Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Weber interview

"Hell's Gate" and "Hell Hath No Fury", by David, Linda Evans, and Joelle Presby, take the clash of science and magic to a whole new dimension...join us in a friendly discussion of this engrossing series!
Re: Weber interview
Post by SYED   » Tue Sep 08, 2015 8:46 am

SYED
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1288
Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:03 pm

is there a transcript for the interview anywhere?
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by Louis R   » Fri Sep 18, 2015 10:16 am

Louis R
Commodore

Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 9:25 pm

If c is infinite in vacuum, light propagating from a vacuum into matter will always propagate tangent to the surface - IOW, in won't penetrate into matter at all. What happens at the interface from one material to another, I'd have to play with, but at first glance the infinities should cancel and you'd still get refraction. [ratios of infinite quantities are tricky, and don't always behave the way they "should"] That would be a good thing: in the real universe, light never actually propagates at c. Even in intergalactic space there's enough matter around that the speed of light is always infinitesimally less than c.

E=mc^2 has nothing to do with the process of fusion - it just lets you calculate the output. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that an infinite value for c doesn't bollix things up, because it's a factor in many of the equations that do describe what's going on, meaning that many physical quantities go either to zero or infinity. Again, I'd have to comb through piles of papers to even get a feel for the consequences, but reaction rates would probably go either to zero or infinity as well - either the stars wouldn't shine or they'd all go supernova immediately after they formed [down to and including brown dwarfs, in fact]. Either way, a very awkward universe to live in.

Ummm... assuming it was there at all, that is. What would happen to the Big Bang is something I'm not competent to even guess at ;)

Astelon wrote:I believe that you might be overthinking this. If speed of light in a vacuum was infinite, but the same as on earth in all other mediums, then things wouldn't look any different. The stars would be in different positions though.

Also principles of magnetism work on Sharona (the survey team had a compass), regardless of how it might work if light speed was infinite. (Maybe it wouldn't work in a vacuum?)

I am even less convinced that a change in the speed of light would change the fusion process of a star. The equation would need to be changed (not based on the speed of light), but you have to put in the appropriate numbers if you actually want to calculate anything.
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by phillies   » Wed Mar 23, 2016 10:54 am

phillies
Vice Admiral

Posts: 1635
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2010 9:43 am
Location: Worcester, MA

Mil-tech bard wrote:Regards this,

Jonathan_S wrote:Certainly if the speed of light was infinite in all materials you wouldn't have refraction; and hence no lenses. So our eyes wouldn't be able to focus things.

Of course if lenses don't focus things then presumably evolution would have selected against lens-like constructions for vision. Who knows if some alternate approach might have come out that works roughly as well by other means.


IMO, the best route is not to go there. This is a problem Steve Stirling has with his "when the fire (gunpowder) died" novels.

Messing with fundamental laws governing chemical properties would make all life impossible.

He of course grandly ignored this...and I have ignored the series after the first book.


The explanation for his books was very easy. The laws of nature did not change. There was a Maxwell's daemon that attached to each pole of each battery, etc., keeping voltage differences from being seen, a daemon attached to each nitrate group,...
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by brnicholas   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 8:49 am

brnicholas
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 254
Joined: Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:40 pm

I think the concerns being expressed about basic optics not working are misplaced and reflect a misunderstanding of what DW said.

He said that in Sharona physics was Newtonian and the speed of light was infinite. He is contrasting Newtonian physics with General Relativity. If he is using "speed of light" in the sense it usually has in General Relativity he does not mean that photons travel at infinite speed in vacuum, he means that there is no limit to relative velocity. This is because in General Relativity the "speed of light" is the maximum speed at which two objects can move in relationship to each other regardless of their movement in relationship to any third object.

In other words, he is not saying that photons move at infinite speed. He is saying that you can do standard Newtonian relative velocity calculations with photons.

I think on Sharona photons move at c when departing from a fixed point but two photons departing from the same point in opposite directions would each move away from the point at c and would move away from each other at 2c. This contrasts with the real world where those same two photons would move away from the fixed point at c and would also move away from each other at c. (Yes I know that doesn't make logical sense but that is what I understand General Relativity to say if someone here understands it better please feel free to correct me.)

I don't think that would affect optics in an atmosphere. I certainly agree there would be all kinds of effects of this basic a change in physics and doubt even the experts can tell you what they would be so DW using "Newtonian Physics" as handwavium is fine with me.

Nicholas
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 11:16 am

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4817
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

phillies wrote:
The explanation for his books was very easy. The laws of nature did not change. There was a Maxwell's daemon that attached to each pole of each battery, etc., keeping voltage differences from being seen, a daemon attached to each nitrate group,...


Perhaps the reverse is truer in the multiverse? Aether and magic acts as Maxwell's daemons on General Relativity. General Relativity describes universal physics. Mental activity can shape aether to act in ways that modify the effects of physics locally.
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by Howard T. Map-addict   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 1:58 pm

Howard T. Map-addict
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Only if needed for a story.
If these Basic Theories for Sharonaverse and Arcanaverse are
not needed in the plotline, then we will *never* be told! :(
:shock: :lol: :mrgreen: :twisted:

HTM

PeterZ wrote:
phillies wrote:
The explanation for his books was very easy. The laws of nature did not change. There was a Maxwell's daemon that attached to each pole of each battery, etc., keeping voltage differences from being seen, a daemon attached to each nitrate group,...


Perhaps the reverse is truer in the multiverse? Aether and magic acts as Maxwell's daemons on General Relativity. General Relativity describes universal physics. Mental activity can shape aether to act in ways that modify the effects of physics locally.
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:02 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4817
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Of course not, Howard. I would say, however, that the various theories of physics for the different multiverse societies would be a marketing ploy. Just look at the these threads. How many interesting and arcane discussion about so many topics tangentially associated with the stories have we had? We aren't the only ones that find those subjects engaging.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Only if needed for a story.
If these Basic Theories for Sharonaverse and Arcanaverse are
not needed in the plotline, then we will *never* be told! :(
:shock: :lol: :mrgreen: :twisted:

HTM

PeterZ wrote:
Perhaps the reverse is truer in the multiverse? Aether and magic acts as Maxwell's daemons on General Relativity. General Relativity describes universal physics. Mental activity can shape aether to act in ways that modify the effects of physics locally.
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by Howard T. Map-addict   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:31 pm

Howard T. Map-addict
Rear Admiral

Posts: 1391
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 11:47 am
Location: Philadelphia, PA

Yeah. Peter.
Maybe Baen should advertise Multiverse books
on "The Big Bang Theory." It has tens of millions of viewers,
in America and in India! And Science Fiction is read there.

HTM

PeterZ wrote:Of course not, Howard. I would say, however, that the various theories of physics for the different multiverse societies would be a marketing ploy. Just look at the these threads. How many interesting and arcane discussion about so many topics tangentially associated with the stories have we had? We aren't the only ones that find those subjects engaging.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Only if needed for a story.
If these Basic Theories for Sharonaverse and Arcanaverse are
not needed in the plotline, then we will *never* be told!

HTM

PeterZ had written:

Perhaps the reverse is truer in the multiverse? Aether and magic acts as Maxwell's daemons on General Relativity. General Relativity describes universal physics. Mental activity can shape aether to act in ways that modify the effects of physics locally.
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by PeterZ   » Thu Mar 24, 2016 2:36 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 4817
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

No need. Baen will just employ mavens on literary chat sites to spread the word. Heck, they will even use the authors' sites.

Howard T. Map-addict wrote:Yeah. Peter.
Maybe Baen should advertise Multiverse books
on "The Big Bang Theory." It has tens of millions of viewers,
in America and in India! And Science Fiction is read there.

HTM
Top
Re: Weber interview
Post by tinfoil   » Wed Mar 30, 2016 7:52 pm

tinfoil
Lieutenant (Senior Grade)

Posts: 76
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 8:30 pm

If the speed of light was truly infinite, the first time ANY particle experienced radioactive decay, the release of energy due to the tiny loss of mass would be AN INFINITE AMOUNT of energy.

Clearly, that cannot be happening billions of times a second all over the planet.


This suggests no radioactivity.

In turn, this suggests no big bang, no fusion-powered stars, and no changing of atoms from one element to another.

No radiation means no mutation or evolution, or a new mechanism to cause it.

There a WHOLE LOT of unintended consequences if the first premise is true. Therefore, I suspect it will be quietly dropped as non-canon.
Top

Return to Multiverse