechanics" that gives the formalism physical meaning.
And of course you can accurately measure the angular momentum of, say, [link|http://www.if.ufrgs.br/~betz/quantum/SGtext.htm|silver atoms].
-drl
|
Post #174,212
9/14/04 1:32:33 PM
|
There are materials with negative refractive indexes.
Lots of weird things are being discovered these days.
[link|http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/16/5/3/1|Physics Web].
I think c will stand as a limit for a while though. :-)
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #174,217
9/14/04 1:53:55 PM
|
Re: There are materials with negative refractive indexes.
Neat, I'll have to look at that some more.
Just to close this issue - C is *not* a barrier or a limit or even the speed of anything in particular. It's a parameter that characterizes the actual world.
Note that Euclidean geometry has exactly such a parameter - but it is imaginary! That is, in relativistic geometry we can think of the equation
x^2 - (ct)^2 = 0
and factor this to
(x-ct)(x+ct) = 0
so either x/t = c or x/t = -c. The parameter then represents the relative scale of the space to the time axis.
Now, it turns out that metric geometry (with a Pythagorean-like theorem) is a special case of projective geometry, and that the special type of metric geometry (Euclidean or pseudo-Euclidean = relativistic) is determined by the equation for a "degenerate conic", which is one that looks like
x^2 + y^2 + ... = 0
Euclidean plane geometry is then characterized by the equation
x^2 + y^2 = 0
which can be factored into
(x+iy)(x-iy) = 0
The characteristic parameter of Euclidean geometry is i, the imaginary unit! The points x and y satisfying this equation are called the "circular points at infinity". So, in a sense, Euclidean geometry has a thing called "infinity" that is such that you can never get closer to it. This is exactly analogous to the parameter c in relativity, which has a speed that can never be attained. Thus
relativity = the light cone
Euclidean geometry = the points at infinity
-drl
|
Post #174,199
9/14/04 12:08:53 PM
|
Well, if we can't speed up light....
...can we at least try to slow it down? :-)
(Methinks a cup of hot tea is needed to bring about the Improbability Drive.)
|
Post #174,328
9/14/04 9:12:32 PM
|
That would be one of my favourite passages. :-)
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
