Re: Quantum Mechanics

Darrin R. Smith (drsmith@eznet.net)
Sat, 25 May 1996 17:07:24 -0400

Mike Wangsmo wrote:
>
> I started a private thread about some properties of the speed of light
> and new thoeries on how it affects the speed of light and traveling great
> distances, but seeing how other people on the list are also interested in
> some ofthis, I'm re-posting my latest post on the topic. Since this
> really has *nothing* to do with Linux, maybe we should find an
> alternative list for this thread?? Any ideas there?
>
> Ok here is another explaination (although without a chalk board it may be
> a bit difficult to explain). First of all since (in theory) the speed of
> light is *not* constant, there is NO upper limit of speed travel. Imagine
> for example, looking into the base of a cone towards to center with the
[...]
>
> Therefore, traveling faster than light is possible and blah, blah, blah,
> which implies that there is no physical limit to the upper speed of
> light, only relative to the amount of gravity present in the measureing
> environment. THis argument also leaves open the possiblity of having no
> upper bound on the velocities attainable by objects other than light.
> However, at any given place in space, the speed of light will always be
> the greatest maximum velocity attainable. At least according the
> Einstein.
>

You are correct about the speed of light not being constant *if* you
assume that the distance quantity gets warped as your speed approaches c.
One of the big problems with relativity is that we measure c as a rate which
equals distance/time. Because of this relation, we cannot be certain(AFAIK)
whether it is time or distance that becomes warped at speeds much greater than
our own. The way I have always looked at the problem is analogous to using a
flashlight to look around in a fog bank -- we can only see so far around
ourselves before the range of our observations begins to break down. Light
speed just happens to represent an upper limit of observation relative to
our own speed.

> I really don't know why I've embarked on this rather lengthly dissucion
> of speed of light except that I wanted to correct a minisucal statement I
> thought to be in error about random numbers. Remember this is all theory
> and it will probably be a very long time before any of this can be proven
> or disproven. Interstingly enough, beacuse of the discontinueties of
> gravitiy fields that are present though out the universe, time travel is
> possible becasue of these abilities to "exceed" the speed of light. But
> all that is another story.
>

Current theories do not support backwards time travel unless you
happen to be a tachyon particle(these particles travel faster than light and
live backwards or so it's claimed anyways). Forward time travel would be
possible, however by nearing the speed of light.

> Reguards. :)
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Mike Wangsmo, Graduate Student wanger@fubar.cs.montana.edu
> Dept. of M&IE, MSU http://www.cs.montana.edu/~wanger
> Bozeman, MT 59717 (406) 586-0690
> "May the Force be with you, always"