| Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003
23:03:26 -0600
Dear Cory,
I'm not sure anyone
REALLY knows exactly what would happen if one were somehow at Warp 2
(twice the speed of light) with respect to a lab observer and fired a
laser beam. If one ASSUMES he fires the laser beam somehow in ordinary
observer space and frame, then it would have the speed of light to the
external observer, but also it would have the speed of light to the Warp
2 person (depending on the model used here!) in his own moving frame!
So what one would see, would depend in which frame one was "located".
In relativity, a thing can have already happened to one observer, but
not yet have happened to another observer in a different frame.
Note we wound up sorta
assuming that he "fires the laser" means he simultaneously fires it in
all frames at once; or put another way, all frames are always present,
and "what is actually happening" or "seen to happen" depends in which
one of those frames one is located! In other words, "firing a laser" is
not really just "one simple thing in one frame", but an infinite number
of things --- many of which are very, very different --- in an infinite
number of frames. As he fires, in many frames he has fired, and in many
other frames he has not yet even fired!
Here's an example of
what we are talking about, and something being two completely different
things (as observed). Suppose two fellows start moving in two ships
alongside each other, and move (together) faster and faster with respect
to that lab observer. As they approach the speed of light with respect
to the lab observer, they are also rotating their length along their
direction of travel (as seen by the lab observer) out of the lab
observer's 3-space toward the time domain, as seen by the lab observer.
Just as they attain light speed with respect to the lab observer, they
"lose all length" with respect to that lab observer, so he now sees them
as "photonic" or patterns of -dimensional wavefronts moving along at
light speed! As they turn further (in a hyperspace with lots more
dimensions), they lose another dimension, and then would seem to be a
collection of "lines" traveling at c-squared velocity with the respect
to the lab observer. One more rotation, and they would be a "point"
with respect to the lab observer, moving at c-cubed. We really don't
know how many "points moving at c-cubed" are "penetrating" our bodies at
any one moment.
So the two observers,
traveling along side by side together, and reaching light speed with
respect to the observer in the lab, will be seen by that lab observer as
"photonic" things traveling at light speed. But each still sees the
other as a perfectly normal material ship and normal material person
(body), not even moving at all, but sitting there still. They could
even toss a ball back and forth to each other, easily, and the ground
observer would have a very hard time figuring that one out!
So the REAL lesson of
relativity is that physical reality itself is changeable and MULTIPLE,
not singular. It is not absolute, but RELATIVE to the observer and
observation. Now notice that you can also curve spacetime and rotate a
frame without using velocity (but changing the energy density, etc.).
So in effect, physical reality itself can at least in theory be directly
engineered, once we use the proper higher form of electrodynamics and
not the staid old stuff taught in electrical engineering.
But to be absolutely
sure about your experiment, including all the nuances, I guess we'll
just have to wait until superluminal travel becomes available, and then
try it and see.
One can set it up in
different "models" one assumes, and get different answers. But those are
"model" answers. We really won't know till somebody actually does it in
a real experiment.
Now the question is,
If I observe that something is a photon (with respect to me), and
another observer observes it as a mass standing still, what is it? How
are we to handle the notion and the actuality that it is "two very
different things simultaneously"??? That is what I mean by eliminating
the "absoluteness' of physical reality. It isn't absolute, but relative
to the observer.
This is why the
observer cannot be eliminated from the consideration of "physical
reality". We don't really know what kind of "ultimate reality" is
behind our instrument measurements and observations! We can only know
our measurements and observations -- and these are limited, because they
are 3-spatial and thus "rip away time and throw it away" from what is at
least an ongoing 4-space dynamics and interaction. We "see" a frozen
instant snapshot, then another, then another, and we do this so rapidly
that our minds integrate that series, just like a motion picture, and we
"think" we see motion through 3-space. We actually do not, but
INTERPRET it that way, like seeing motion in a motion picture film
projected onto the screen, even though at any instant there is only a
single frozen snapshot on the screen. This lets you know that the
conscious mind is a
serial processor, doing one thing at a time, but continually recalling
past snapshots from memory, comparing, and integrating at very high
speed.
The
unconscious mind, e.g.,
is perfectly conscious, but
multiply so. It is a massively parallel processor, with
thousands of slides in the slide projector simultaneously at every
moment. The conscious mind is a serial processor, very fast, but with
only a single slide in the slide projector at any one moment. You can be
killed, and still be alive with respect to one observer, while dead with
respect to another. With respect to "your own" frame, you are either
dead or alive, not any crazy combination! You can spend a lifetime
pondering the depths of such questions as "If I am dead to X number of
observers, and alive to Y number, then what is life and death? And what
is "reality", particularly "physical reality"? Ultimately we can only
answer the question in two manners: (1) scientifically, which gives us a
relative and "as observed" answer, and (2) philosophically, which gives
us a multitude of answers, depending upon what philosophy is applied or
accepted.
But the difference
between a very rapid serial processor and a massively parallel processor
is why the conscious mind thinks the unconscious is really
"unconscious", meaning it does not meet the criterion of "only a single
slide in the slide projector at a time". The unconscious has "a
thousand slides in the slide projector all at once", which the "single
slide only" conscious mind can only "see" as a blur or darkness and as
the total absence of any distinguishable "frame" or scene. So it thinks
that the massively parallel mind is "unconscious", which rigorously only
means "not a single slide at a time operator".
For centuries the
philosophers studied (and debated) such things, and wound up never
solving the fundamental questions, such as the nature of nothing, the
nature of self, the nature of mind, etc. What happened was that many
schools of philosophy were formed, each with its "position" or
interpretation. And there the matter rests, even today.
In aikido and other
martial arts, the martial arts practitioner gradually learns to utilize
the massively parallel processor (unconscious mind), thus achieving a
sensing that is often extraordinarily keen. It is possible to so
heighten the senses, e.g., that one can "feel" a bug walking on the
floor 12 feet away. But at that level of sensitivity, one is acutely
uncomfortable in modern society. To survive in the modern tumultuous
world with its great overloading of the senses, one has to "dull" one's
sensitivity. But in the wild, human sensitivity is remarkable. An
Australian aborigine, still living and practicing the old ways, can
track a man's passage through the jungle, streams, etc. where even a
bloodhound cannot track him. The Brits used to use them for just that
purpose, in war and in tracking and catching criminals. Animal senses
also tend to be very acute. A dog can often be trained to "smell" or
somehow detect a certain disease such as a cancer. Etc.
But meanwhile, till we
have the capability to actually go at Warp 2 and do your experiment and
test it out, I guess we'll just have to work on how to get a ship up to
that Warp 2 speed in the first place! But it is great fun to think
about it, and to reflect on the marvelous nature of the physical world
we inhabit and are part of.
Good thinking and best
wishes,
Tom Bearden
|