Robert Anton Wilson dead
Niccolo Machiaveli
Winter Mason
2: Does anyone know if Wilson has any books other than the
Illuminatis trilogy, the Schrodinger cat trilogy and Masks of the Illuminati?
3: If so, what are they?
4: Suggestion to those out there - try reading The Mind's I by
Douglas Hofstader.
5: Never underestimate the importance of a blow job.
Steve Lamont
>
Again?
spl
--
Steve Lamont, SciViGuy -- (619) 534-7968 -- s...@szechuan.ucsd.edu
San Diego Microscopy and Imaging Resource/UC San Diego/La Jolla, CA 92093-0608
"Where are we going, Walt Whitman? The doors close in an hour.
Which way does your beard point tonight?" - A. Ginsberg, "A Supermkt in Calif."
Leslie Lyon
s
References: <1994Feb23....@pbhyc.pacbell.com>.
Organization: Illinois State University
Niccolo Machiaveli (nigh...@illuminati.io.com) wrote:
WHAT?! WHAT?! IS HE?! where is the rest of this post? I'm dying! What?
he can't be. shit. shit. shit.
Leslie Lyon
s
References: <1994Feb23....@pbhyc.pacbell.com> <2tsc3h$q...@illuminati.io.
com>
Organization: Illinois State University
Niccolo Machiaveli (nigh...@illuminati.io.com) wrote:
where the fuck is the rest of this post? if he's dead, how? when?
if he isn't, then fuck you for making me overreact. shit.
MOLL, THOMAS J.
There _is_ no rest of the post. How could you read so much into a subject
title anyway? Could mean he is _not_ dead. Or that he is really tired. Or
that the poster wanted to comment on all the phony rumours about RAW's
death that have been floating around for the past three months...
-----
Thomas Moll aka -Fnord | *** misc.survival ***
Concordia University | Interested in emergency prepardness, outdoor
Department of Journalism | survival techniques, food storage, shelters,
Montreal, Quebec, Canada | self-defence, self-reliance, weapons (how to
| use, make, etc...) or the like? Get info on
tj_...@pavo.concordia.ca| misc.survival, now in RFD! Email me for info.
Drew
Winter Mason <har...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
> 1: The full moon is on the twenty-third this month
>
> 2: Does anyone know if Wilson has any books other than the
>Illuminatis trilogy, the Schrodinger cat trilogy and Masks of the Illuminati?
^
>
Yes
> 3: If so, what are they?
The Illuminati Papers, for one, which is a bunch of short essays on
the sort of neuroprogramming that some of Timothy Leary's better books are
about, written as characters from the trilogy.
There are also a seperate series of historical Illuminati books. There is
also the _Principia Discordia_, (not by but largely about Wilson)
available from Loompanics or as etext. If you can't find an ftp/gopher with
it, it's posted to alt.discordia every so often.
>
--
ytreporp ton si noitamrofin
!dnalvitagen eerf
Ron Asbestos Dippold
around two months ago. And right after that, we did lose Shea :(.
Barring any new information I wouldn't believe it.
--
Most women loathe limericks, for the same reason that calves hate cookbooks.
-- Legman
Peter Merel
>WHAT?! WHAT?! IS HE?! where is the rest of this post? I'm dying! What?
>he can't be. shit. shit. shit.
No, he's not. This same stupid joke popped up just a couple of months
ago. If you don't think it's a joke, look at the poster's name. If you
don't recognise the name, go look it up in you local public library.
Above all, don't followup to this article unless you have some real
concrete evidence of Wilson's demise, or if it's a jape, then of Wilson's
involvement.
--
Internet: pe...@extro.su.oz.au | Accept Everything. |
UUCP: {uunet,mcvax}!munnari!extro!pete | Reject Nothing. |
Niccolo Machiaveli
viv...@rs6000.cmp.ilstu.edu "Leslie Lyon" writes:
> where the fuck is the rest of this post? if he's dead, how? when?
> if he isn't, then fuck you for making me overreact. shit.
Are you sure that was who you think it was? Are you sure of
anything anymore? Think about it.
--------------------------------------------------
. .
. /\ .
. WE'RE /____\ WATCHING .
. / ,,,,,, \ .
. /_ .----. _\ .
. /_: < () > _:\ .
. /__:__ '----' :___:\ .
. /_:_____:_____:_____:____\ .
. /:_____:_____:_____:_____:___\ .
. /:____:_____:_____:_____:_____:__\ .
. /____:_____:_____:_____:_____:____:__\ .
. /___:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:____:_\ .
. /__:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:_____:____:\ .
--------------------------------------------------
"Don't believe what you read." -- The Boomtown Rats
"And don't believe us, either." -- "Saint" Bob
--
I'm not who I say I am.
Cheryl
Steve Lamont <s...@szechuan.ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>Again?
Generallissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
-- Cheryl
Kallisti93
(Drew) writes:
>Does anyone know if wilson has any other books besides...
Other RAW books are : Prometheus Rising, Ishtar Rising, Wilhelm
Reich in Hell, 3 'Historical Illuminatus' books (Where is the 4th?)
Reality is what you can get away with (a screenplay), The Illuminati
Papers , Sex and Drugs , Cosmic Trigger (2 volumes) and im sure
there's more but that all i can think of off hand.
They are all good too!
Roger Kumar
:) In article <2tt1e9$m...@scunix2.harvard.edu>, gla...@isr.harvard.edu
:) (Drew) writes:
:) >Does anyone know if wilson has any other books besides...
:) Other RAW books are : Prometheus Rising, Ishtar Rising, Wilhelm
:) Reich in Hell, 3 'Historical Illuminatus' books (Where is the 4th?)
:) Reality is what you can get away with (a screenplay), The Illuminati
:) Papers , Sex and Drugs , Cosmic Trigger (2 volumes) and im sure
:) there's more but that all i can think of off hand.
:) They are all good too!
something like where you are sitting right now is another
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
____
Christopher P Howard
Ah.
> 2: Does anyone know if Wilson has any books other than the
>Illuminatis trilogy, the Schrodinger cat trilogy and Masks of the Illuminati?
It seems that he probably *has* other books. Incidentally, it also seems
that he has *written* other books.
> 3: If so, what are they?
Here's a partial list:
The Historical Illuminatus Chronicles (V. 1, 2, and 3)
Coincidance
The Illuminati Papers
Reality Is What You Can Get Away With
Right Where You Are Sitting Now
Cosmic Trigger 1 and 2
The New Inquisition
Prometheus Rising
Ishtar Rising
Sex and Drugs
Wilhelm Reich in Hell
Quantum Psychology
Playboy's Book of Forbidden Words
The Sex Magicians
Neuropolitics (with Leary and Koopman)
There may be more that I am unaware of.
> 4: Suggestion to those out there - try reading The Mind's I by
>Douglas Hofstader.
Back at ya: try Goedel, Escher, Bach by the same author.
> 5: Never underestimate the importance of a blow job.
Never have, never will.
--
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!FNORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tommy the cat is my name, /\ To achieve independence from alien domination
And I say unto Thee: / \ and to consolidate revolutionary gains, five
-----------------------/ MediaK \ steps are necessary: ---------------------
Scott A Beasley
No no no no no. Robert Anton Wilson, aka "Potsie" from Happy Days, is doing
info-mercials for Ron Popeil, the Ronco guy. He also sometimes narrates for
the PBS series, "Nova".
It was in the Star - I scanned the article in the checkout line while buying
some Spam just last week.
John Dunlevy
wish i had a scanner in my check-out line. but then, the net supplies me
with more than enough spam; i seldom have to buy any.
--
John Dunlevy
h935...@idefix.wu-wien.ac.at
Michelle Krugman
I love limericks.....they are great...
Love, always,
Ichee
Joseph Merlino
I.
There once was a girl from Peru
Whose limericks stopped at line 2
II.
There once was a man from Verdun
Just Another Redneck Paisan
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
--Joe Merlino / "I prefer my emotion as a feeling, rather
ko...@acs.bu.edu / than as a style."
(std disclaimers apply) / -Richard Thompson
T/_/H/_/I/_/N/_/K/_/_/A/_/T/_/_/Y/_/O/_/U/_/R/_/_/O/_/W/_/N/_/_/R/_/I/_/S/_/K/
"Laugh while you can, monkey boy!" -Dr. Lizardo
Robert James Petrick
>if he isn't, then fuck you for making me overreact. shit.
For the final time: Mr Wilson IS NOT DEAD. His co-writer, Bob Shea, did
die recently. And for those of us who went through the final, painful
months with him. This subject has lost it's humour.
Robert James Petrick
Andy Lewis
> I.
> There once was a girl from Peru
> Whose limericks stopped at line 2
> II.
> There once was a man from Verdun
III
The famous limerick concerning Nero is too short to be mentioned here.
Andy
--
Andy Lewis (a...@ecs.soton.ac.uk) | Confucius, he say -
Department of Electronics | "To juggle, need many
and Computer Science | many mind pieces."
University of Southampton |
Peter Harris
There was a young man named Hermonogies Phniggs
Who lived in Kilburn in terrible digs
But he changed his name to Eric Fruit
And now it won't rhyme
(thank you, Spike Milligna, the well-known typing error)
--
[] Peter Harris, Optoelectronics Network Supervisor, Southampton University []
"Sir, you will either die on the gallows or of the pox !"
"That, my Lord, depends on whether I embrace your principles or your mistress"
John Wilkes to The Earl of Sandwich, Parliament, November 1763
Erwin Wodarczak
: In article <2tshtr$c...@network.ucsd.edu>,
He's not dead, he's... he's pining for the fnords!
Cheers,
EW
Martin Rodgers
p...@ecs.soton.ac.uk "Peter Harris" writes:
> There was a young man named Hermonogies Phniggs
> Who lived in Kilburn in terrible digs
> But he changed his name to Eric Fruit
> And now it won't rhyme
>
>
> (thank you, Spike Milligna, the well-known typing error)
He has sticky on his fingers.
--
Martin Rodgers, WKBBG, London UK AKA "Cyber Surfer"
Assuming that Clipper will need to be global to be effective, write
to clipper....@cpsr.org and tell them you oppose Clipper. Now.
This is a shareware .signature -- please pass it on!
Martin Rodgers
Amai...@Interaccess.com "Robert James Petrick" writes:
> For the final time: Mr Wilson IS NOT DEAD. His co-writer, Bob Shea, did
> die recently. And for those of us who went through the final, painful
> months with him. This subject has lost it's humour.
This is confirmed by David Langford's Ansible Link. "Robert Shea died
of cancer on 10 March 1994. He's best remembered for co-writing the
Illuminatus! trilogy with Robert Anton Wilson (still with us, dispite
being the subject of a tiresome Internet death hoax a week earlier)."
So, there you have it. Langford should know, I guess. It's there in
print in Interzone magazine issue 85, July 1994, which arrived on my
doorstep a few days ago. If I get any mail about this, I'll ask Dave
to post to alt.illuminatus - if he hasn't already.
However, I recall a song by The Boomtown Rats. How did it go...?
Ken & Jo Walton
Who could travel much faster than light.
She set out one day
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
Jo
--
|====== The Honourable and Worshipful Company of Adventurers =======|
|=================== Trading into Magellanica ======================|
| Opinions expressed *are* those of the company. |
+---------------> Hold fast to that which is good <-----------------|
Mangy Bastard
Mage...@kenjo.demon.co.uk "Ken & Jo Walton" writes:
> |====== The Honourable and Worshipful Company of Adventurers =======|
> |=================== Trading into Magellanica ======================|
> | Opinions expressed *are* those of the company. |
> +---------------> Hold fast to that which is good <-----------------|
Same here. <woof> <woof> <grrr>
__
Dog Breath
John D. Chao
>Who could travel much faster than light.
>She set out one day
>In a relative way
>And returned on the previous night.
Alack, no. You can go back in time, but only if you also go to
a different location in space -- you can't go back in your own
time. If you travelled out at maximum faster-than-light speed,
turned around, and came back, the best you could do is to return
at the time that you left.
I believe.
Jeff Billman
>Alack, no. You can go back in time, but only if you also go to
>a different location in space -- you can't go back in your own
>time. If you travelled out at maximum faster-than-light speed,
>turned around, and came back, the best you could do is to return
>at the time that you left.
At the risk of getting off-topic (the unpardonable sin of USENET), I see
no reason why a person couldn't travel a circular path at
super-light-speed, arriving at the same place at a previous time. That
is, of course, assuming that one could travel at speeds greater than that
of light in the first place. :-)
BTW- Is there a finite limit to speed once the light barrier is broken?
If the theory I learned in high school is correct, 2X the speed of light
causes time to progress at the rate of -1; speeds greater than that only
speed the regression of time.
I've taken the liberty of x-posting this to sci.physics; follow-ups
should probably go there.
--
############################################################################
Jeff Billman jbi...@andy.bgsu.edu Bowling Green, OH
############################################################################
"Four lines? Whaddya mean, four lines? You can take that 4 line policy and
Sam Barasch
: >There was a young lady called Bright
: I believe.
I failed the physics unit on relativity. I got an A- in the course, but
that relativity stuff just makes no damn sense.
Binesh Bannerjee
: BTW- Is there a finite limit to speed once the light barrier is broken?
: causes time to progress at the rate of -1; speeds greater than that only
: speed the regression of time.
I dunno... I thought that time dilation was given by something like
t-prime = t/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
So, as v approaches c the bottom factor approaches 1-c^2/c^2 == 0 so t-prime
goes to infinity, right?
And, if you put a superluminal speed in that equation, say 2c then you come
up with
t-prime = t/(sqrt(1-4c^2/c^2)) = t/sqrt(1-4) = t/sqrt(-3) = t/3i and
you end up with some meaningless time factor... Is this right or wrong?
Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
dilation level?
Binesh
--
* Will sit by a pool and relax and have fun for money. *
Hey... it's going to work someday...
Matt Austern
> Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
> backward?
No. I keep meaning to write up a sci.physics FAQ entry on this, but
I've been too lazy... (Not to mention that I've been writing other
things, like a dissertation.)
You shouldn't just plug some v>1 into the time dilation equation; indeed,
you just get meaningless numbers that way. The proper way to think
about this is to assume that you're at some point x at time t, and that
you arrive at some other point x' at time t', with x'-x > c (t' - t).
It doesn't matter what happens between time t and t'; the details
of your journey (whether you call them hyperspace, or warp drive, or
subspace, or whatever) are irrelevant to the argument.
The essential point to notice is that the sign of the time difference
in a spacelike interval is not Lorentz-invariant. Or, to put it
slightly differently: whether t'>t or t'<t in this case is arbitrary---
it depends on which reference frame you're using. You can use a
different reference frame in which you have arrived before you left.
This still isn't time travel, since you haven't arrived at your
starting point at a previous time, but it's pretty easy to see that if
you use your magic FTL drive twice, using a different inertial
reference frame each time, then you can arrive at your starting point
before you leave.
Note that this argument (or outline of an argument, rather) explicitly
relies on relativity, i.e., it assumes there is no "preferred frame"
for the FTL drive. If there is a preferred frame, all bets are off.
--
Matt Austern "Se non e vero, e ben trovato"
Lupus Yonderboy
>I failed the physics unit on relativity. I got an A- in the course, but
>that relativity stuff just makes no damn sense.
Sure it does. Here's a sample problem for you to ponder:
Spin a cat up to relativistic speeds. What's the probability
that if the cat does in fact hit a piece of furniture that he'll
simply quantum tunnel through and not be affected?
-- Alex
Erik Max Francis
> t-prime = t/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
What you refer to is actually
tau = t/gamma,
where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-(1/2). So in fact what you have here is
tau = t (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2),
or, that is, _multiplied_ the factor under the square root, not
divided by it. So as v -> c, tau -> 0. Just as you'd expect from
time dilation effects.
> And, if you put a superluminal speed in that equation, say 2c then you come
> up with . . . some meaningless time factor... Is this right or wrong?
However, this part is still correct. For v > c, gamma is imaginary
and thus you get an imaginary proper time.
> Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
> backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
> dilation level?
Faster-than-light travel leading to causality violations and
backwards-in-time travel is not deduced from the gamma term, because
clearly (as you point out) it indicates imaginary, nonphysical
solutions (for proper time at least, regardless of what the tachyon
enthusiasts might argue for momenta and energies). It comes from
extrapolating backwards, so to speak, of an event which occurred with
FTL.
I'm not very good at explaining this portion, so I'll let someone else
take it on.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
0x385F50384E3E2741582B4259585F50304E3E2741582B4259585F50304E3E274158 mc2! / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -)(- \_/
David E Romm
wrote:
> Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
> backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
> dilation level?
Hmm... that seems to imply not so much backward time travel but that if you
manage to go faster than light then you'll be back where and when you
started. It's a yo-yo effect. No matter where you go, there you are
again.
I don't know if this makes more sense, but it is more fun to think about.
--
Shockwave: The longest running science fiction radio program in Earth's
history. Tapes available.
"Virtual Reality is better than no reality."
-- "Max Headfull", Square One TV
David A Bergman
: bin...@panix.com (Binesh Bannerjee) writes:
: > t-prime = t/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
: What you refer to is actually
: tau = t/gamma,
: where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-(1/2). So in fact what you have here is
erm. Isn't gamma the reciprocal of the above? As in E=gamma m c**2?
: tau = t (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2),
: or, that is, _multiplied_ the factor under the square root, not
: divided by it. So as v -> c, tau -> 0. Just as you'd expect from
: time dilation effects.
: > And, if you put a superluminal speed in that equation, say 2c then you come
: > up with . . . some meaningless time factor... Is this right or wrong?
: However, this part is still correct. For v > c, gamma is imaginary
: and thus you get an imaginary proper time.
: > Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
: > backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
: > dilation level?
: Faster-than-light travel leading to causality violations and
: backwards-in-time travel is not deduced from the gamma term, because
: clearly (as you point out) it indicates imaginary, nonphysical
: solutions (for proper time at least, regardless of what the tachyon
: enthusiasts might argue for momenta and energies). It comes from
: extrapolating backwards, so to speak, of an event which occurred with
: FTL.
: I'm not very good at explaining this portion, so I'll let someone else
: take it on.
Now, as I understand it, on a nice space time graph, the relative velocity
causes the axes to bend inwards as deduced from the Lorentz transformation.
Any line drawn on the graph with a slope greater than 1 (time is graphed
as ct) causes the possibility to go backwards in time. Now my question
is: What if there was a requirement that the relative velocity between
two objects limits the speed at which information can travel. For example,
if the relative velocity is zero, the instantaneous communication would
be possible. As the relative velocity increases, the axes bend inwards,
and instantaneous communication is not possible, but it would still be
possible to send information along a "horizontal" line. Would it be
possible to protect causality this way? I have a feeling that my argument
falls apart if one introduces a third frame of reference, but I haven't
actually done the math. Can one preserve causality by restricting the
relative velocities of the communication points???
(I'm trying hard to remember my special relativity lectures. Sometime
I'll have to sit down and remember what the Minkowski Invariant is. I'm
not even sure it's called that. (ct)**2-r**2? And what about
E**2 + p**2 = (mc**2)**2 ? I know something like that comes up somewhere...)
Aaron
: Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
Daniel Devost
>
>Now, as I understand it, on a nice space time graph, the relative velocity
>causes the axes to bend inwards as deduced from the Lorentz transformation.
>Any line drawn on the graph with a slope greater than 1 (time is graphed
>as ct) causes the possibility to go backwards in time. Now my question
>is: What if there was a requirement that the relative velocity between
>two objects limits the speed at which information can travel. For example,
>if the relative velocity is zero, the instantaneous communication would
>be possible. As the relative velocity increases, the axes bend inwards,
>and instantaneous communication is not possible, but it would still be
>possible to send information along a "horizontal" line. Would it be
>possible to protect causality this way? I have a feeling that my argument
>falls apart if one introduces a third frame of reference, but I haven't
>actually done the math. Can one preserve causality by restricting the
>relative velocities of the communication points???
>
>(I'm trying hard to remember my special relativity lectures. Sometime
>I'll have to sit down and remember what the Minkowski Invariant is. I'm
>not even sure it's called that. (ct)**2-r**2? And what about
>E**2 + p**2 = (mc**2)**2 ? I know something like that comes up somewhere...)
One of the fundamental postulates of Einstein's relativity is that nothing could travel faster than light. So accordintg to that postulate, a slope greater than 1 on Minkowski's diagram violates the theorie. The formula (ct)**2-r**2 is the relativistic invariant. Another way of writing it is: (ds)**2=(cdt)**2-(dx)**2-(dy)**2-(dz)**2. You can find an equivalence of it in the 3D invariant witch is: (ds)**2=(dx)**2+(dy)**2+(dz)**2. The other formula describes the energie of a relativistic particule. Th
e equivalent in non-relativistic physics is: E=p**2/2m.
Hope this answer your questions.
Dan
Mike Lanzetta, Head of the Illuminati
>: I believe.
Thats because its a crock of shit. The earth is flat!
David A Bergman
: One of the fundamental postulates of Einstein's relativity is that nothing could travel faster than light. So accordintg to that postulate, a slope greater than 1 on Minkowski's diagram violates the theorie. The formula (ct)**2-r**2 is the relativistic invariant. Another way of writing it is: (ds)**2=(cdt)**2-(dx)**2-(dy)**2-(dz)**2. You can find an equivalence of it in the 3D invariant witch is: (ds)**2=(dx)**2+(dy)**2+(dz)**2. The other formula describes the energie of a relativistic particule.
Th
(Why is this on one line?)
I am almost positive that the only two postulates by which _special_
relativity is derived are that (a) The speed of light is constant in
all reference frames and (b) You can't distinguish moving at constant
velocity from being at rest.
From this, stuff like the Lorentz Transformation can be derived. (Actually,
I think the Lorentz transformation originally came from the group of
transformations under which maxwell's formulas are invariant. Or something
like that. Maybe it was an attempt to rationalize the results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment...)
I am pretty sure that there is no restriction against going above
the speed of light anywhere in relativity. Sure, the formulae give
weird imaginary numbers and things like having one's energy increase
as one slows down occur, but there is no actual restriction.
My question was about instantaneous communication, however, not
about travel above the speed of light. Are "vertical" lines on
a spacetime graph impermissable? As far as I can tell, a "vertical"
line in a reference fram would not violate causality. I have a feeling
(I _really_ ought to sit down and do the math) that the introduction
of another reference frame would show the causality violation, but
I am not sure.
Another way to put my question (this is actually a little more general)
is: Can you put any restictions on a from of faster-than-light communication
to not violate causality?
Aaron
: e equivalent in non-relativistic physics is: E=p**2/2m.
Samuel S. Paik
>There was a young lady called Bright
>Who could travel much faster than light.
>She set out one day
>In a relative way
>And returned on the previous night.
Any attribution on this one? I heard it on one of the Alphaville albums
(and you've got to really crank the volume to make out the words, for
some reason).
Sam
--
Samuel Paik / Digital Equipment Corporation / 3D Device Support
pa...@mlo.dec.com / 508-493-4048 / I speak only for myself
People are the only mirror we have to see ourselves in.
Lois McMaster Bujold, _Mirror Dance_
Matt Austern
> Another way to put my question (this is actually a little more general)
> is: Can you put any restictions on a from of faster-than-light communication
> to not violate causality?
Yes. You have to give up relativity, though---that is, you have to
postulate a preferred reference frame. Faster than light travel in
one frame is equivalent to time travel in another; it's a simple
Lorentz transformation.
If you have faster than light communication, and if you have no
preferred frames, causality violation follows. (Or maybe
precedes...?)
Wayne Throop
:: I'm not very good at explaining this portion, so I'll let someone
:: else take it on.
: From: dab...@leland.Stanford.EDU (David A Bergman)
: What if there was a requirement that the relative velocity between two
: objects limits the speed at which information can travel. For
: example, if the relative velocity is zero, the instantaneous
: communication would be possible. As the relative velocity increases,
: the axes bend inwards, and instantaneous communication is not
: possible, but it would still be possible to send information along a
: "horizontal" line. Would it be possible to protect causality this
: way? I have a feeling that my argument falls apart if one introduces a
: third frame of reference, but I haven't actually done the math.
Actually, the neat thing about special relativity, is that it can be
comprehended knowing only simple high-school algebra (plus a bit
of geometry). Sure, you miss out on some of the modern jargons for it,
and you miss out on general relativity, but even so, special relativity
is a very straightforward theory, mathematically.
: Can one preserve causality by restricting the
: relative velocities of the communication points???
Nope. One doesn't even have to add a "third" reference frame.
If "instant messages" are possible relative to two reference frames,
one can contrive for an event to affect events in its own pastward lightcone.
The only way to really save the day is if there is one absolute frame
relative to which instant messages are possible, and relative to no others.
There has been some speculation that if wormholes are possible, then the
creation of closed timelike geodesics would be impossible, because the
creation of such would prohibit the wormhole from opening. If so, it
might well be that instant messages via wormhole would be possible
relative to more than one inertial reference frame, but even so, establishing
a network of such wormholes would de-facto establish an absolute frame,
because after many were opened, you couldn't ever open more, unless they
lied on a spacelike hypersurface established by the existing ones.
It'd be a de-facto absolute frame (but not an inertial one, and not
one based on some underlying pre-existing physical principle).
Or so I grok. But I am only an egg.
But in my egg-itude, I do happen to have an explanation of how FTL
leads to time travel in special relativity, which some people have
said helped them understand it when I have posted it in the past.
So I'll post it again, and see if rotten fruit is thrown this time....
----
Let me give an account of the FTL->time-travel implication, in terms
that folks may not have seen before (and hence, which may be easier to
understand).
Let's take the case of A and B, starting out at the same place at some
time, and each having a metronome that ticks once per second. Both A
and B count metronome ticks since they met. Each is receeding from the
other at .87c (just so the dilation factor works out to be 2, for
simplicity). (I'm also using metronomes instead of clocks to miniminze
any confusion there might be over events vs coordinates.)
Now, from A's point of view, A is motionless, and B is moving at .87c.
Thus, B's metronome ticks at half the rate of A's. B's metronome ticks
its first tick at the same time as A's metronome ticks its second tick.
But from B's point of view, B is motionless, and A is moving at .87c.
Thus, A's metronome ticks at half the rate of B's. A's metronome ticks
its first tick at the same time as B's metronome ticks its second tick.
How to resolve this seeming paradox? Simple. A and B each give
same-time-as status to a different set of events (hence, a different
metronome tick) than the other. They both agree which event constitutes
(say) B's metronome ticking its 2nd tick. It's just that A claims that
that happens at the same time as A's metronome's 4th tick, and B claims
that that happens at the same time as A's metronome's 1st tick.
OK. Now the problem with Very Fast Messages. At A's metronome's 60th
tick, A sends a message to B via the Instant Message Tachyon
Technobabble Method. IMTTM messages take zero time to get from A to B
or vice versa. By zero time, I mean a time much smaller (indeed,
negligably smaller) than it takes for either of A or B's metronome to
make one tick. But "zero time" according to whom? In true SR fashion,
let's assume it's zero time according to whomever sends the message.
Thus, A's message, sent on the 60th tick of A's metronome, is received
by B at the 30th tick of B's metronome. B immediately (by
"immediately", I mean within a very small (indeed, negligable) fraction
of the time it takes B's metronome to make one tick) fires off an
acknowledgement IMTTM message to A. Since it arrives in "zero time"
from B's metronome's 30th tick according to B, it arrives at A's
metronome's 15th tick.
That means A gets back an acknowlegmenent of A's message 45 ticks of A's
metronome before A sends the message in the first place.
Now, the effect of the acknowledgement reaching A before A sent the
initial message has *nothing* to do with the fact that the each of A and
B would see images of the other delayed by the time it takes light to
travel between them. The "same time as" we're using here, SR's "same
time as", is *after* accounting for lightspeed delays. The basic point
is, A and B, because they are moving each relative to the other,
synchronize distant clocks (uh, metronomes) differently.
Finally, note that if SR is false, and if there *is* a universally
correct notion of "same-time-as", and if FTL is possibly only when
measured according to this special universally correct reference frame,
then one can never send a message into one's own backwards lightcone.
SR would still work, and people could still synchronize their clocks in
the SR way, and *some* *observers* would still claim that the message
"went back in time". But no event could causally affect any event in
its own backwards lightcone. Hence no paradoxen.
--
Wayne Throop throopw%sh...@concert.net
thr...@aur.alcatel.com
Charles R. Harrison
: >that relativity stuff just makes no damn sense.
: Thats because its a crock of shit. The earth is flat!
Wrong, Its shaped like a burrito.
Zan
Christian Gadeken
And covered with neanderthal penguins.
--
Christian Gadeken While Luna was on the phone and Tuxedo
Otaku-Atama Kamen was reading the paper, Kunzite and
Captain No-Life Zoisite were watching televisions(six of them).
Math Teaching-Accessory -Sailor Moon, Act 6(manga).
Erik Max Francis
> I am almost positive that the only two postulates by which _special_
> relativity is derived are that (a) The speed of light is constant in
> all reference frames and (b) You can't distinguish moving at constant
> velocity from being at rest.
The second postulate is stated more generally as indicating that the
laws of physics are identical in all inertial reference frames. That
is, there are no special frames of reference -- all frames have
equal validity. This is the same sort of thing your version says, but
the original version is a little more explicit with respect to the
relativity principle.
Instead of arguing that faster-than-light travel is discounted as a
postulate of special relativity, I prefer to state that it is
discounted as a result of the second postulate; that is, slower-than-
light limitations are a consequence, and not a postulate, of special
relativity. It's easy to show that causality violations occur if you
travel faster than light, and one can argue that this would result in
a "special" frame of reference according to special relativity, which
explicitly indicates that it must not be the case.
I suppose it's really a matter of semantics. Either way, it's very
clear that faster-than-light travel is incompatible with special
relativity, regardless of whether it's a postulate or a conclusion.
> I am pretty sure that there is no restriction against going above
> the speed of light anywhere in relativity. Sure, the formulae give
> weird imaginary numbers and things like having one's energy increase
> as one slows down occur, but there is no actual restriction.
Imaginary numbers are pretty bad, because they are not terribly
physical. (They are useful as mathematical gadgets in certain
circumstances -- such as an equivalent of two-dimensional vectors --
but they're still not physical.) In addition, as I indicated above,
the real objection to faster-than-light travel according to special
relativity is causality violations. The causality principle is one
that is pretty well-founded in the human psyche. It's kind of hard to
imagine that effects can precede causes. It doesn't mean that it
can't happen, it just means that there would be a serious revolution
in physics if this was shown to the case. Thus faster-than-light
travel is incompatible with special relativity (and the causality
principle).
> Another way to put my question (this is actually a little more general)
> is: Can you put any restictions on a from of faster-than-light communication
> to not violate causality?
Interestingly enough, no. The reason why faster-than-light travel is
discounted by special relativity is because two events are separated
by a spacelike path. It doesn't matter how the faster-than-light
travel is accomplished; teleportation, "warp" drives, just thinking
about it . . . it doesn't matter. All it requires is two events in
spacetime that are separated in a spacelike manner, and you have a
causality violation.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -><- \_/
Matt Austern
> Interestingly enough, no. The reason why faster-than-light travel is
> discounted by special relativity is because two events are separated
> by a spacelike path. It doesn't matter how the faster-than-light
> travel is accomplished; teleportation, "warp" drives, just thinking
> about it . . . it doesn't matter. All it requires is two events in
> spacetime that are separated in a spacelike manner, and you have a
> causality violation.
Not quite. It also requires the assumption that there's no preferred
frame.
If you have a magical device that lets you send "instantaneous"
signals between two points, and if it lets you send signals that are
instantaneous in whatever frame you like, then yes, you get causality
violations. If, however, your device only lets you send signals that
are instantaneous in some preferred frame (the rest frame of the
galactic core, say), then you can get away without causality
violation.
Ron Maimon
>backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
>dilation level?
yes- it is a myth. Being able to travel faster then light doesn't magically
give you the ability to travel backwards in time, unless you say that the
laws of physics are relativistically invariant. If you concede that relativity
works, then if you can travel faster then light by some mechanism, you can
take this mechanism and move it away from you at near the speed of light.
If relativity is correct, it will still work, since motion in a straight
line with constant velocity is the same as sitting still.
But the thing is, moving faster then light in a frame that is moving away
from you fast enough, is moving backwards in time in your frame. By building
enough of these faster-then-light devices, moving at different speeds, you
can bounce a message back and forth between these devices to move it as
far back in time as you want.
Ron Maimon
--
Ron Maimon
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
You say you don't want it
You don't want it
You say you don't want it
and then you slip it right in - Black Flag
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Erik Max Francis
> : where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-(1/2). So in fact what you have here is
>
> erm. Isn't gamma the reciprocal of the above? As in E=gamma m c**2?
You've said it yourself. E = gamma m c^2, and thus gamma is the
reciprocal of (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2). Note my judicious use of the -
operator in the above quote.
Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
H.3`S,3,P,3$S,#$Q,C`Q,3,P,3$S,#$Q,3`Q,3,P,C$Q,#(Q.#`-"C`- ftmfbs kmmfa / \
Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -><- \_/
John Hall
pa...@mlo.dec.com "Samuel S. Paik" writes:
> Ken & Jo Walton <Mage...@kenjo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >There was a young lady called Bright
> >Who could travel much faster than light.
> >She set out one day
> >In a relative way
> >And returned on the previous night.
>
> Any attribution on this one? I heard it on one of the Alphaville albums
> (and you've got to really crank the volume to make out the words, for
> some reason).
>
> Sam
>
It's been around a long time. In fact I think it's pre-WW2
(but I can't remember *why* I think that!). It's probably "Anon", as I
believe the great majoritry of limericks are.
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Hall Jo...@jhall.demon.co.uk | Luckily there's no driving test
| before one can use
Cranleigh, Surrey, England | the Information Super-Highway
Winter Mason
thread was started by someone's limerick...but what the hell...
ONe problem with any disruption in the causality thing (i.e.,
faster than light travel neccesitates that the effect must come before
the cause) is that this would automatically lay down the fact that the
future is already determined. For example, if we took a telescope and
saw these gravitational effects that could only be caused by someone
leaving earth now at faster than light speeds, we would have NO way
around leaving - we already know it is going to happen. That would mean
that our future has already been decided, and there is no such thing (on
a basic level) as free will. Even still it might be true, but if it
were, I sure as hell wouldn't want to know...
Erol Basturk
Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.darkside.com> wrote:
>Imaginary numbers are pretty bad, because they are not terribly
>physical. (They are useful as mathematical gadgets in certain
>circumstances -- such as an equivalent of two-dimensional vectors --
>but they're still not physical.) In addition, as I indicated above,
>the real objection to faster-than-light travel according to special
>relativity is causality violations. The causality principle is one
>that is pretty well-founded in the human psyche. It's kind of hard to
>imagine that effects can precede causes. It doesn't mean that it
>can't happen, it just means that there would be a serious revolution
>in physics if this was shown to the case. Thus faster-than-light
>travel is incompatible with special relativity (and the causality
>principle).
>
The causality principle being so well-founded in human psyche, as you
point out, seems to rule out any possible demonstration of acausal event.
The idea being that if you have a phenomenon that can't be totally explain
with a given causal theory, the fault will be blamed on the theory
being incomplete. So, a new causal theory will be constructed to better
fit the results of a particular phenomenon.
The causality underlying any evolution of a theory, even apparently acausal
events would/could be reduced to a causal explanation or would be
postponed till a causal assimilation to the current theory can be found.
It seems also that acausal explanation are much more difficult to
deal with that causal ones, since the notion of order is completely messed up
and therefore, some kind of intractability of sequence of events appears
(I assume that a human coming up with an acausal theory, would have
to somehow sort out events of a particular phenomenon to puts then
in some kind of causal order in order to allow his brain to treat them and
produce that specific theory)
Speaking about causality, one of the big failure seems to be
at the Quantum level where, as explained so far, ..."God plays with dices".
Erol Basturk
IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
Dave Van Domelen
Erol Basturk <bas...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>Speaking about causality, one of the big failure seems to be
>at the Quantum level where, as explained so far, ..."God plays with dices".
Yes, that tired old horse seems to get trotted out about this point in any
scientific discussion, often as a way to say "science is too screwed up anyway,
why trust it?" Actually, if you go beyond Survey Of 20th Century Physics
you'll find that causality is conserved at all levels. Anything that looks
like it violates causality immediately gets rechecked, because there are some
very fundamental (but unfortunately very difficult to explain to someone
without a year of at least Quantum Mech, if not Quantum Field Theory) things
that say causality is preserved. Period.
Once you know precisely what state you're in now, you can calculate
exactly what will follow (Heisenberg Uncertainty limits how precisely you can
know, unfortunately). But the calculations, at current level of mathematical
sophistication, would take longer than the age of the universe to complete in
some cases. Oops. What we *can* calculate often gives the impression of
"dicing with the Universe," but that's the fault of the math, not the Universe.
Dave Van Domelen, has a right to some indignation after making it through
three quarters of Quantum Field Theory alive....
Erik Max Francis
> The causality underlying any evolution of a theory, even apparently acausal
> events would/could be reduced to a causal explanation or would be
> postponed till a causal assimilation to the current theory can be found.
There's a difference between acausal events and uncorrelated events,
or events which have no particular cause. The causality principle has
no problem with those at all. All causality indicates is that if one
event is the cause of another, that cause better precede the result in
every frame of reference. That's all.
Acausal events will be rather hard to reconcile or cover up, so I
don't buy the interpretation that the causality principle is a shield
behind which science lies, because they're afraid to face the truth.
If the Universe is not a causal one, then science doesn't stand much
of a chance, because science depends on reproducibility, and if the
result comes before the cause occurs, that makes science unusable.
Since science is _quite_ usable, it tends to indicate that the
philosophical principles upon which it is based (the causality
principle being one of them) are well-founded.
> Speaking about causality, one of the big failure seems to be
> at the Quantum level where, as explained so far, ..."God plays with dices".
Quantum mechanics induces randomness in events, but it does not
violate causality. Casuality has a very well-defined meaning, and
random events constituting causes by no means invalidates causality.
Ruchira Datta
Dave Van Domelen <dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> wrote:
>In article <CssJJ...@hawnews.watson.ibm.com>,
>Erol Basturk <bas...@watson.ibm.com> wrote:
>>Speaking about causality, one of the big failure seems to be
>>at the Quantum level where, as explained so far, ..."God plays with dices".
>
> Yes, that tired old horse seems to get trotted out about this point in any
>scientific discussion, often as a way to say "science is too screwed up anyway,
>why trust it?" Actually, if you go beyond Survey Of 20th Century Physics
>you'll find that causality is conserved at all levels. Anything that looks
>like it violates causality immediately gets rechecked, because there are some
>very fundamental (but unfortunately very difficult to explain to someone
>without a year of at least Quantum Mech, if not Quantum Field Theory) things
>that say causality is preserved. Period.
Agreed so far.
> Once you know precisely what state you're in now, you can calculate
>exactly what will follow (Heisenberg Uncertainty limits how precisely you can
>know, unfortunately). But the calculations, at current level of mathematical
>sophistication, would take longer than the age of the universe to complete in
>some cases. Oops. What we *can* calculate often gives the impression of
>"dicing with the Universe," but that's the fault of the math, not the Universe.
> Dave Van Domelen, has a right to some indignation after making it through
>three quarters of Quantum Field Theory alive....
I admit I haven't taken Quantum Field Theory, but what you say confuses me.
What do you mean, "you can calculate exactly what will follow (Heisenberg
Uncertainty limits how precisely you can know, unfortunately)"? Heisenberg
Uncertainty is not just a limitation on how precisely one can know, it is a
limitation on how much precision *exists*; it reflects the fundamental fact
that some observables are incompatible. So *even* if you know precisely what
state you're in now, unless that state is a pure state of the observable you
want to measure, you cannot predict exactly what will happen when you measure
that observable - you can only predict probabilities. The state contains all
the information that there *is*; it is not just our lack of knowledge that
keeps us from predicting certainties, reality itself is uncertain. If a
particle is in an eigenstate of the position operator, then no matter how much
math one did, one could not predict the result of a measurement of momentum,
because the particle simply does not *have* a well-defined momentum. (This
does not violate causality in any way, BTW; what it violates is determinism.)
No matter how many levels of Feynman diagrams you draw, you can only calculate
(with better and better accuracy) what *percentage* of repetitions of
measurement A will result in B, C, etc., but not *which* repetitions will
result in B, C, etc. Perhaps that's all you meant by "exactly", but I don't
think it's what most people would understand.
Are you assuming hidden variables? I thought Bell's Theorem and the Aspect
Experiment eliminated that theory, but I could be wrong... From what little
I know of quantum field theory, it doesn't seem to change the fact that one
can only predict probabilities, but perhaps you will enlighten me about this.
Ruchira Datta
da...@math.berkeley.edu da...@ux5.lbl.gov
Andrew Cairns
: > t-prime = t/(sqrt(1-v^2/c^2))
: What you refer to is actually
: tau = t/gamma,
: where gamma = (1 - v^2/c^2)^-(1/2). So in fact what you have here is
: tau = t (1 - v^2/c^2)^(1/2),
: or, that is, _multiplied_ the factor under the square root, not
: divided by it. So as v -> c, tau -> 0. Just as you'd expect from
: time dilation effects.
: > And, if you put a superluminal speed in that equation, say 2c then you come
: > up with . . . some meaningless time factor... Is this right or wrong?
: However, this part is still correct. For v > c, gamma is imaginary
: and thus you get an imaginary proper time.
: > Is it just a myth that travel faster than light implies time travel
: > backward? Doesn't FTL just lead to a meaningless imaginary time
: > dilation level?
: Faster-than-light travel leading to causality violations and
: backwards-in-time travel is not deduced from the gamma term, because
: clearly (as you point out) it indicates imaginary, nonphysical
: solutions (for proper time at least, regardless of what the tachyon
Would someone explain just WHY imaginary situations are forbidden...?
It could just be traveling in 5D, and who are we to say it isn't?
PS I can prove that black holes (standard sense of the word) don't exist.
And I'm going to blackmail the scientific community! :)
: enthusiasts might argue for momenta and energies). It comes from
: extrapolating backwards, so to speak, of an event which occurred with
: FTL.
: I'm not very good at explaining this portion, so I'll let someone else
: take it on.
: Erik Max Francis, &tSftDotIotE ...!uuwest!alcyone!max m...@alcyone.darkside.com
: USMail: 1070 Oakmont Dr. #1 San Jose, CA 95117 ICBM: 37 20 N 121 53 W _
: 0x385F50384E3E2741582B4259585F50304E3E2741582B4259585F50304E3E274158 mc2! / \
: Omnia quia sunt, lumina sunt. ("All things that are, are lights.") -)(- \_/
--
|-------------------\/--------------------|
And now, the long awaited debate:
"Can liquid be alive,"
between Prof Zurch Loffinger and
Stillwater Pond.
---------andrewhalseycairns--------
------------------at cai...@unixg.ubc.ca
Hartmut Frommert
> Yes, that tired old horse seems to get trotted out about this point in any
>scientific discussion, often as a way to say "science is too screwed up anyway,
>why trust it?" Actually, if you go beyond Survey Of 20th Century Physics
>you'll find that causality is conserved at all levels. Anything that looks
>like it violates causality immediately gets rechecked, because there are some
>very fundamental (but unfortunately very difficult to explain to someone
>without a year of at least Quantum Mech, if not Quantum Field Theory) things
>that say causality is preserved. Period. [..]
Without referring to QM too deep, I see at least some hints that causality
might well be valid only in some "macroscopic"or "everyday's" limit:
1. Tachyon theory: No evidence, but also no violation of experience.
2. Quantum corrections to massless free falling particles may make them
deviate a bit from null geodesics and weaken the light cone structure
3. Nonmetricity: This would definitely violate the light cone structure
unless in particular cases. It might occur in nature but be "hidden" due
to certain effects.
4. Wormholes: Local causality stays essentially perserved here.
Maybe there are more items for thinking about. In all cases, there's not
much hope for soon crucial experiments. And theoretical arguments (and even
more philosophical) cannot substitute experience, observations, and
experiments. For my taste, most discussions on causality are too much fixed
on either time paradoxa, or present mathematical abilities (if they are not
on a completely philosophical level at all). I suspect nature will care
neither ..
Hartmut Frommert | Russia HAS a space station !
<phf...@nyx.uni-konstanz.de> | Mars Observer 2 would have survived.
----------- Get astronomical and space gifs via anon ftp from: -------------
explorer.arc.nasa.gov: /pub/SPACE/GIF; ftp.univ-rennes1.fr; ftp.cnam.fr |
seds.lpl.arizona.edu; images.jsc.nasa.gov; jplinfo.jpl.nasa.gov; | Updates |
Hubble: stsci.edu: /stsci/epa/gif Clementine: clementine.s1.gov | welcome |
The SL9 crash is just a heavenly celebration of Apollo 11 25th anniversary !
Matt Austern
> Also I can prove a fourth spacial dimension. (Not mathematically,
> but I can do that later.) It's rather simple to think about. If you
> curve a straight line, it now occupies two dimensions in a plane - you
> can bisect the curved line in two places both vertically and horizontally.
> With a plane, if you curve it, it occupies three dimensions in a cube
> (same reasoning). Therefore, if three dimensional space curves, it must
> _curve into something_ : it must occupy the fourth dimension of space.
Mathematically, it is possible to define a curved n-dimensional
manifold without having to embed it in a higher-dimensional space.
You just have to have an intrinsic definition of curvature, rather
than one that's dependent on the embedding.
It is always possible to embed an n-dimensional manifold in a higher-
dimensional manifold, but you can usually do the embedding in many
different ways for the same manifold. Properly, then, you shouldn't
regard this embedding as some sort of fundamental property of the
manifold.
Incidentally, it is *not* always possible to embed an n-dimensional
manifold in R^{n+1}. There are some 2-dimensional surfaces, for
example, that can't be embedded in R^3, but only in R^4. I think the
theorem says that you can always embed an n-dimensional manifold in
R^{2n}, but I might be remembering that wrong; don't quote me on it.
Winter Mason
know the odds. I wonder if we'll ever be able to beat him at craps....
Also I can prove a fourth spacial dimension. (Not mathematically,
but I can do that later.) It's rather simple to think about. If you
curve a straight line, it now occupies two dimensions in a plane - you
can bisect the curved line in two places both vertically and horizontally.
With a plane, if you curve it, it occupies three dimensions in a cube
(same reasoning). Therefore, if three dimensional space curves, it must
_curve into something_ : it must occupy the fourth dimension of space.
Now all I have to do is figure out how to prove this
mathematically, and I'm set to be famous...
David A Bergman
: To the thing about god playing dice - Yeah, he plays dice, but we
: Also I can prove a fourth spacial dimension. (Not mathematically,
: but I can do that later.) It's rather simple to think about. If you
: curve a straight line, it now occupies two dimensions in a plane - you
: can bisect the curved line in two places both vertically and horizontally.
: With a plane, if you curve it, it occupies three dimensions in a cube
: (same reasoning). Therefore, if three dimensional space curves, it must
: _curve into something_ : it must occupy the fourth dimension of space.
Ummm, unless I miss my guess, the curvature of space is just a convenient
way to express the equations of GR. There's no need for a fourth dimension
for the embedding diagrams. It's just makes it easier to understand.
Aaron
: Now all I have to do is figure out how to prove this
Bronis Vidugiris
) Yes, that tired old horse seems to get trotted out about this point in any
)scientific discussion, often as a way to say "science is too screwed up anyway,
)why trust it?" Actually, if you go beyond Survey Of 20th Century Physics
)you'll find that causality is conserved at all levels. Anything that looks
)like it violates causality immediately gets rechecked, because there are some
)very fundamental (but unfortunately very difficult to explain to someone
)without a year of at least Quantum Mech, if not Quantum Field Theory) things
)that say causality is preserved. Period.
That depends on what one exactly how one defines causality. The good news is
that you are right in that it is possible to define causality in a reasonable
way so that it is preserved. The bad news is that this model allows outcomes
of experiments to be correlated in ways that cannot be explained by a "causal
chain" model and standard probability theory. It does, however, prohibit the
transmission of signals/usable information by these weird correlations.
See the ongoing discussion in sci.physics (I haven't followed all the
gory details myself).
) Once you know precisely what state you're in now, you can calculate
)exactly what will follow (Heisenberg Uncertainty limits how precisely you can
)know, unfortunately). But the calculations, at current level of mathematical
)sophistication, would take longer than the age of the universe to complete in
)some cases. Oops. What we *can* calculate often gives the impression of
)"dicing with the Universe," but that's the fault of the math, not the Universe.
Things get weirder than that (IMO). One of the basic issues in the uncertanity
principle is the existence of incompatible observables like position and
momentum, or spins along different axes. The rules of QM prohibit sharp
definition of incompatible observables (more precisely, assigning sharp values
to incompatible observables leads to logical contradictions with Boolean logic.
Not a moot point for those who are considering abandoning Boolean logic rather
than realism - like yours truly.). It's not just a limitation on knowledge -
it's the fact that one CAN'T have sharp values for both, much like a sine wave
pulse cant have both a finite duration and a perfectly sharp frequency
spectrum. The problem appears to be more fundamental than the "lack of
knowledge" explanation would suggest.
--
"The power of this battlestation is _insignificant_ when compared with
the power of the Farce." - D. Vader.
Kent Worsnop
>but I can do that later.) It's rather simple to think about. If you
>curve a straight line, it now occupies two dimensions in a plane - you
>can bisect the curved line in two places both vertically and horizontally.
>With a plane, if you curve it, it occupies three dimensions in a cube
>(same reasoning).
it occupies 3 dimensions however one could supply a metric so that the
curved plane is only 2 dimensional. Here I shall give you an example.
Imagine a sphere (hollow). It is a plane that has been curved and thus
in an x,y,z coordinate system it is 3 dimensional. However if you move
to spherical polar coordinates r, theta, phi then it is only 2 dimensional
since the radius of the sphere doesn't change. The same thing can be applied
to your line example. Thus if we curved a 3-d space what you get isn't a
fourth dimension but a new metric for space. (Note: that we live in a
curved 3-d space.)
--
The Gold Dragon (ke...@chem.queensu.ca)
John Lockhart
[snip 'cause i prefer the sound of my own voice]
>dva...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Dave Van Domelen) writes:
>) Once you know precisely what state you're in now, you can calculate
>)exactly what will follow (Heisenberg Uncertainty limits how precisely you can
>)know, unfortunately). But the calculations, at current level of mathematical
>)sophistication, would take longer than the age of the universe to complete in
>)some cases. Oops. What we *can* calculate often gives the impression of
>)"dicing with the Universe," but that's the fault of the math, not the Universe.
>Things get weirder than that (IMO). One of the basic issues in the uncertanity
>principle is the existence of incompatible observables like position and
[snip]
>spectrum. The problem appears to be more fundamental than the "lack of
>knowledge" explanation would suggest.
and another thing dave should look into is chaos theory.
you can set up a simple (or complex) system governed by a few differential
equations, which is so sensitive to initial conditions that an
*infinitesimal*change will "soon" produce overwhelming effects on the systems
state. this is sometimes refered to as the "butterfly effect".
simplest common example i'm aware of is the population growth rate equation.
- john the good -
David Bofinger
> Imaginary numbers are pretty bad, because they are not terribly
> physical.
Real numbers are mathematical constructs useful for the mathematical
treatment of certain kinds of quantities.
Complex numbers (imaginary numbers on their own are pretty dull) are
mathematical constructs useful for the mathematical treatment of
certain other kinds of quantities.
Neither set is particularly "physical", any more than any mathematical
concept is. But you shouldn't hold something against a theory because
it uses complex numbers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@huxley.anu.edu.au
Snail: Dept. of Theoretical Physics, RSPhysSE, ANU, ACT, 2601
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Through the night of doubt and sorrow
Onward goes the pilgrim band.
Counting photons very slowly
On the fingers of one hand." -- The Lay of the Gamma-Ray Astronomer
Sylvan Jacques
Winter Mason <har...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
> Also I can prove a fourth spacial dimension. (Not mathematically,
>but I can do that later.) It's rather simple to think about. If you
>curve a straight line, it now occupies two dimensions in a plane - you
>can bisect the curved line in two places both vertically and horizontally.
>With a plane, if you curve it, it occupies three dimensions in a cube
>(same reasoning). Therefore, if three dimensional space curves, it must
>_curve into something_ : it must occupy the fourth dimension of space.
Wrong. One must be careful to distinguish between _intrinsic_ and
_extrinsic_ properties of manifolds M^n (n=the dimension).
Intrinsic properties have nothing to do with the embedding of
the manifold into a higher dimensional space.
(BTW, Matt Austern is right, any n dimensional manifold can be embedded
in R^2n--flat 2n dim. space, see Whitney, Ann. Math. 45, p.220 (1944).)
The only (connected) 1 dimensional (1D) manifolds are the line and
the circle S^1. To talk about curvature one must embed the line in
a 2D plane, but mathematically, no line or 1D object needs to
be embedded in a higher dimension to talk about its intrinsic
properties.
The same is true with all higher dimensions. A good example is
a sphere S^2 (which means the surface of a ball, there is no
exterior or interior, there is just a sphere). Its hard,
but imagine that its not embedded in 3D space (as all spheres
of our experience are, since we live in 3D. This is what makes
it hard for us to imagine curved surfaces which exist independently
of their embedding in higher dimensional spaces. Our 3D space
is curved, but we don't see gravity as evidence of that, we
just see gravity acting in flat (i.e non-curved) 3D space, since
space is flat on our scale.) We need physics to tell make us realize
that our 3D space (and our 4D spacetime) are curved, and that
we interpret this as gravity. This curvature of spacetime is
intrinsic, and there is no embedding in a higher dimensional
space, and certainly no necesssity for it.
The 3D spatial part of our universe, at any given time, may
be a 3-sphere S^3, the generalization of a 2-sphere S^2 to
one more dimension, with no inside or outside, no embedding
in a higher dimensional manifold, just an evolution as time
increases (the radius increases, reaches a maximum, and then
decreases). This is if the universe is "closed". The universe
may be open or flat (3D Euclidean space R^3), in which case
its infinite. The closed case S^3 is called "finite but unbounded",
which also describes a 2-sphere S^2.
Getting back to 2D surfaces, a sphere S^2 does have an intrinsic
curvature, K = 1/r^2, where r is the radius.
In contrast, a cylinder has K = 0 intrinsic (or Gaussian)
curvature. When embedded in 3D, we would say it has
curvature 1/r in the direction around the axis, and curvature
0 along the axis. The intrinsic curvature is simply a
scalar function for a 2D surface: the product of the
2 extreme values of the curvature, which is 0*(1/r) = 0
in this case. The way to think about it is if you were
an intelligent ant (your size -->0, but you can measure distances)
would you think your surface is curved by making local measurements
(you can't go all the way around the cylinder, in fact you can
only use measurements in the neighborhood of any point).
If you think about it, you will see that your cylinder could
be cut parallel to an axis, and made flat like a plane, and
no areas would be changed. Thus there is no intrinsic
curvature. OTOH, one can't do this with a sphere
(consider the problems of people making maps of the earth),
so a sphere S^2 does have intrinsic curvature. At any
point p, one could measure a small radius r, then check to see
if the circumference is 2*pi*r. It would be less than this
for a sphere, so the sphere is curved, and it would equal this
for a cylinder, so our cylinder is flat, as far as little
creatures on the surface know, i.e., these are the intrinsic
quantities, not depending on any embedding in a higher dimensional
manifold.
An arbitrary surface will have a different curvature at every
point of the surface, but 1 number at each point is enough
to describe its intrinsic curvature.
As the # of dimensions increase, the number of functions
required to describe the intrinsic curvature increases
rapidly (I don't recall the general formula).