Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: notesfiles
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!oliveb!hplabs!hp-pcd!orstcs!richardt
From: richardt@orstcs.UUCP (richardt)
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: FTL - a postivie argument
Message-ID: <7800026@orstcs.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 15-Jul-85 22:51:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: orstcs.7800026
Posted: Mon Jul 15 22:51:00 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 20-Jul-85 09:27:31 EDT
Organization: Oregon State University - Corvallis, OR
Lines: 68
Nf-ID: #N:orstcs:7800026:000:3877
Nf-From: orstcs!richardt    Jul 15 18:51:00 1985

Okay, let's do something positive for a change and start considering potential
ways that FTL could be achieved.

1) On violating Special Relativity.  As someone mentioned, Special Relativity
	is based on some very basic mathematical postulates and those 
	postulates are unlikely to be incorrect.  However, Newtonian 
	Mechanics is also based upon a very simple set of mathematical
	postulates.  I think we can all agree tat Special Relativity provides
	an accurate description in a number of areas where Newtonian 
	Mechanics falls flat on it's face.  This is NOT because the basic
	postulates are incorrect, but because they do not have the needed
	scope.  Special Relativity is designed to DESCRIBE a set of actions
	*outside of the domain of actions which Newtonian Mechanics is 
	designed to describe.*  Therefore, if the pertinent actions which
	produce Faster Than Light travel are outside of the realm (i.e.,
	based on an entirely different set of physical laws) of Special
	Relatively, the 'laws' of Special Relativity *do not apply* to 
	FTL.  Thus, if we don't know about the physical laws which govern
	FTL, we have no basis to say that its impossible.  Newtonian physics
	works beatifully UP TO A POINT.  With the information we now have,
	Special Relativity may or may not be an accurate description of 
	the universe.  There is evidence which suggests that it is nowhere near
	a complete system, however.  Witness Quantum Mechanics.  QM does
	not violate SR, but rather falls outside of the domain of SR.
	Second point: SR, and any other form of physics, describes a
	mathematical MODEL of the universe.  When experience and the 
	model don't jive, you change the model.  Of course, this tends to
	make the proponents of the old model unhappy in the process.
	Everyone remember what happened when Einstein introduced SR?  He
	was laughed down by the current physics Establishment.  The basic
	argument is that WE DO NOT KNOW WHETHER FTL IS POSSIBLE OR NOT, AND
	HAVE NO RELIABLE DATA TO BASE A CONCLUSION ON.  WHAT WE DO KNOW IS
	THAT FFTL DOES NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE CONSTRICTIONS OF SPECIAL
	RELATIVITY, AND THEREFORE IS PROBABLY BASED UPON OTHER, UNKNOWN
	PHYSICAL LAWS.

2) On the concept of Faster-Than-Light travel:  There are two fundamental
	ways to move from place to place faster than light would travel
	that distance.  You can either occupy each succesive point in space
	in a period with a shorter duration than a photon would occupy 
	each succesive point in space; OR, you can occupy points in space
	non-succesively.  For example:

	............................................. <-- points in space
	............................................. photon's path -- takes n 
						      seconds
	............................................. true ftl path -- time is
						      is less than n seconds
	.              .             .              . extralight path. 
	A					    B
	If the photon and the extralight object both start moving from
	point A to point B at the same time, the extralight obect will
	APPEAR to have gone faster than light, as it will arrive at B
	before the photon.  Objectively, this is not what's happening;
	The extralight object has a speed below that of light, but is 
	changing its location in 3-space within a shorter period of
	time. This is an important distinction.

By the way, James Blish explored the concept of jumping from point to 
point in space in the book "All These Earths."  Sorry I started being
picky about terminology there, but the point doesn't make sense if 
its not stated precisely.  In any case, most FTL travel is based upon
the latter concept, extralight movement.  Another book dealing with this,
which works from the question 'What makes this point in 4-space different
from any other point?,' is Gordon R. Dickson's "Arcturus Landing."

						orstcs/richardt
"If I'm human, what are *YOU*?"