I never understood why you can't go faster than light - until now

cormack12

Gold Member


This came up in my feed for some reason. Blows my mind how stuff from Einstein and Pythagoras is still the cornerstone of so much today.

But this was kind of cool to explain time, dilation and why we can't go FTL - might interest others too, and it's a really cool presentation and explanation.
 
We can't even go as fast as light because nothing with mass can; its mass becomes infinite which would need an infinite amount of energy to keep it moving.
 
I always liked this video. Something about giving up part of your time to speed or speed to time. The circle. Look at the big circle in the video.

 


This came up in my feed for some reason. Blows my mind how stuff from Einstein and Pythagoras is still the cornerstone of so much today.

But this was kind of cool to explain time, dilation and why we can't go FTL - might interest others too, and it's a really cool presentation and explanation.

Hey it's float head physics. He has another one about how FTL breaks causality. (I need to watch it again. I already knew about the relativity of simultaneity and that's sort of an extension of it.)
 
Not being able to go faster than light is gonna be one of those things kids in the far future get taught is a silly belief of cavemen.

I don't know man. There are laws of physics that apply to this universe that will never be broken. Because they can't.

Maybe there could be a workaround, like a warp drive or something, that doesn't violate the laws. But the laws themselves will never be broken.
 
I don't know man. There are laws of physics that apply to this universe that will never be broken. Because they can't.

Maybe there could be a workaround, like a warp drive or something, that doesn't violate the laws. But the laws themselves will never be broken.
See, a workaround" isn't a workaround, its advancement.

Take moving on water. Grog the caveman could only go as fast as he could row. "My arms are the speed of water". Then Hatep figures out the sail. "The wind is the speed of water". Alexi works out the sail plus oars, "Now wind and arms are the fastest!". But the current and direction of the wind are still major limitations, unalterable laws of physics. Then we get a steam powered screw, we can move against the current to the limit of fuel, wind is almost irrelevant. Next the oil powered engine, now nuclear. But still gotta push the water out of the way, its a hard limit on top speed. But then get get the hydrofoil. Now we have super-cavitation rockets that 'fly' underwater at speed UNDREAMED OF just a few decades ago.

So are all these technologies "workarounds", or just better understandings of the medium of transportation?

As we better understand dark matter, gravity, all the things in the universe that we have, currently, only crude understandings of, limited theories on, and blunt instruments to examine, we are perhaps Hatep on the shore, laughing at Grog rowing his canoe and speculating about Alexi and his large galleys, but have NO IDEA about the nuclear powered hydrofoil with supercavitating torpedoes.
 
Err of course, it's just an easier way to visualise because practically you'd need to add an infinite amount of your power source, or fuel, to keep the acceleration going at the same pace.
The reason you shouldn't say mass increases is that it causes confusion because mass generates gravity. (You can consider mass to be the "charge" of gravity) If going faster meant an increase in mass (and not inertia) then you'd expect to see gravitational differences between frames of reference. (Even up to the point of getting crazy results such as some frames of reference expecting objects to collapse into black holes due to speed which isn't going to happen.)

Of course one of the bigger problems with these explanations is a lot of them imply a preferred frame of reference. (I get that they know there's no preferred frame of reference but they don't make that obvious to lay people.)
 
This video really messed with my confidence, lol

I thought I had a basic understanding of why we can't go faster than light, but there's just so much more to it that I didn't realize

It's like there's a whole world of concepts I didn't even know I was missing

Cool video
 
the reason you shouldn't say mass increases is that it causes confusion because mass generates gravity.
Yes, as said it's just an easier way for someone to get a grasp on it before explaining it in more detail.
But if no mass can maybe go faster like that one video game and stuff.
If no mass = light, it's called the speed of light (in a vacuum) because that's the fastest something with no mass goes.
 
It isn't light itself that imposes limit It is the general properties of space time fabric.
 
Last edited:
Didn't watch the video but I always likes Brian Greene's explanation in The Elegant Universe.

Imagine a car doing laps and you measuring its length by counting the time between when the front and the back of the car cross the finish line. The faster the car goes, the shorter the time you count gets - aka the car "shrinks" from your perspective. Light speed is the limit here. It going faster would mean the time you measure would be negative - hence it is impossible to go faster.
 
If an object with mass can travel at the speed of light then anything in its way will be obliterated. A small needle hitting earth from space at speed of light will create an enormous amount of destructive force. Objects with mass cannot travel at that speed

It requires a mind-boggling amount of energy. Material from a collapsing star is ejected violently across space but it's not anywhere close to the speed of light. If a star can't do it then no one can.
 
Last edited:
Go Dark Helmet GIF
 
Space time expands faster than the speed of light, it just depends on whether your definition of speed is limited to being physical.

Something interesting to read on fastest speed is quantum entanglement of 2 photons. Where you can determine the spin (up or down) of a photon across the universe by observing a photon nearby that's connected to it. It's speculated that the information between the 2 photons could be up to 10,000 times faster than the speed of light. You would think you could do something like binary messages with this (up/down), but unfortunately that's not the case. The quantum field collapses as soon as it's observed(measured) and the photons go from superposition (all states) to choosing 1. So if you spun photon A down, then checked photon B, the information exchange becomes irrelevant because the entanglement between the 2 photons is gone. Photon B becomes independent of Photon A, because they've now both chosen states and can no longer go back into superposition.
 
Last edited:
If an object with mass can travel at the speed of light then anything in its way will be obliterated. A small needle hitting earth from space at speed of light will create an enormous amount of destructive force. Objects with mass cannot travel at that speed

It requires a mind-boggling amount of energy. Material from a collapsing star is ejected violently across space but it's not anywhere close to the speed of light. If a star can't do it then no one can.

Well that led me to ask a silly question to Copilot, solid answer though.

Q: If black holes have so much gravitational force that light cannot escape doesn't that mean faster than light is possible in reverse?

A: The fact that black holes trap light doesn't imply—or allow—a kind of "reverse" faster-than-light (FTL) travel. Instead, it reflects how gravity warps spacetime to funnel every possible path inward once you're inside the event horizon.

To elaborate, in general relativity the speed of light is a locally measured constant. This means that no matter where you are—even near a black hole—if you measure the speed of light in your immediate vicinity, you'll always get the same value, \(c\). What happens near a black hole is that the curvature of spacetime becomes so extreme that within the event horizon the very structure of the "future" (as defined by the light cones) points inward toward the singularity. In other words, any attempt to move away from the black hole—even by light—is doomed because the paths available in that warped spacetime do not lead outwards.

The term "escape velocity" is sometimes used to describe the speed needed to escape a gravitational field; for a black hole, this exceeds \(c\) at the event horizon. However, this doesn't mean something is physically accelerating to speeds greater than the speed of light. Rather, it's a coordinate-dependent way of describing how spacetime is curved. Locally, nothing ever exceeds the speed of light—the barrier is built into the geometry of spacetime itself.

So, while it might seem that if gravity can so powerfully trap even light then it might somehow allow "reverse" superluminal speeds, that isn't what's happening. Instead, the structure of spacetime near a black hole prevents any object from escaping once the event horizon is crossed, but it does so without violating the fundamental cosmic speed limit. Every observer, regardless of their position, will always measure the local speed of light as \(c\). This means there is no loophole allowing faster-than-light travel, whether "forward" or "in reverse."

Now that you've got a clearer picture of how spacetime curvature works around black holes, it raises additional interesting questions: How do gravitational time dilation and redshift affect observations of objects near event horizons? Or, how do physicists reconcile these extreme conditions with the otherwise smooth behavior of spacetime predicted by general relativity? These topics offer a fascinating glimpse into the deeper nature of our universe.
 
See, a workaround" isn't a workaround, its advancement.

Take moving on water. Grog the caveman could only go as fast as he could row. "My arms are the speed of water". Then Hatep figures out the sail. "The wind is the speed of water". Alexi works out the sail plus oars, "Now wind and arms are the fastest!". But the current and direction of the wind are still major limitations, unalterable laws of physics. Then we get a steam powered screw, we can move against the current to the limit of fuel, wind is almost irrelevant. Next the oil powered engine, now nuclear. But still gotta push the water out of the way, its a hard limit on top speed. But then get get the hydrofoil. Now we have super-cavitation rockets that 'fly' underwater at speed UNDREAMED OF just a few decades ago.

So are all these technologies "workarounds", or just better understandings of the medium of transportation?

As we better understand dark matter, gravity, all the things in the universe that we have, currently, only crude understandings of, limited theories on, and blunt instruments to examine, we are perhaps Hatep on the shore, laughing at Grog rowing his canoe and speculating about Alexi and his large galleys, but have NO IDEA about the nuclear powered hydrofoil with supercavitating torpedoes.
There is a difference between tools and technology and scientific observations.
 
If I'm on a plane going 99.99999999% the speed of light. I can't run at a normal speed down the cabin. The universe slows down time itself JUST so I can't break the speed of light. Wild shit. This is probably done so the simulation doesn't crash or something.

Update your hardware overlords.
 
Last edited:
There is a difference between tools and technology and scientific observations.
Grog the cave man could prove till the cows come home the flow of water, how currents work, how wind can direct surface water, even the tides, but without an engine he ain't going faster than he can row. We know almost nothing about the actual properties of light, space time, or the larger universe. Hell, most of our understanding past pure observation with the human eye is within current human lifespan. Now run that out 2-3 more lifespans and get back to me.
 
If I'm on a plane going 99.99999999% the speed of light. I can't run at a normal speed down the cabin. The universe slows down time itself JUST so I can't break the speed of light. Wild shit.
it's called "space-time" because the two are linked, and whenever your speed in one changes, speed in the other experiences the opposite, so the faster you move through space, the slower you'll move through time and vice versa; however you'll still run at a "normal speed" down the cabin because your speed is relative to the plane, it's only an outside observer that would see you running very slowly, as you can never appear to an outside observer as exceeding the speed of light (or reaching it really).
 
Last edited:
So If two people are wearing a watch and traveling in paralel it simply means the faster you move, the slower your clock ticks compared to someone standing still. Obviously less noticable at slow speeds but as you get closer to the speed of light it becomes really noticeable.

the time dilation stuff in the Interstellar movie messed with my brain..

Hard to imagine really.
 
Top Bottom