Issac Asimov's Superluminal Universe

Discussion in 'SciFi & Fantasy' started by entelecheia, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. entelecheia Registered Senior Member

    Dr. Asimov summarizes by saying that—

    We may then imagine the existence of two kinds of universes. One, our own, is the taredyon-universe (slow) in which all particles go at subluminary velocities and may accelerate to nearly the speed of light as their energy increases. The other is the tachyon-universe, in which all particles go at superluminal velocities and may decelerate to nearly the speed of light as their energy increases. Between is the infinitely narrow “luxon wall” (Latin for light) in which there are particles that go at exactly luminal velocities. The luxon wall can be considered as being held by both universes in common . . . . A literal interpretation of God as light could be sued as an evidence of God’s ability to create even an infinite universe. Beginning with the Lorentz transformation of mass: M1 = M we have an existence at the speed of light implying an infinite mass. Plugging infinite mass into the classical formula for Kinetic energy produces infinite energy. Finally, using Einstein’s relation of mass and energy we have God physically possible of creating an infinite universe. (Asimov, p. 876)

    He said superluminal velocities; does it means the rank includes infinite velocity? How his hipothetic God conceived as infinite energy can be formuled and/or conceptualized more accurately?
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    A link would surely be helpful for others to consult as a reference:

    "...Evidence of this non-forbidden beyond nature would support the Christian claim that there is an existence that transcends time and space, but so far it has not been detected, just postulated..."

    Personally, I'd still take Kant's stance that it is futile to try to successfully squeeze Judeo-Christian supernatural affairs into the natural / phenomenal world, or conflate ongoing discoveries and theoretical work therein with the former. The latter is the domain of physical sciences and their approach to interpretation.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. entelecheia Registered Senior Member

    Why prestiged scientists as Hawking, and other physicists use the concept of infinite energy knowing it is imposible to conceptualize. An 'anti-concept', antinomy? This is not evidencing inflammed ego & lack of ethics?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Check out David Bohm's "Wholeness and the Implicate Order".

    Bohm postulates a zero state infinite energy with several stages (plenums) of potential from which reality is manifested to an observer.
  8. entelecheia Registered Senior Member

    Can you give a more detailed description? The Infinite is a common resource used in philosophy, but i find it become an antinomy when applied to the realm of physics. Infinite energy is another way to denote infinite matter. Even i we suppose that the space and time of the multiverse are infinite, ergo the energy spread thru it could be infinite; it doesn't implie that 'infinite energy and/or matter' can be accurately conceptualized.

    Even Hawking mentioned the idea that instants before the Big Bang the energy of the primordial particles were infinite.

    I also find impossible the conceptualization of:

    - infinite space/time.
    - tesseract
    - hiperspace
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    This is a brief summation of our "unfolding reality."

    Please note that this summation works backwards from the "Explicate Order" (some of which we are able to observe).

    and if you are still interested;

    Bohm draws attention to the narrow focus of current physics and overlooks the fact that the total wholeness is in a constant state of flux and by looking at parts, we can never explain find a complete picture. Bohm's vision actually reconciles the apparent incompatibilities of the two mainstays in physics.

    My take is that Bohm exposes the fundamental error of QM by ignoring the uninterrupted flow (wavelike motion) of the greater wholeness, which GR addresses, but conflicts with the QM, because GR is not quantized in itself and functions seamlessly without quantization. This is demonstrated already in the uninterrupted probability wave motion of a photon (particle/wave duality).

    Bohm marries both theories and proposes that everything functions in a wavelike manner (Holomovement), from which quantum function is just an expression in reality. IOW, Bohm goes one step deeper and combines QM and GR as normal functions which depend on "observable" events, but do not dare go beyond this separation, because it cannot be falsified.

    Perhaps Asimov was a fan of Bohm.
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2013

Share This Page