| Re: Speed of Light -
07-10-2006, 11:51 AM
Hi Guille, thanx for your elaborate answer.
First of all, I do not necesarilly adhere to Barbour's theory. I just thought it shouldn't be left out of this discussion.
And I certainly do not deny the suffering of the Jewish people, or any people or for that matter any living creature whatsoever.
He seems to say that nothing "happens".
Everything that can happen exists in the form of a series of snapshots, as he puts it, of configurations (of particles) that together make up 'configuration space'. Each snapshot is here meant to be not a measure of time, but a unique configuration of, if I remember correctly, all particles that exist.
He states that what we percevieve as 'history' (say the history of an arrow being shot and reaching a target) is a path through a particular series of snapshots. Meaning, btw, that the arrow leaving the bow, is NOT the arrow hitting the target, they are two distinct objects. So, no movement, only configurations.
That would imply that the history of our world ( in the sense of everything around us we can experience, the universe and by proxie, its history) is also a particular path through configuration space. The overwhelming majority of configurations is too simple, meaningless or boring to be of interest here. But statistics dictates that a certain fraction would look like moments in time in wich we (eventually) exist. The sum of these snapshots is that particular path through configuration space, our world. Since there are very many paths, Barbours theory reminds one of the many worlds theories, it just explains it in a rather original way.
Now, the discussion here was superliminal speeds.
I would say there was a minimum measure in which snapshots can differ.
Hence, the impression of movement is also limited, namely to what we measure as the speed of light. Hence, no superluminal speeds.
I'm sorry for my amateurish explanation, but it's the best I can manage.
Also, again, I find Barbours thinking very interesting, but do not have the theoretical knowledge, nor am I smart enough to be able to say that I adhere to it.
Mark |