this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
475 points (94.2% liked)

Asklemmy

45225 readers
862 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

So folks have already explained the stick, but you're actually somewhat close to one of the ways you can sort of bend the rules of FTL, at least when it comes to a group of photons.

Instead of a stick, imagine a laser on earth pointed at one edge of the moon. Now suddenly shift the laser to the other side of the moon. What happens to the laser point on the moon's surface?

Well, it still takes light speed (1.3 seconds to the moon) for the movement to take effect, but once it starts, the "point" will "travel" to the other side faster than light. It's not the same photons; and if you could trace the path of the laser, you'd find that the photons space out so much that there are gaps like a dotted line; but if you had a set of sensors on each side of the moon set up to detect the laser, they would find that the time between the first and second sensor detecting the beam would be faster than what light speed would typically allow.

It's not exactly practical, and it's such an edge case that I doubt we can find a good way to use it, but yeah; FTL through arc lengths can kind of be a thing. At least if you tilt your head and squint funny at it.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

this isn't at all what this example depicts, here there is actual information transfer.

this depiction is actually just false, the light would send information faster than the stick, because in the stick information only travels as fast as speed of sound in the stick, which is why completely rigid objects don't exist

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago

Sure, the time between detections is faster than the time it takes light to travel from one detector to the other. Nothing is actually traveling faster than light and no physical laws are broken.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

I'm not sure. The beam of light would bend as it travels to the moon, delaying the projected dot on the moons surface.

Just like it happens with a stream of water coming out of a hose. You point the hose in a new direction, but it won't get wet before the the time it takes the water to travel from the hose to the pointed location.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

With your example, nothing is β€œmoving”.

Imagine a giant wave in the ocean that is almost lined up perfectly parallel to the shore. Imagine the angle that the wave is off by is astronomically small (0.0000000001 degrees off from parallel). Also imagine the shore line is astronomically long (millions of kilometers).

One end of the wave will crash the shore slightly before the other end of the wave at the opposite end of the shore. The difference in time between the two sides of the shore is also astronomically small (so small that not even light could reach the other end in time)

Now let me ask you: did the wave β€œcrash” travel faster than the speed of light? Of course not. I think that is a similar analogy to the laser movement concept you described.

Edit: Fun thought experiment. Depending on where you are on the shore (which end you are closer to), you may see one end crash before the other end (one event happening before the other event). Have two people at different locations on the shore, once they meet up with each other, they might disagree on which end crashed first! And they would BOTH be correct! Relativity is fucking crazy

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Next, I suppose you'll want to know about the speed of dark 🀨

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Damn it even on Lemmy I can't get to the comments before someone else has the samr idea as me ahaha

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 week ago

Objects like an unbreakable stick are still composed of atoms suspended in space and held together by the fundamental forces of nature. When you push on one end, the other end doesn't immediately move with it but rather the object experiences a wave of compression traveling through it. This wave of compression travels faster than we can perceive but still cannot travel faster than light.

Look up why arrows bend after they've been released by a bow, it's essentially the same mechanic.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

There's a bunch of these thought experiments that try to posit scenarios where C is violated.

Here's one I remember from uni involving scissors. Similar to what OP was thinking, but really really big scissors.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago

At this scale, the stick isn't as solid as your intuition would lead you to believe. Instead, you have to start thinking about the force at the atomic scale. The atoms in your hand have an outer shell of electrons which you use to impart a force to the electrons in the outer atoms of the stick on your end. That force needs to be transferred atom to atom inside the stick, much like a Newton's Cradle. Importantly, this transfer is not instantaneous, each "bump" takes time to propagate down the stick and will do so slower than the speed of light in a vacuum. It's basically a shockwave traveling down the length of the stick. The end result is that the light will get to the person on the other end before the sequence of sub-atomic bumps has the chance to get there.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

What about the speed of the earth's rotation though, could that fuck up the stick holding?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

It'll knock the moon and earth out of orbit!

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

This is actually a great example for why that stick must not exist.

You can also do this with a unbreakable stick and an unbreakable shorter tube. Throw the stick at a high velocity through the tube and it contracts for the point of view of the tube. Then close it shut. Now you have a stick that's longer than the tube fully contained in it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago

Well no. As others have said the force in the pole will travel at the speed of sound.

Though if you were to wiggle the flashlight back and forth really fast the spotlight on the moon would travel "faster" than the speed of light.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Think of it like this. If our universe is a simulation, then the speed of light is the maximum speed at which information can propagate through reality. We know that for anything to move through space, it must move from one adjoining position to another, then another, then another, incrementally. Each one of those increments takes, at minimum, one 'tick' of the universe. That's one tick to increment each bit of information, that is, the position of something moving at light speed from position x,y,z to x+1,y,z. Light moves as fast as the universe allows; if there was a faster speed, light would be doing it, but it turns out that our universe's clock speed only supports speeds of up to 299,792,458 meters per second.

What you have here is sound. Motion propagates through material, at its fastest, at the speed of sound in that material. That's part of the reason why moving large scale objects quickly gets weird.

Edit: to be clear, I am not making the case that we're in a simulation. I'm only trying to use computers to make it relatable.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This doesn't account for blinking.

If your friend blinks, they won't see the light, and thus would be unable to verify whether the method works or not.

But how does he know when to open his eyes? He can't keep them open forever. Say you flash the light once, and that's his signal to keep his eyes open. Okay, but how long do you wait before starting the experiment? If you do it immediately, he may not have enough time to react. If you wait too long, his eyes will dry out and he'll blink.

This is just not going to work. There are too many dependent variables.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How heavy would a stick of this size weigh?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Weigh on Earth or on Moon?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago (12 children)

Ok so since there's a bunch of science nerds on here and I'm sleep deprived I'm gonna ask my dumb ftl question.

If you're on a train and you walk towards the front of the train, your speed measured from outside of the train is the speed of the train (T) plus the speed of you walking (W).

So if there was a train inside of that train, and you walked inside of that, you'd go the speed of the outside train, plus the speed of the inside train, plus your own walking speed.

So what if we had a Russian nesting doll of trains, so that the inner most train was, from the outside, going as fast as light and you walked towards the front? Wouldn't you be going faster than light if you measured your speed from the outside?

Didn't come at me with how hard it would be to build a Russian nesting doll of super trains it's a hypothetical and I'm tired.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Things get really unintuitive when you go near the speed of light. Einstein's "Special Relativity" is describing that. Watch a couple of videos on the topic. It's mindbending but seriously cool.

In short: The speed light is always constant FOR EVERY OBSERVER. That means, if you would hold a flashlight in a very fast moving train, the light would travel as the same speed for you as for a stationary person that is watching your flashlight from outside the train.

But how could that be? Aren't you "adding" the trains speed to your flashlight? So shouldn't the light in your train travel faster in your train? Or maybe slower? No. Light speed is always constant - but what is NOT constant is space and time. It is relative to the observer. Time and space can stretch/dilate to make up for what seems to be a paradox. E.g. your trains would shrink in length the faster you go. But it would look different to you than it does to an outside observer.

As I said, it's mindbending, but there are a couple of cool and simple videos on the internet to get a better grasp on the matter.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Go find a 30' stick and let us know if you can point it at the moon.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Putting it on the moon is just a distraction. It doesn't matter if the rod is 1m long or 100,000km.

load more comments
view more: β€Ή prev next β€Ί