At 09:30 PM 6/4/2000, Mike Resnick wrote:
>I sent it on to Ben Bova, who believed the story's sincerity (i.e.,
>that it's not a hoax), but doubted its conclusions. His final
>comment: "Great news, if true."
>
>-- Mike
>
>
> >From: "Ralph Roberts" <[log in to unmask]>
> >The fact that the major media has not picked it up erodes its
> >credibility. However, I have read that such research is going on. It
> could
> >be like cold fusion, or it could be true?
Mike, Ralph,
A couple of comments (other than the Sunday Times *IS* major media):
First, Cold Fusion is still very much alive. Where Pons and
Whatzisname went wrong was in releasing their findings to the whoredom
media before publication in a major peer review journal. Big
mistake--and one that the current batch of Superkinder are apparently
trying to avoid, in spite of leaks. Scientists (with a capital-S) are
nothing, if not anal about procedure and protocol.
Most Scientists are also deeply vested in the status quo and any
breakthrough they are not personally involved in could mean death to
their career (and their grants, of course). This lends a certain
stability to ignorance, IMHO.
Next, the article--being pop science--left out a key (but given)
part of the phrase, "the speed of light IN A VACUUM"--which is what
Einstein based relativity on. There are several projects going on to
change the medium and thus the speed. I believe there was one in Analog
recently that covers an experiment where changing the medium *SLOWS
LIGHT DOWN* to almost walking speed. So finding one that goes the other
way is no big surprise.
What we should consider is not so much that they may have broken a
dubious limit that Einstein put on light, but rather the more common
serendipitous finding: I believe that they may have accidently
discovered A NEW MEDIUM!
In other words, the light vanishes from one spot and appears
(apparently simultaneously--but we've never had to build instruments
that sensitive, so I'll wait for the jury on that) in another place a
significant distance away *BEFORE* the original light could get
there. [But *NOT* before it was generated! Remember this.]
So, neat! But what if the lab conditions created a previously
undiscovered medium representing a wrinkle in folded space and the two
points were adjacent THROUGH THAT MEDIUM?
Heinlein and many others have used these shortcuts through wrinkled
space often. For some reason, they've fallen out of favor in the last
few decades. I foresee an instantaneous resurgence in that technique in
the coming years--and a great market opportunity for the S/F writer who
is willing to take a chance on being proven dead wrong during publishing
lead time (thank Gawd for e-publishing!).
Finally, there is one other minor problem with the Sunday Times
article...[wait a minute, I'm having a senior moment]....oh, yes!
They keep referring to causality and communication with the
future. Sorry! I've seen this before, but it doesn't play. Just
because information reaches someplace faster that it used to (ie the
speed of light) doesn't effect causality--it merely effects when you are
*informed* about an event. In effect, the telegram sent after the pony
express rider left does *not* change what happened on the sending
end--only what *WILL* happen on the receiving end.
Let's say there was a MAJOR supernova about 10 light years away,
oh, say, five years ago. As I understand it, the radiation from that
should sterilize the earth. Period.
Now, if we create a viewer that can *SEE* it happen *before* the
light and radiation gets here and place a significant portion of
humanity on the far side of the sun when it does arrive, why we could
beat genocide and change the future--but *NOT* the past! It *still*
blew up, whether we found out about it early or not.
In order to break causality, you need to break the *INSTANTANEOUS*
barrier, and until someone comes up with an example of Thiotimoline
(sp?) I'll hereby declare that causality is safe from this particular
discovery. ;P
(If this become the fool's quote of the next millennium, so be it!)
bob faw
---
BobFaw.com, List-parent-with-no-implied-gender of:
The Cyber-Hacks.org Writer's Critique and Discussion Group
http://www.topica.com/lists/cyber-hacks/
Editorial Director/Publisher of "The Virtual Phoenix" literary e-zine
"For, about and by artists of the written word."
http://www.freeyellow.com/members2/writers/
I get paid for my opinions at:
http://www.epinions.com/welcome.html?member=Bobster
|