TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Why can’t I go faster than the speed of light?

271 pointsby lannaover 3 years ago

37 comments

redwoodover 3 years ago
I think a lot of people assume that this means you couldn't go more than a few (~100) light-years in your lifetime... But this is not actually correct. Counter-intuitively you can theorically go any number of light-years (essentially) in your lifetime, as long as you are able to approach the speed of light because when you do so the distance is dilated and hence you're covering far more ground within your reference frame (of course you'd be in the deep future from the perspective of anyone in our normal reference frame).
评论 #28507132 未加载
评论 #28503621 未加载
评论 #28504919 未加载
评论 #28503308 未加载
评论 #28503294 未加载
评论 #28508276 未加载
评论 #28504271 未加载
评论 #28506682 未加载
评论 #28503423 未加载
评论 #28508209 未加载
评论 #28504112 未加载
soneilover 3 years ago
The simplest way I could ever wrap my head around this, is to understand that everything travels through spacetime at the same speed. There is no travelling faster or slower, just crossing the graph at a different angle.
评论 #28503160 未加载
评论 #28503641 未加载
评论 #28508191 未加载
评论 #28502934 未加载
评论 #28503133 未加载
评论 #28504147 未加载
评论 #28503093 未加载
评论 #28502868 未加载
programmer_dudeover 3 years ago
Wow, this is the first time I have understood why nothing can go faster than the speed of light and why time dilation is a thing.<p>A very easy to read article, give it a try.<p>Also if you are curious why a moving charge creates a magnetic field watch this Veritasium video: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=1TKSfAkWWN0</a>
评论 #28503113 未加载
评论 #28503732 未加载
dhosekover 3 years ago
My favorite general relativity paradox: A runner is running with a 20m pole at a sufficient velocity so that a stationary observer sees the pole having length 10m. The runner runs through a barn which is 10m long. And two people outside shut the doors simultaneously so that the runner is completely enclosed in the barn for a moment.<p>But from the runner&#x27;s perspective, the barn has length 5m long. What does she see happen when the doors are closed on her?
评论 #28505382 未加载
评论 #28504757 未加载
评论 #28504809 未加载
评论 #28504806 未加载
评论 #28504835 未加载
评论 #28508216 未加载
评论 #28504729 未加载
subroutineover 3 years ago
Q1. Does the future already exist? I realize this might be purely philosophical, but if I leave Earth, and fly through space near c kph, and return home a few hours later to find everyone aged 50 years... are they the &quot;same&quot; people, or are they a future-instance of the people left? To clarify, theoretically I could leave earth, and return home in exactly 1 hour (from my ref frame), and basically make people whatever age I want by varying my speed. Since the same 1 hour passes for me no matter the age for them I chose, it seems like I&#x27;m selecting an already existent future from a stack, not fast-forwarding the present I left.<p>Q2. How do black holes exist if time stops inside a black hole? That is, they continue to move through spacetime, even though spacetime is not moving within the hole? I accept that a black hole can form, and can stop time, I&#x27;m just curious how something that stops time continues to persist in the present. The way I&#x27;m visualizing this, is like a lava lamp about to bleb off some goo from the top [1]. As the object gets more and more dense, it curves and drags spacetime more and more, until eventually its density passes the Schwarzschild radius and blebs off.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.media-amazon.com&#x2F;images&#x2F;I&#x2F;615deDvfDkL._AC_SS450_.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.media-amazon.com&#x2F;images&#x2F;I&#x2F;615deDvfDkL._AC_SS450_.j...</a>
评论 #28505303 未加载
评论 #28508748 未加载
评论 #28504892 未加载
评论 #28504203 未加载
nooberminover 3 years ago
The beginning is the best line, that no one really knows &quot;why&quot; and what I have said to even other physicists who don&#x27;t really understand it. A lot of the counterintuitive consequences of the paradox of the moving charges detailed here are a fact of nature but we don&#x27;t really know why it must be that way. For example, in a modern particle physics starting point for qed, we force the equations to be lorentz invariant from the start but that is a starting assumption. But that&#x27;s it, there&#x27;s no real deeper answer to &quot;why&quot; beyond it being a experimentally observable fact, and the only resolution of these observations is that lorentz transformation and thus things like time dilation and length contraction must happen.<p>Small relativity related tidbit: I hate when people say the phrase &quot;the faster you go, time slows down for you.&quot; This is a problem because it implies that the moving observer notices their own time dilation which is reverse of the case. Of course, every non-accelerating observer is in their own rest frame, so it doesn&#x27;t make sense to say &quot;time slows down for you,&quot; because you are your own reference and there is no other frame to base your measurements on (I mean that was the whole point of relativity, there is no universal rest frame). Instead, when you measure the rate of change for <i>other</i> reference frames moving relative to you, their clocks move slower when measured by your clock. So the actual phrase should be something like &quot;the faster others go, the slower their time appears to you.&quot;
holodukeover 3 years ago
What would happen if you had a very large rotor of let&#x27;s say 50.000km in diameter. And let it rotate at 1r&#x2F;s. The inner part would only move at very low speed and the outer part at near lightspeed. What kind of time dilation effects would be seen? If you would sit on the tips for a few days and then stop the rotor, travel back to the center, you would see a very old one right?
评论 #28507363 未加载
sylrover 3 years ago
With gifs: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;gallery&#x2F;BT2mG" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;imgur.com&#x2F;gallery&#x2F;BT2mG</a>
评论 #28503609 未加载
unyttigfjelltolover 3 years ago
Looks to me like the short answer to the question posed in the headline is that matter is composed at an atomic or subatomic level of energies similar to light and so it would be quite inconvenient to try to propel the mass as a whole faster that its constituent parts can go. A similar principle may well be true for straight-line inertia, which might be caused by the same as the force that makes gyros stay on course. In general the scientific discussions seem to touch these ideas but approach theories in reverse of intuition so it&#x27;s hard to know if they align.
mzimbresover 3 years ago
Nobody postulated that the speed of light is constant because it was obvious: light just like every other wave has a constant speed in the medium though which it propagates. The fact that nothing can go faster is a consequence of the Lorentz transformation, so nothing had to be postulated. The important thing that Einstein recognized is that the Lorentz transformations apply for all physical phenomena and not only the Maxwell equations and that started a revolution on physics.
评论 #28518372 未加载
franciscopover 3 years ago
A bit all over the place, the author assumes &quot;It is even less well-known that the rule “nothing moves faster than the speed of light” is a consequence of the laws of electricity and magnetism&quot; but at the same time &quot;This is also a well-known property of electricity and magnetism&quot; and then drops some equations.<p>Most people for whom this property of electricity and magnetism is well known, also know that the speed limit from general relativity comes from Maxwell&#x27;s equations (which are on themselves a compilation of other previous rules).<p>I also dug deep into this problem a while back, but without proper physics background couldn&#x27;t get too far. The speed of light comes directly from the Vacuum permeability and Vacuum permittivity, since light is an electromagnetic wave. If these were different, then the speed of light would be different. Both of these seem to be values of the behavior of vacuum in our universe (and possibly electron&#x27;s [1]).<p>It is Maxwell&#x27;s equations gives us that the speed of electromagnetic radiation needs to be c ^ 2 = 1 &#x2F; (e * u) [2].<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-structure_constant" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Fine-structure_constant</a><p>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electromagnetic_wave_equation#The_origin_of_the_electromagnetic_wave_equation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Electromagnetic_wave_equation#...</a>
评论 #28504127 未加载
评论 #28521083 未加载
StephenAmarover 3 years ago
I highly recommend watching <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyjhV55wZcdicAz5KexgKvm" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtube.com&#x2F;playlist?list=PLoaVOjvkzQtyjhV55wZcdicAz...</a><p>They do such a good job at using video to explain Special Relativity.
PaulDavisThe1stover 3 years ago
In the 70s, I remember reading &quot;The Quincunx of Time&quot;, which made great use of a key distinction (for the purposes of some classic 70s scifi):<p>It&#x27;s not that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, it&#x27;s that nothing can accelerate to a speed faster than the speed of light.<p>If you could bring particles into being that already moved faster than light, they would not violate our understanding of relativity or the rest of physics. Hence ... the tachyon. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tachyon" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Tachyon</a>
eyelidlessnessover 3 years ago
Light isn’t limited in the speed it can travel. Mass is. Light can’t exist without matter. The fundamental limit is mass versus all of the forces which act as drag.
评论 #28507327 未加载
midrusover 3 years ago
I have a probably very dumb question. If speed is relative, when we say something travels at... I don&#x27;t know... 50% the speed of light, that speed is relative to what? how do you know it is 50% and not 53%?<p>How do we know we&#x27;re not already moving at 99% the speed of light (like our observable universe as a whole having that speed )?<p>I love this stuff, but it is so counter intuitive for the average human.
评论 #28512762 未加载
评论 #28508895 未加载
评论 #28507381 未加载
评论 #28504675 未加载
otterleyover 3 years ago
My favorite way to think of it is that the speed of anything is measured in distance per unit time. You can’t change the constant that is the speed of light, but what if you could change what “time” means? The constant holds, but time doesn’t; it varies among observers. A second from the perspective of observer A is not identical to a second from the perspective of observer B.<p>Freaky, but true.
评论 #28503679 未加载
aero-glide2over 3 years ago
I&#x27;ve been trying to understand this since high school. No Eureka moment but I think every year I understand just a little bit more.
leonardpover 3 years ago
I always feel like this questions is really asking &quot;What is time?&quot;. This book gives a new perspective on time which I think is crucial for understanding the nature of it: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.harvard.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;the_janus_point&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.harvard.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;the_janus_point&#x2F;</a>
sytelusover 3 years ago
If you just extend time dilation beyond zero (I.e. negative time) then speed faster than light is possible. The constraint described in the article will still be maintained. Also, notice that negative time would be the perception of external observer.
Khaineover 3 years ago
PBS Spacetime has done some fantastic episodes on this including this one <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=msVuCEs8Ydo</a>
ghego1over 3 years ago
On traveling at the speed of light I also highly recommend to watch this Veritasium video <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;vVKFBaaL4uM" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;vVKFBaaL4uM</a>
holodukeover 3 years ago
Interesting to know that if we would have a 1g acceleration spaceshil with almost unlimited energy onboard we can cross a large part of our galaxy in less than 70 years.
dejonghover 3 years ago
Thanks. Fun to know that the speed of light prevents the universe from splitting up. Cool. Also I was not aware that movement create magnetism.
dvhover 3 years ago
This example has a flaw. Skateboard man sees object stationary, but the cable is moving. There should be magnetic force too.
ySteeKover 3 years ago
wouldn&#x27;t it go backward in time if it goes faster than light? Light travels in null-time from point a to point b (light-perspective of course) - anything slower, needs time to go from a to b. if i travel faster than light, i can - but i travel to b before i start at a. Maybe because this is not possible.
评论 #28504621 未加载
wruzaover 3 years ago
If anyone wants to <i>play</i> with a speed of light, there [still] is a fun web game called “velocity raptor”.
lifeplusplusover 3 years ago
Velocity is a relative number. So let&#x27;s say your are going 0.9 c but I&#x27;m going at 0.8 c now according to me you can go 0.7 more at least. But you&#x27;re already going 0.9 and adding 0.7 will put you above speed of light. You can say you&#x27;re already travelling faster than light relative to something out there... So what the hell are we talking about here?
cletusover 3 years ago
The best analogy for this I&#x27;ve read is that your motion through spacetime is constant. Think of a quarter circle dial with an arrow that goes all the way from 0 degrees (no relative movement in space) to 90 degrees (relative speed of light). The faster you go through space, the slower you go through time. The effects of this are barely noticeable until you get near the speed of light. This effect is time dilation.<p>This, I believe, is the general relativity view of spacetime.<p>What I like most about this is that it highlights the importance of understanding the domain of a function. The above shows how any object with rest mass has a space velocity domain of [0, c).<p>People really don&#x27;t want this to be true so latch on to any wild theory that would seem to bypass this cosmic speed limit, be it wormholes, FTL drives or whatever. Pretty much all of these theories rely on taking an equation with a domain over real numbers and plugging in negative values for things like mass.<p>Garbage in, garbage out.<p>I mean if mass can be negative, why limit yourself to real numbers? Why not a complex number for mass?<p>As to why this is the case and how to reconcile it with a quantized view of spacetime... is beyond my pay grade.
gnarcoregrizzover 3 years ago
there&#x27;s a vertical asymptote in e=mc2, with near infinite energy required to accelerate something to near c. however, does it prevent something from existing thats already (or always has been) traveling faster than c?
wizardforhireover 3 years ago
You can go faster than the speed of light. Its slowing thats the hard part!
thomover 3 years ago
You can’t go faster than light for the simple reason that it would defeat the very many performance optimisations necessary to keep the universe running.
webwielder2over 3 years ago
I prefer the question, “why can’t light go faster?”
crdrostover 3 years ago
That you can’t go faster than the speed of light is a direct, simple consequence of everybody agreeing on the speed of light. It&#x27;s a real-life Zeno paradox.<p>Alice and Bob are in some spaceships by a long racetrack in space. Alice fires a very brief pulse of light down the racetrack, maybe we see the rays that don&#x27;t go straight through successively illuminate some rings around the track. Alice challenges Bob to race another light pulse, Bob revs his engine.<p>As the countdown hits zero, Bob accelerates to speed c&#x2F;2 relative to Alice, then checks the reflected light from these rings only to find out that the light pulse is still traveling at speed <i>c</i> away from him. So he drops a beacon at his current speed then accelerates to speed c&#x2F;2 relative to that, but no dude: the light is still moving at <i>c</i> away from him. Bob realizes that he can never win, so tries to instead measure the speed of Alice, who he expects to be moving at speed <i>c</i> away from him, only to find that she is instead moving at speed 0.8 <i>c</i> away from him.<p>Now the question is, how can this be? Consider a much slower spaceship. When Alice fires the light pulse and Bob starts moving forward at a slow speed, Alice sees this bubble of light expanding in kind of a uniform sphere centered on her. (Say it reflects off of space dust instead of a track.) Since they were at the same position when the light Bob also sees an expanding bubble of light, with himself at the center. The weird stuff about time dilation and length contraction does not apply at low speeds, if Bob goes at c&#x2F;1,000 say, then these are only one part per million.<p>They both basically agree on how far this bubble of light is from Bob, in the directions perpendicular to the motion. The motion is parallel to the bubble in those directions, and to first order those parallel lines will not get any closer or further away. (This is why I want Bob to move at a slow speed!) They only disagree along the motion. Alice thinks the light is receding from Bob at speed c–v ahead of him, at speed c+v behind him: Bob sees the light recede at speed c in both directions.<p>So they come back together to repeat the experiment and Alice decides to force the contradiction. Alice puts a clock ticking out every millisecond out at distance 1 light-second, but it will start at the moment she fires the pulse, stopping when the pulse hits it, showing 1000. She puts one of these in the direction Bob will travel, and in the opposite direction. Surely he must agree that the light started from here and that it intersected those two clocks when they both said 1,000.<p>Bob agrees that the clocks look synced up and films all of this with a high-speed camera to make sure that there is no funny business, and they repeat the experiment.<p>Right when the light hits, Bob accelerates at his usual 1,000,000 gees for 0.03 s, to get his final speed of c&#x2F;1,000. (I need to rewrite this to make the numbers more reasonable LOL.)<p>Here&#x27;s where something weird happens, and it is entirely contained to those first 30 ticks of both cameras, as Bob looks at them in his high-speed camera footage. Bob corrects for Doppler shift like you do, and agrees that these clocks appear to be ticking during the other 970 ms at one tick per ms, his camera has maybe microsecond resolution and not the nanosecond resolution you need to see time dilation.<p>But during those first 30 milliseconds when Bob was accelerating, even after correcting for the Doppler shift, his best guess is that Alice artificially slowed down the clock behind him and artificially sped up the clock ahead of him. Because the clock ahead of him definitely ticked 31 times in those 30 ms, while the one behind definitely only ticked 29 times. So Bob says the light did hit these clocks when they <i>said</i> 1000 ms, but the clock ahead of him <i>should have said</i> 999ms at that time, and the light should have gone past it a bit by 1000ms, while the clock behind should have said 1001ms, and the light was actually not yet there at 1000 ms.<p>This anomalous Doppler shift is proportional to both the distance of the clock you&#x27;re looking at, and your acceleration. It is also called the relativity of simultaneity, and it is the only new prediction of relativity, in that length contraction and time dilation are second-order consequences of it.
OneEyedRobotover 3 years ago
Can a thing with no mass ever go less than the speed of light? Does it have a concept of time?
评论 #28507622 未加载
timonokoover 3 years ago
<i>Lightspeed</i> is infinite, it is the <i>simultaneity</i> which is slow.
ergocoderover 3 years ago
&quot;Nothing can go faster than light&quot; is just a convention and is not experimentally confirmed.<p>IIRC there are a few things that go faster than speed of light (e.g. universe expanding).<p>&quot;Spooky action at a distance&quot; is also not known very well. That could also break the speed of causality law. While Bell&#x27;s theorem hints that this is not the case, there are some exceptions to Bell&#x27;s theorem.<p>Right now a lot in physics are just convention like energy conservation and symmetry.<p>We need another paradigm upgrade to understand these things.
评论 #28503973 未加载
评论 #28503565 未加载
masa331over 3 years ago
Of course you can go faster than light, way faster. When it comes to physics there are no limits how fast, far or deep you can go. People constraint themselves with articifial limits and it&#x27;s not necessary a bad thing. But real limits doesn&#x27;t exist.<p>I&#x27;v heard someone saying space is a big ball and outside of it is nothing. I imagine nothing as a black space but that actually is something. So there is something after all. And however weird or normal these other places are, it goes like this infinitely.
评论 #28504511 未加载