Non-constant Speed of Light

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

I always thought that Vernor Vinge may be on to something in 'A Fire Upon the Deep' where light travels faster (and automation works better) away from large masses - in intergalactic space, for instance.

My understanding may be defective, but I believe that is standard physics. Not Vinge's numbers (if I've read that one I've forgotten it) since I presume he was positing a higher value of c. The speed of light IS influenced by electric and magnetic fields and by gravity. In a transparent medium there is specific relationship between the amount by which the speed is reduced and the refractive index. In principle, I believe even the interstellar medium has a refractive index, immeasurably small I suspect but not incalculable. As the distance between atoms approaches infinity, the local speed of light approaches c, which is a limiting value. Of course, even in Earth's atmoshpere, it has already approached pretty darned close and past the Oort it is prettier darneder closer. If I'm wrong, I welcome correction.

 

[tinkerdan]

1 + 1 =2
1+1+1=3
Perhaps some have an objection to the belief that death is part of life.
But it is a certainty that it is the last known part of life here on Earth and until we conquer it; it remains a certainty for all of us.
Now on a somewhat cruel level one might suggest there are those who don't pay taxes as they have only a moment of life and then death.

Either way life+death+taxes...

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

I wonder if anybody has pondered the possibility of General Relativity and Quantum Theory being 100% incompatible?

That seems logically equivalent to asking if anyone has pondered the possibility that one or both is wrong. The answer of course is "yes, people used to ponder that a lot. Lately, not so much."

 

[Venusian Broon]

That seems logically equivalent to asking if anyone has pondered the possibility that one or both is wrong. The answer of course is "yes, people used to ponder that a lot. Lately, not so much."

I would have thought the fact that they are incompatible was blindingly obvious.

But then I did study physics.

 

[Ursa major]

I would have thought the fact that they are incompatible was blindingly obvious.

But then I did study physics.

I feel like misquoting Father Ted (programme and character):

"My understanding of relativity is small; my understanding of quantum mechanics is way over there (and thus completely out of my reach)...."

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

I would have thought the fact that they are incompatible was blindingly obvious.

But then I did study physics.

I presume that by "100% incompatible" he meant something that could never be fixed with with modifications small enough that the result would still be recognizable as QM or relativity. Otherwise, why would he have written "100%" if we are going to treat "incompatible" as a binary (is/is not) kind of thing rather than something quantifiable? And if that was the sense intended then I don't think it is at all obvious. I think we all know they aren't, in their present form, 100% COMpatible, else the question wouldn't have been asked. I think he was asking "what if this CAN'T be fixed, and is anyone pondering what that would imply?"

But then again, the original question didn't seem totally clear to me, which is why I suggested what seems a logically equivalent wording. While formally a declaration, by implicitly inviting confirmation or refutation, it was intended as a request for clarification. Answering my own rewording was just an extra filip of smartassery.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I presume that by "100% incompatible" he meant something that could never be fixed with with modifications small enough that the result would still be recognizable as QM or relativity. Otherwise, why would he have written "100%" if we are going to treat "incompatible" as a binary (is/is not) kind of thing rather than something quantifiable? And if that was the sense intended then I don't think it is at all obvious. I think we all know they aren't, in their present form, 100% COMpatible, else the question wouldn't have been asked. I think he was asking "what if this CAN'T be fixed, and is anyone pondering what that would imply?"

But then again, the original question didn't seem totally clear to me, which is why I suggested what seems a logically equivalent wording. While formally a declaration, by implicitly inviting confirmation or refutation, it was intended as a request for clarification. Answering my own rewording was just an extra filip of smartassery.

Sorry mate, should have replied directly to the original post, but I just dashed it off not thinking too much, thinking it would point back to the 100% comment. Not trying to say anything about whatever you posted and wasn't really being too serious - hence the emoji's.

I'll leave you totally alone.

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

Sorry mate, should have replied directly to the original post, but I just dashed it off not thinking too much, thinking it would point back to the 100% comment. Not trying to say anything about whatever you posted and wasn't really being too serious - hence the emoji's.

I'll leave you totally alone.

Nothing to be sorry about. No offense taken or intended. I save the getting p'd off for the political threads.

 

[J Riff]

So, if we get up to 9/10ths SOL , say... can we shoot something on ahead, and it can do the same, until Warp10 is reached?

 

[Lew Rockwell Fan]

So, if we get up to 9/10ths SOL , say... can we shoot something on ahead, and it can do the same, until Warp10 is reached?

No.

 

[J Riff]

Good. But, we can time dilate before reaching SOL, swot I heard. Then you take a take a two-week vacatilon on Betelgeuse, come back and it's the future! mebbe 2067... and SF movies
are even worse than in previous centuries.