Russell McMahon wrote:
>>> Ok, sanity check time.  I've had another one of those disturbing 
>>> thoughts..
>>>       
>
>   
>>> ... So how can a "timeless" particle interact with anything?  It 
>>> would either
>>> always be interacting, or never be.
>>>       
>
>   
>> DAVID!
>> I think you are catching what Russell has..
>>     
>
> I am honoured by the compliment!
> It was a compliment, wasn't it?
>   
Of course it was a compliment.

Have you looked into the "Global Consciousness Project"? Looks like 
something that
could keep my overly jaded interest. Look at

http://noosphere.princeton.edu/

It might explain somethings I've seen on the craps table.

--Bob

> And Dave has touched on one of the great beauties that I return to 
> marvel at from time to time. And fail to understand, frame of 
> reference wise or otherwise. viz: All photons are joined together in 
> an instantaneous intercommunicating 'web' throughout the universe. 
> They all dwell in the eternal now. They know no time or essentially 
> space. It is far easier to make slightly (or very) incorrect 
> statements about them which help to illuminate, or confuse, or both at 
> once, than to make categorical statements of fact. Well educated 
> particle physicists (whose ranks I am far from, and will never be 
> counted amongst) may believe differently. They may just possibly be 
> correct. Just possibly. A photon leaving Alpha Centauri Proxima 
> (second closest star to earth, one of the two pointers to the Southern 
> Cross for fortunate Southern Sky viewers, and another leaving Sol 
> (closest star to earth) at the same "time" will arrive at a viewer at 
> the same 'time' as each other and instantaneously, and will never 
> actually 'go' anywhere, as everywhere is everywhere else and there is 
> no here and there and there is no time - all from their own 
> perspective of course, and is there a more valid one? For us there 
> will be a time difference between their arrivals of about 4 years.
>
> There. Was that poetic enough for such an occasion ? :-).
> I just know someone is going to complain about at least one part of he 
> 'physics' back there.
>
> And fwiw and AFAIK and IMHO and I'm happy to be corrected if wrong - 
> re other statements made:
>
> All massless particles always travel *AT* C, never near it. They can 
> only travel at C and MUST do so to be massless. They all have zero 
> rest mass and their apparent masses are related to their energies in 
> any frame of reference except their own. (! :-)).
>
> Just because the speed of light varies in different media it doesn't 
> mean it isn't constant in the way that constant is meant by those who 
> use the term usefully :-). Cerenkov radiation (which even budget 
> equipped amateurs can detect and measure from incoming gamma rays) is 
> the result of photons (usually the ones termed Gamma rays)(photons on 
> speed) desperately adjusting their terms of reference to conform to 
> reality. (ie extra lower energy radiation 'shed' to allow the high 
> energy photon to 'slow down'. ) It's also the cause of the nice 
> actinic blue glow in radioactivity storage pools (as simulated in 
> suitably budgeted movies) as photons adjust themselves to the 
> discovery of the pool.
>
> C and the speed of light are one and the same. Declaring that they are 
> different may make everything make a lot more sense, but reality 
> doesn't know about this :-).
>
> Photons are 'real' particles - but they have no mass so they (like 
> particles which have rest mass) cannot be accelerated to the speed of 
> light BUT with photons they are already there and with the others they 
> can never get there.
>
> Expansion of the universe or no (shaky ground here) nothing moves 
> faster than C relative to anything else in out universe *in a manner 
> that can be usefully or meaningfully expressed in terms which 'make 
> sense' in our reality*. ie you can (and apparently do) have particles 
> which are coupled instantaneously at any distance and you can make 
> measurements which prove that this has been the case or even that this 
> is currently the case or even that it will be the case BUT you cannot 
> use that knowledge to make any use of the FTL or instantaneity of the 
> coupling.
>
> Some (or all) flavours of Neutrinos *may* have negative rest mass, and 
> I hope that they do. If they do then they must travel faster than 
> light. There have been various measurements made from time to time 
> that suggest that this may be the case but the results tend to fade 
> away like the grin on the Cheshire Cat when attempts are made to 
> verify observations.
>
> Exercise for fun:
> Those with glazed eyes may wish to stop reading about here :-).
> Usefulness of anything beyond here is highly likely to be zero for 
> many values of zero.
> It is easy to plot classical energy of a particle (or starship or ...) 
> with relativistic mass as it's velocity increases from zero through 
> the speed of light and beyond. Note the energy minima at V > C and how 
> the energy then climbs again and how there are 3 points at each energy 
> level - one below C, one slightly above C (AFAIR in the 1-3 C range 
> and another at around ?20 C. Think about what would happen if you 
> could quantum tunnel from below C to either of these two equal energy 
> points. Ignore the imaginary nature of the mass for practical 
> purposes. Note that there is a velocity below which there are no two 
>  >C "jump points. This is the McMahon quantum hyperdrive stages 1 and 
> 2. (Not to be confused with Niven's similarly named system which had 
> no explanation given).
>
> Note that the velocity difference between the equal energy points for 
> <C and 1st >C decreases as one approaches C and becomes vanishingly 
> small as C is approached. How to achieve the tunnelling is left as an 
> exercise for the student.
>
> Note that to accelerate above C from the first >C jump point you need 
> to *decrease* energy, and to decrease speed you need to increase it. 
> One could become 'lost' at > C if energy was lost after jumping. 
> Objects which jump and then lose energy all increase velocity until 
> reaching the energy minimum point at about ?2C, so one may expect a 
> lot of tachyon traffic at about that point.
>
> As the first "jump point" isn't reached until about 0.6C (AFAIR - long 
> time since I worked this out) this effect will never be discovered 
> accidentally in everyday life ;-).
>
> Enough :-)
>
>
>         Russell
>
>
>
>
>   

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist