Can We Travel Faster Than Light? | Understanding the Misconceptions of Science
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 31 พ.ค. 2024
- Want to stream more content like this… and 1,000’s of courses, documentaries & more?
👉 👉 Start Your Free Trial of Wondrium tinyurl.com/mry5p4fs 👈 👈
-------------------------------------------
This video is episode 21 from the series "Understanding the Misconceptions of Science"
Stream the full series now on Wondrium www.Wondrium.com/TH-cam
In this video, Professor Lincoln explains the various ways in which talking about the speed of light can lead to a misunderstanding of whether or not particles can travel faster than light. Learn why it’s more accurate to say objects cannot move through space faster than light-but space itself can.
00:00 Measuring the Speed of Light
05:30 Index of Refraction
09:10 Why Light Moves More Slowly in Material Than a Vacuum
10:57 Dispelling a Myth in Quantum Physics
13:39 Discovering the Cherenkov Effect
17:46 How Is Cherenkov Radiation Made?
20:10 What Moves Faster than Light in a Vacuum
24:49 Is the Universe Expanding at the Speed of Light?
--------
Welcome to Wondrium on TH-cam.
Here, you can enjoy a carefully curated selection of educational videos from our library of history and science series.
If you’ve ever wanted to travel back in time, wondered about the science of life, or dreamt of exploring the stars, then Wondrium will be your new favorite channel!
If you decide you’d like to learn more about what you love, check out the full experience at wondrium.com/TH-cam
There, you’ll find in-depth answers to everything you’ve ever wondered, with mind-blowing surprises along the way.
Your brain is going to love this place!
-------------------------------------------
You can also read thousands of articles from the smartest experts in their fields at Wondrium Daily: www.WondriumDaily.com
And, of course, check us out on all of our social channels:
-Facebook: / wondrium
-Twitter: / wondrium
-Instagram: / wondrium
![ทททททททท #27 [หลุยส์ เค โตมายังไง ณ สระบุรี]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/CaKoYw_Xmtg/mqdefault.jpg)
This guy's presentation has improved immensely over the past several years. This was much easier to watch. Way to go, Doc!
The best presenters are always the history guys I feel like. My two favorites are the guy that does all the Roman history and the other guy that focuses on medieval history. There’s some really good women too, but those two guys just always have such enthusiasm.
The rise of Rome is awesome.
You think? I've been watching his vids for years on the Fermilab channel and I think this its pretty standard
Agreed. I remember trying to watch Prof. Lincoln several years ago on Fermilab channel, and I was struggling to keep attention, which made me sad, because I liked the topics.
Lately it is the opposite, for me at least. The change is barely visible, but something just clicks now, and makes me a very happy viewer. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one. ☺
Whatever you did, professor, keep t it! 👍
Not hearing a huge difference... maybe less corny jokes. lol
@Miguel it’s really hard to put a link on TH-cam, so you’ll have to use your imagination to figure it out.
I “wondrium” about “com”puters that “slash”
“rise-of-rome”
It’s actually 24 lectures.
THANK YOU...!!!
PROFESSOR LINCOLN...!!!
More clarity through this lecture...!!!
SCIENCE IS KNOWLEDGE AND LIGHT IS WISDOM...!!!
THANKS AGAIN...!!!
Thank YOU for watching! ☺️
Great Lecture Thank you DrDon.
🙂
I love this guy on the fermi lab channel and I love Wondrium. It’s a win.
Hello from Kazakhstan. There is a hypothesis - a single picture of the universe: When moving and fluctuating in a vacuum, the electromagnetic field in the nodes - Forms quanta of gravity - Which carry the speed of light. Suppose - Can be detected using a mobile, new hybrid - the experience of Michelson Morley, if it is in motion relative to the DGF - the dominant gravitational field, for example in 🚆, as in Einstein's mental experience.
Outstanding video and superb way of presenting the information in an educational, interesting and engaging way. Really well done!
Qqqaqa
Good Lecture. Especially for a laymen. I'm happy that Planck found out how small but sad we'll not ever find out how big, you can't measure something you can't see.
I agree the older videos were not bad but they were pretty dull and sometimes hard to follow. This video I feel has come a long way it felt engaging and interesting while being approachable and digestible further improving the transfer of knowledge and hopefully the retention of said knowledge.
Nothing new here really but Dr Don is always cool
Well explained - no aggressive approach, no speaking at 200mph and no annoying background music for a change.
Like most other scientific 'absolutes', we must always add the qualifying statement, 'With our current knowledge and understanding of science', and THEN give our statement of whatever 'absolute fact' we are stating. Because throughout history, time and time again, what was once an absolute fact, changes when a new discovery is made. And that will very likely occur again in the future, as we once again will uncover things which were previously thought of as absolutely impossible.
Top Documentary
I have observed the blue glow in electron vacuum devices, and it is not any sort of ionization effect in the tubes. We had tried to analyze the effect, but spectroscopic studies came up nil. Electron beams would create a blue glow on the anode much like a flashlight beam impingement but there was no intermediate spatial glow. We could also bend the beam around objects and still observe the surface blue glow. I have yet to hear any explanation for the effect.
Okay, I am glad that I found this channel. Got a feeling that we have some toys to play with here.
hmmm. I've heard that c is the "speed of causality". Does this jive with space expanding faster than light? Also, time does funky things as you accelerate and speed up. I've heard that light "experiences no time" or that time stops when you move at the speed of light. So what does that mean to a region of space moving away from us faster than light. And at the 28:30 mark you say that an object whose light was emitted 14B years ago, and is now arriving at earth is currently 46B light years away. Concept of "currently" seems a bit mixed up. There is no universal time reference all observers can agree on. I do not understand this, but my impression is that there is much more to this that indicated. Fun lecture nonetheless.
AFAIK, things that are moving FTL away from us aren't affecting us any more, so don't violate c as a speed of causality limit.
“Space expanding faster than light” is a nonsensical statement, to be frank.
Imagine if a rubber band 1 meter long was being stretched by 1 meter in a second, while it is fixed at one end to a wall.
The part 1cm away from the wall will only be 2cm away from the wall at the end of the second. But the midpoint (50cm) will be 1m away after 1 second. So there is no one speed we can call its “stretching speed”.
The same applies to the space expansion. It’s not “expanding faster than light”; but we can say that the distance from us (observers) to *some* (distant) regions of space increases faster than _c_ .
All that means is that some light emitted from this region a long time ago will eventually reach us, but the light emitted “now” will never reach us.
So we would first observe it as it was in the “past” and then we will continue observing it’s evolution in time, but red-shifted and “slowing down”, like in slow-motion, and looking dimmer (as we receive less new light); until finally it looks very dim and “slow”. Afterwards, we can never observe what happens to it in the “future”.
As for the idea of “current” events, there are two separate notions of “now”.
The first is what we can see *now* (as we experience it), which usually means observing “old” light from distant objects.
The other is “what is happening now” which we cannot see. Imagine you send a spaceship away from Earth and you know it travels at 0.5c. Then in 2 years you know it is 1 light-year away, but you cannot observe its “current” state. You can celebrate its 1 light-year journey, but the “current” signals from the spaceship saying “I am 1 light-year away now” will only reach Earth 1 year later (3 years from the start of the mission)
@@fullfungo4476 right. The Hubble constant is a speed per distance, not a speed. Plug in the right distance and the speed is c.
Now on to the explanation of the greatest mystery in the entire video: the significance of this man’s hand gestures..
Deserve a lot more views
You can accelerate & travel at the speed of light & beyond, just not recommended in raw rendering velocity. Another *fun* factor, you can GLIDE in (micro atmosphere) space. Not recommend the velocity to do so. Not if you forget to bend time & space, note NOT "travel in time." THAT is Albert E. thing.
Actually the idea that spacetime can move faster than light will be the key that unlocks interstellar travel imo. The Alcubier-White (sic) theory involves using gravity amplification to contact spacetime in front of you and expand it behind you, creating a "wave" that you "surf" to your destination. Theoretical at this point obviously, but if ever achieved is a convenient way to get around the time dilation that would occur if you were trying to linearly accelerate near light speed to your destination.
Alcubier should be give the Nobel prize in science fiction marketing. His ideas require negative energy and other fictional technology like the work of a science fiction writer. Oh wait, it is the work of a science fiction write: Gene Roddenberry!
If they only had the slightest inkling of how gravity worked they could get working on that
It's a totally bs idea that requires something that doesn't exist: negative energy. It's today's popular science writers, who write for clicks not substance, and ppl with no grasp of relativity who have pushed it so far. Kind of like you for writing this comment regurgitating garbage from said articles on a subject you know nothing about in an attempt to seem intelligent. Alcubierre is the first one to tell you that it's simply a thought experiment.
thanks dr pseudoscientist on youtube lmfao
I am interested
So good
I'm a little fed up with this. All these arguments came up a thousand years ago when people couldn't fly and never would. Three hundred years ago when would be sucked out of the windows of a train if it went too fast.
This is never going to happen in my lifetime but I don't believe it can't happen. The only thing is, when it does, we may never find out what happens to the people who leave earth.
I'm gonna be that guy @ 5:07 he says Clark. It's Clerk. Definitely Clerk.
19:41 it doesn't explain that how that Light is generated in not Florescent Liquid like Water and why it only emits same blue colour instead of any Visible colour ?
Keeping it smart and simple (KISS) allows scientists to control light waves in new ways. Further research into extra-dimensional through meta materials, if anything, could become a reality faster than the speed of light. It does not speed up or slow down the glorious road of the past. Thanks for the video on the concept of the 3D time dimension. This could be different meta-concepts, such as gravity in the atmosphere or zero gravity in space (meta-examples). But that's not accurate, just an idea for scientists to investigate further to control the enablers.Insects enter phenomena such as meta-colored butterflies. Due to their unique electromagnetic properties, meta materials have been deployed in a wide range of fields, such as invisible cloaks, super lenses, electromagnetic wave absorption, and magnetic resonance imaging. However, there have been few studies on meta materials focused on wireless power transfer (WPT). WPT is the transfer of electrical energy from a power source to an electrical load without the use of conductors such as wires and cables. Due to their ability to focus magnetic flux, meta materials can increase transmission efficiency and extend transmission distance, thus opening new approaches to facilitate the development and application of light wave control such as WPT.
Ever since I learned about kinetic energy, E=.5mv2, thought the formula was contrived since the energy of light is E=mC2. Seems too clean and simple, or a formula whose units are combined too similarly to Newtonian kinetic energy. Just like infinity is most likely an error in our math as is with the concept of zero, the energy contained in matter is most likely the same situation. The speed of light is most likely the maximum observable speed in our three dimensions. Once one exceeds it we pop into a higher dimension.
If you had the ability to compress, move, and reexpand space time you can travel at quite high speeds depending on how much compression is done, though doing it is Star Trek fiction.
If dark energy affects space-time, we could theoretically use it to compress and expand space-time like you say (assuming we can figure out what it is first heheh)
30 minutes for pure information tank you enlightened channel
sank you sank you
sank u mari metch
I didn't know Dr. Lincoln was on this channel, he's great even with this LIGHTer content. I'll let myself out, after I sub first. Love you Dr. Don!
If you shine light of a city in a vacuum a long way and return it, and shine light through a lot of diamonds the same amount of distance the same way and then decode the light shone through a row of diamonds to see a clear picture, would you not see the man one or two ( for arguments sake ) foot steps behind with the diamonds images
The speed of sound is considered Mach 1. it is not necessarily considered limiting. We can go faster than Mach 1 as long as we have available power and an aircraft designed and built that can do it. As of now we do not have the capability to speed a machine to even 1 times the speed of light but someday we will develop an aircraft, rocket or missile to achieve that then why couldn’t we continue accelerating to 2 times the speed of light or faster. All it takes is a machine designed and built that can do that.
consider a magnetic field, attracting a particle acceralerating towards it or away from it at the speed of it's magnetic field which is the speedof light possibly.
Then consider the same polarity of a magnetic feild on the opposite side of this same partilce, [180 degrees from each other] either attracting or repelling from the particle and it to must be going at the same speed of light either towards or away syncronised from this particle.
I use this analysis to simple explain, is it possible?
What is the velocity between the 2 magnetic fields?
Is it 2 times ? can it be a 3 rd item stationed in line being influenced by the out lying magnetic field 180 degrees from the particle between the 2 other magnetic feilds,
Logically the answer has to be yes. and is it possible to go 3 times ?
You cannt really deny the possibility.
No, Light would still be moving at the speed of light. This is accomplished because instead what happens is the frequency ends up being altered instead of the speed changing. Since the Magnetic field moves at this same speed as light ( since it is light) we get the same solution. This IS what Einstein realized in his theories that all observers will agree that the Velocity of light equals c no matter if they are moving or not. The only thing they disagree with is the color of the light but its speed remains the same for all observers with your particles being the observers in your example.
@@seditt5146 I am not disagreeing with you, but you missed the point I tried to show.
It is theoretically possible to have objects going at faster than the speed of light, study what I said, it makes sense, but has yet to be proven or it does not,
Even question yourself
Magetis fields travel at the speed of light, Then consider depending on the space required for the test,
2 magnets acting on each other, one field is reaching the other field, both at the speed of light, Similarily, when you take 2 trains traveling at the same speed in opposite directions, you have twice the speed of one between them,
no one can dispute that speed, and does it apply to magnetic fields linked by a common particle.
There is no one yet that can prove or disprove it, It is only in the mind that hinders ones ability, think outside the box
So is the gravitational pull of a black hole covering more distances then light?
End result, light is allowed to combine with mass.
It seems to me that the basic premise of the question can we travel faster than light is a human being, in some form of conveyance, being able to travel faster than light. It also seems to me that the only place where you would even want to travel faster than light is in space, or, a vacuum. This is because when we think of objects in the universe we think of them “x” amount of light years from earth. Then we think that’s how long it would take to get there if we traveled at the speed of light. Then, if something we want to go to is say, 16000 light years away, we conclude that it would take us 1 year to get there if we traveled at 16000 times the speed of light. At this point we might conclude, what the hay, it’s impossible! At this point, we resort to all the what if’s our imagination could conjure up, relativity, worm holes, whatever! Don’t you think it’s an exercise in futility when it takes months for us to get to the closest planet in our own solar system we’re able to land an object on? And, I might add, over 50 years just to get an object to “fly” beyond the gravitational influence of our own sun, with no comprehendible place to go to now that we got there!
I love watching your lectures. Excited to see new ones come up. Thank you for making them.
If I may ask a question or two: As I understand it, what we call "the speed of light" isn't actually the speed of light. It's the limit of the propagation of information through spacetime (unless I'm wrong on that). If that's true does that mean that the actual speed of light is faster than 299 792 458 meters per second? Perhaps even infinite?
Or am I stepping beyond physics and getting a little bit philosophical?
As I understand it you are actually turning it on its head. The speed of light is the propagation of electromagnetic pulses (photons) or waves. The (possible) propagation of information faster than that has to do with entanglement of elements but as I understand it he will be talking about that in future videos. The normal propagation of information like radio and television is much slower as it is put on top of electromagnetic propagation and needs usually a number of cycles of the carrying frequency.
From the POV of light... it is infinite since light does not experience the passage of time. As you're no doubt aware, Speed = distance/time. Any distance divided by zero seconds is... well... undefined, but let's call it infinite.
@@laurendoe168 You have a point but that does not change the fact that we see it as 299 792 458 m/s in vacuum.
As I understand it time goes a little slower in a space craft as it goes fast. Any person in that craft must perceive their speed to be faster than what we would say that it is seen from earth however the speed is the same. it is just the m/s that changes. s becomes s+. We will need a new way to indicate speed.
I am not an expert on anything so I don't know. I know that I am the best to be me as I am the only one that can be me. That doesn't make me good at anything but I try to understand things a little. I believe to know that the best minds don't know everything so maybe - just maybe - I can put in an idea as well.
@@leonhardtkristensen4093 Anything with mass will always see the speed of light in a vacuum as 299,792,458 m/s - no matter their speed relative to anything else.
@@laurendoe168 Take the people in the space station. After what I understand then they should experience time going a little slower than we experience it here on earth. (Apparently it has been defined as the truth as when using satellites for using GPS it has had to be taken into consideration.) As the distance around the earth is the same weather seen from the space station or the earth then they must experience their speed as being faster than what we think it is seen from earth. My question is then: Would they see the speed of light as 299,792,458 m/s? Remember their seconds are longer than ours.
The way to be faster, is to not move at all. To escape all causes of time and space, and exit realism, like a quanta particle, can assume all the world to be one , in a single moment of steady state , one quanta on each end of the cosmos, can share the behavior, because all existence at some point, escapes all motion to stand absolutely still and thus disappear from things in motion and be everywhere at once, a spooky entanglement. Now while light moves through space by propagation in a field of all that is expanding , the light cannot catch up to the universal expansion of the entire world, so that a negative result can occur, while the light photon is like a quarterback running down the football field, the entire field played upon is expanding faster than the runner, and so the runner seems to be losing time , he is going backwards, because the goal post is moving away faster than he can run the field trying to make a touchdown. Maybe the real world is moving from the future to the past, and we are experiencing an illusion that time moves from the past to the future. Jesus said "With God all things are possible".
Is light faster in a vacuum heated to 1,000+ degrees or one chilled to a few degree above absolute zero, like in space. Is the vacuum room temperature when they take the measurement or does the vacuum process take the heat out also.
How do you heat a vacuum to 1000+ degrees?
@@kitmoore9969 space isn't a true vacuum as it is filled with gas and dust. As light passes through it, some of the energy in the EM wave is absorbed my the molecules causing the EM wave to redshift.
The speed of light is dependent on the permittivity (electrical energy) of free space. Does temperature play a role with EM waves as it does with sound.
The speed of sound in the air depends on temperature of the environment where it is traveling. The speed of sound will travel faster in warm temperatures, but will slow down in cold temperatures.
@@stewiesaidthat OK, forget the vacuum.
You say it redshifts as it loses energy. Would you also say it blueshifts if it gains energy? If so, is blue light faster than red light? What's the speed of light?
@@kitmoore9969 which is faster, dial--up, cable, FO, or satellite? Speed is determined by frequency times wavelength.
I agree with some of these comments. Even if and object goes faster that light, it will have to maintain it's state of matter. This is where the Star Trek series have been wrong. In the case of having the shields down when hitting warp speed, it would have torn the ships apart. Not to mention that at those speeds time placement must also be stabilized.
I think the warp drive in Star Trek creates a bubble around the ship using a "warp field" which kinda looks like a donut. Everything within that bubble would be, for all intents and purposes, immobile. It is the bubble that moves, pushing against subspace, not the ship or anything in it. When they get to their destination, they pop the bubble and simply retain that rest state. Now, the impulse engines are more like classical propulsion where the ship actually can move up to just below the speed of light (full impulse, half impulse, quarter impulse, etc...), but in that case the inertial dampers cancel out the acceleration so the crew doesn't get splattered.
Having him spin back and forth like that is just so silly.
When you mess up and studer your supposed to cut that and redo it.
At 29:19 you say: "..objects can not move THROUGH space faster than light." This is something I struggle with; It sounds like there is an eather or local entity that the speed is measured relative to. I think I got this wrong, but I can't figure out why. Can someone please enlighten me?
The two objects can be measured relative to EACH OTHER ie. one galaxy (The Milky Way) CAN measure another galaxy billions of light years away from us moving FTL. BUT, it's relative, as the actual galaxies are not moving that fast, it's only the space between the galaxies that is expanding/inflating, like the classic raisins-in-a-baking-loaf of bread example.
@@AirwavesEnglish I am glad for your effort 🙂, and I totally agree with what you write, but unfortunately it still doesn't answer why "..objects can not move THROUGH space faster than light." At least not in my limited understanding...
@@mby_dk I see, I think I understand now: Objects can't move through space since "objects" have mass, and anything with mass cannot be acceletated near or to light-speeds because the energy required to do so will become infinite. Mass and energy are related/equivalent therefore an object with mass will require infinite energy to accelerate it to near-light speeds. A photon, however, is massless, so it CAN travel at light-speeds. I hope I understood you correctly, friend. :)
@@AirwavesEnglish Thanks again, but again I am still confused. My confusion has got nothing to do with the mass of objects, but with which frame of reference their speed is measured against; It has been said that no place in the universe is special, and elsewhere that all movement must be measured relative to something else. What is that "else" when the saying is "..objects can not move THROUGH space faster than light." From this, it sounds like space itself is a frame of reference, but that is incorrect, as far as I know. Hence my confusion.
I appreciate your effort to understand, my friend.
@@mby_dk I think your question is related to how they know the speed of light at all as a constant, no? You’re thinking speed is relative to an inertial reference frame, so how can we know the speed of light in an objective way and how can we say it is a limit?
I like this guy. Given time, he'll gain some polish, but for now, he's kool beans.
Light and the speed of it is the language through which you understand reality and time. Moving science beyond this language seems almost impossible. However, this predicament should be recognized and not ignored as most seem to do. We have far to many brilliant people who just want to do the math and ignore anything that resembles philosophy.
1130am at ist on September 12 2022//
11092022 1400hrs to 1700hrs at ist in Cloudy Overcast filled with Rainfall, currently overcast with light Rainfall.
For some reason people don't know about the 1 realistic method for interstellar travel. If a ship travels at a constant 1 g acceleration rate it would get to Alpha Centauri in just 3.6 ship/7.3 Earth years (and this includes turning the ship around halfway to decelerate) and it would have gravity the whole way. The ship would achieve about .95% light speed after about 1 year. A 10 ton ship would need a mere 10 tons of continuous thrust.
All that is needed for this is a fission rocket that can put out thrust for long periods and does not consume hydrogen or xenon (you can't bring 500 tons of that with you). Uranium and plutonium are jittery atoms, there should be a way to get them to fission in a linear fashion. What's needed is a controlled, time released nuclear explosion.
The issue here is that as you accelerate more and more, the amount of energy required to keep accelerating would increase exponentially. Constant acceleration = an exponentially increased relative mass.
Also, a tiny grain of dust could hit your ship and destroy it, since it would relatively hit you at the speed you’re going at.
@@franimal86 That's not how it works. Relativistic effects are all from the outside observers point of view. We are all traveling at the speed of light from some reference point of view. Also due to relativistic effects the ship would not interact with regular mass during the high velocity portion of the trip. If a bullet is approaching you near the speed of light you would not be in danger because relative to you every aspect of the bullet's existence would be smeared through spacetime.
So the universe is expanding and space itself is expanding? What is it expanding into?
It actually isn't expanding into anything since the universe is already everything.
📍20:10
Will the speed of light changes with frequency of light.!!.
Is there a theoretical consequence to traveling FTL? What would happen to matter if it were to exceed the speed of light (e.g., particle breakdown, going plaid, etc.)?
It depends on whether you're *breaking* the speed limit or *bypassing* it. As you approach lightspeed, it changes your perception of time. You may be familiar with the "Twin Paradox" where one of a pair of identical twins travels at a significant fraction of lightspeed for some time, and experiences less passage of time compared to their counterpart. The non-traveled twin will be much older than their sibling upon their return. **At** lightspeed, perception of time ceases altogether. To an outside observer, a photon travels at lightspeed and takes a year to travel one light-year. But, from the "perspective" of the photon, the beginning and end of the trip are simultaneous; it happens instantly and it also "sees" the year pass in the universe around it instantly, just crossing a progressive series of "instants" frozen in time along the way. So, hypothetically, if one actually moved faster than light, one would "see" a *rewind* of moments as they crossed earlier and earlier emitted light. And that would include the "smear" of their own emitted light cone catching up to them. And, given that as you *approach* lightspeed your perception of time gradually slows to a standstill and the trip occurs instantaneously, you can extrapolate that beyond lightspeed the trip happens *faster* than an instant, and perception starts at the *end* and moves backwards to the start before snapping back to the destination. So it would be as if you arrive in an instant, but then need to "wait" for all that accumulated light to "catch up" at light speed as you experience the trip from end to beginning, and only after the very first emitted light has reached you would you be "unfrozen". So you'd **still** effectively be limited by lightspeed.
Now, the **other** alternative is to "bypass" the speed of light by taking advantage of the fact that space, itself, can stretch and carry objects around. If you created a "wave" of spacetime and "surf" around on it, you could hypothetically go faster than light because the space "bubble" around you is carrying a pinched-off piece of normal spacetime in-between what are essentially a deep, crescent-shaped gravity well and gravity hill fighting one another. This is the basis of the Alcubrie Drive. There are two major issues with it. 1) How the hell do you flex Spacetime **out?** Gravity Wells are relatively easy; just gather lots of mass and/or energy together. But the opposite is hard because it requires negative mass and we don't really know a good way to do that yet. 2) Curving spacetime to such a degree will scramble causality both in front and behind you. Any light or other lines of causality directed towards the back of such a ship would be deflected away by the spacetime "hill"/"wave" and any in front will be focused by the trough by extreme gravitational lensing. And who knows what kind of effect that can have, not just for the ship, but for everything else as well. Also, when you make waves, spacetime has to settle back into place which can create oscillations. That can potentially create the equivalent of a sonic boom, but in the fabric of spacetime itself because gravitational waves also propagate limited by the speed C. So you'll probably leave a sort of "gravity wake" behind you.
Now, mind you, this is all hypothetical and speculative; just extrapolating what we know to what *should* be impossible. So take it all with a grain of salt and just as an exercise in creative writing at most.
You don't travel through space at the speed of light. You are traveling at the frequency of light. Your speed, relative to the speed of light, places you in the visible light spectrum. Going faster blueshifts incoming light at red shifts receding light. When going faster than the frequency of UV rays, you will be bombarded with Gamma and cosmic rays. Traveling at the speed of light, plus the speed of light equals 2x the speed/frequency of light.
Being bombarded with that much energy without a deflector shield would melt the spaceship. See Breakthrough Starshot.
The twin paradox where one twin ages less is wrong. The traveling twin is still experiencing normal time.
@@stewiesaidthat Frequency of light varies with energy. Radio waves have low frequency, and they don't cause damage to humans. Gamma rays have high energy and will shred your DNA.
Your speed, compared to the speed of light, is always zero. That's what made Einstein come up with relativity in the first place.
@@kitmoore9969 your speed is not zero. EM waves are energy packets. Your current speed, relative to the speed of light, places you in the visible light spectrum. When you go faster, the EM wave is blue shifted. Going really fast, you enter the UV, X-ray, and Gamma ray frequencies. You are no nolonger able to see anything since your are past the visible light spectrum. It's why you don't stare directly at the sun. The X-rays and UV rays haven't been slowed down enough for the eyes to process. Shorter wavelengths at a higher frequency creates a higher energy beam which burns through matter.
What Einstein got wrong is that speed of light isn't about speed but the frequency. Blue waves, having a shorter wavelength, transmit data much faster than red waves. It takes the Hubble telescopes weeks to image a the early universe while the JWST can do it in a matter of hours as it combines the high frequency waves with the low frequency waves to create a picture. Time-dilation is just a different rate of transmission between two objects.
@@stewiesaidthat Your speed is zero. That's the only way to calculate time dilation. Google it. Read a book. Ask someone else who's cleverer than you. Take a physics class.
Everything else is just garbage, and you clearly don't understand the difference between speed and frequency, or waves in general, so Google that too, or read a book, or ask someone else who's cleverer than you, or take a physics class.
"What Einstein got wrong" SMH
How can we understand if it is so?
Probably not as light seems to be part of the structure of the Universe rather than a speed like Sound.If not it virtual makes interstellar travel impossible.
if we move faster and faster time slows down and at the speed of light then time is stationary, so does that mean that if space is expanding faster than the speed of light , the universe is going back in time
Yes.
travelling faster than light would mean we would never be caught by a speed camera, tho if we were, imagine the fine or the ban
Wouldn't the muon "observe" light as traveling at lightspeed though? If the muon turned on a flashlight, it would observe the light move at the speed of light, right?
That was my first thought. Did the Muon break the causality rule and end up before it left? Everything is so crazy that we cannot understand.
Right, for any light whatever the source
The Andromeda Galaxy is actually 110,000 light years away from our solar system, not the couple of million quoted by Don in this video.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
It's 152,000 ly in diameter. If it were only 110,000 ly away it would fill half the sky.
Duh😂😂
when i first got into the computer industry, the fastest processers ran at 10 megahertz. this was, at the time, thought to be as fast as computers could be expected to be workable. why?? because the best test equiptment we had could not make measurements above 10 mhz. when better and faster test equiptment/methods were developed, 10 Mhz was quickly blown away.
so....is the speed of light the absolute limit anything can travel, or is the speed of light the fastest thing we can measure with the equiptment/methods we have today??
Maxwell's equations show that electromagnetic energy travels when an electric field generates a magnetic field, which generates an electric field, which generates a magnetic field ... The rate at which these leap-frog each other is 299,792,458 m/s in a vacuum.
Do you really believe that Intel couldn't measure more than 10MHz in the early 80s?
If Hubble constant is the same every where in our universe, that is, proportional to the distance from the observer, then two people in this universe who are 10 billion light years apart would have to be in two different universes. To see this, let’s say the two people are Alice and Bob. Alice looks towards Bob and Bob looks along the same direction another 10 billion light years away. That region would be outside of Alice’s universe. But it is within Bob’s universe. This means Hubble constant cannot be the same every where in this universe.
The good Dr didn't mention bad news! because nothing travels faster than bad news.
Time has speed limits that goes from zero to approaching the speed of light. That means that TIME AND THE SPEED OF LIGHT ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND SEPARATE ENTITIES, which in turn opens up a modern door into physics.
The danish guy is Ole Rømer not Olaf.
Faster than light travel equation, g = G Me/r^2(1e-/+Ef/Eo), immersed in a fluid, neutrinos, muons squeeze you faster than light to O Kelvin light speed collapse frame expanding orthogonal to line by Galileo Pope center, a 1935 Einstein step away to a parallel frame of energy transfer to power space under control.
We're already traveling faster than light, from the viewpoint of someone in a very distant galaxy.
l0l
Yup. SR has a speed limit, GR has exceptions
"slice the cube until space is flat, then inside the cube the laws------" doesn't flat mean it can't be a cube? But what I really want to know is----what's with the cotton balls on the shelf?
Yes WE CAN
Great video. But I hate calling the speed of light "a speed". It's much more than that. It's a structural element of the fabric of space-time. So, the science fiction notion of "traveling faster than light" would mean traveling by destroying that very fabric and that's quite a bit of a stretch. So don't get your hopes up about alien visitors from thousands of light years away. They would not only have left their home, but their time as well.
What?
a whole universe of things are probably travelling faster than the speed of light right now but we just can't detect them....why? because we rely on light or some kind of electromagnetic photon energy in all of our detectors......it may be that carbon based life forms have an absolute limit on what their senses can detect since sensory nerves are firmly chained to electrochemical depolarization impulses that obey electrical laws.............what kind of detector would be needed to provide a sensory impression of some object or process that was occurring faster than the speed of light? it would need to be an indirect sensor once or twice or thrice removed from that which it is trying to detect.....or else it would have to be a standard sensor being used in an entirely different frame of reference not recognized by standard physics
I've had a video out with the same title for almost a year now.. I'm at like 450 views lol.
Interesting that the speed of light is so slow that you could see it pulsing around the earth
What if we could travel back in time. Big what if. Whatever we change in the past will not ever catch up to the future we left. They both travel at the speed of light, in the same direction and will never intercept. But, when you dial back to the future you left, will you go back to the 1- original or 2- the alternate future to the universe you created by changing something?
Time travel? Probably not.
‘They’ is not real.. there is no ‘backwards traveling timeline going at the speed of light’ capable to us in this dimension.. only forward traveling
How does one travel back to the future if FTL takes you to the past? And does that allow one to travel to the future and then back to the past? Does that mean life is but a simulation as one's experiences can be recreated at will.
@@stewiesaidthat that could be why you just reworded my question 2.5 times in your reply and got all of it right. But what if we’re just an echo riding the peak of a wave unaware we’re riding on all of the peaks separated by time. It’s the duality of life being lived as a wave and then die as a particle that makes the word Hologram not the correct word.
@@rezadaneshi if matter is energy then matter doesn't exist until the wave form collapses and produces energy. Much like the photon that doesn't exist until it encounters another wave form. Are we just a Holodeck simulation being played out for the amusement of some 'god' like that Star Trek episode with Professor Moriarty?
No. For all videos that have a question as a title - the answer is always no. But even beyond that, it’s nota new question.OR a tricky answer. It’s no. We cannot travel THROUGH space faster than light can. It would require infinite energy. Thankfully I don’t have to watch this video and waste 30 minutes to be told “no”. This video shouldn’t be more than 3 minutes long - and if we’ve found a way to create wormholes or otherwise bypass space so we don’t have to travel THROUGH it, then THAT should be the name of the video.
Yes, We can, We just don't know how, yet...
1) In the vacuum ? We know that the universe is full of dark energy and dark matter. How do we know that light isn’t slow by this strange matter ?
2) We know how old is the univers (13,7B years) and some people says we can’t see further because light weren’t able to pass through the compact matter just after the Big Bang (too hot). But in your lecture it seems that this is cause because, after this limit, expansion overpass the speed of light and galaxies can’t send us their light… i’m lost with this two explanations 🙏🙏
How much faster can we go ?
2:27 "if you are a metric kind of person" - so, if you are part of the vast majority :)
First (faster than light;)
Haha, NICE! :)
Thank you. You just made my brain explode! : ) Great post indeed. But are photons the only “particle” not, NOT going faster than light? The so called Big Bang only happened in a single spot. That means all sorts of matter got “whooshed” away faster than photons go...so...? If the Big Bang really happened, you would think that that would be traceable to a “spot” where it occurred as all matter is expanding away from it. Except for photons! Which when you observe the universe is what we “see” tell us that photons are the only particles unable to go faster than “light” speed. No? Change my mind!
Matter didn't form until sometime after the Big Bang. By that time, the universe was the size of the visible universe.
Light speed is that speed calculated in a vacuum where spacetime is static ie. Not expanding. So if the universe expanded FTL in periods from when it was born we can never see anything from that time. Also No other particles, unless they are massless particles, can travel as fast as light. The Higgs field (which is present throughout spacetime) creates a drag on those particles with mass (e.g. protons) slowing them down.
Never is a long long time. And how do you "prove" something will never happen. But, by "never" maybe Dr. L meant: "With our current understanding, we see no creditable way it could happen".
Plot twist, we are all ready traveling faster than light.
Another plot twist: No, we're not.
@@AirwavesEnglish plot twist: there’s a critical distance where the apparent recession speed of a galaxy will exceed the speed of light: around a distance of 13-to-15 billion light-years. Beyond that, galaxies appear to recede faster than light.
@@spinfrost Key word: "APPEAR".
Which still means we ARE NOT ACTUALLY travelling FTL, we only " APPEAR" to do so relative to any other observer 13-15 BLY away. The space BETWEEN the objects is increasing/ inflating, WE ARE NOT physically going FTL.
@@AirwavesEnglish correct. Perception is reality.
@@AirwavesEnglish
Let's twist again: We are, but through time...
You remember when they told us, we couldn't travel faster than 100 kmh?
If the speed of light through water is only 75% as fast as through a vacuum, is it then possible for matter to travel faster than light if traveling through water without violating the theory of special relativity?
Charged particles travel faster than light through some medium. The electromagnetic wave has been slowed and completely stopped in lab experiments.
You can fill one tunnel with concentrate, shine a light down it, drive to the other end (wormhole) and arrive before the light arrives. You exceeded the speed of light but did you go back in time?
@@stewiesaidthat Good old Tony. How do you drive through "concentrate"?
@@kitmoore9969 you create a wormhole.
@@stewiesaidthat You're driving down a clear wormhole, slower than the light which travels with you, and you wonder if you're travelling faster than light ...
When we master converting light to matter, then we could think on designing machines which can travel at the speed of light...
That's easy, just charge your phone.
We sure can travel faster than light, you compress space in front of your craft and expand space behind your craft, I don't dought the military has been able to do this in a crude way , but not yet ready to use power a ship .
👍👏👍👏👍
The universe is expanding to 0 Kelvin temperature, light speed c. Cannot curve out of existence.
Lol the impossibility of ‘traveling faster than the speed of light’ is where the impossible concept of ‘time travel’ comes from lol .. even though that makes no sense lol
what is a 'wave'? is it merely a 'disturbance' or a 'perturbation' ......how can a wave exist that is not associated with mass, as in an ocean wave which goes up and down but which is actually made of water molecules at a water/air boundary......a photon is a wave which is a perturbation which seems like an awfully threadbare definition on which to hang all of physics
Thought if you moving at the speed of light you are light?
A blind man curiously asked: “Light... what is that? I hear your explanation, but it is meaningless to me. I only have my thoughts.”
Perhaps the question is can we slow down light speed .
If a star was moving at the speed of light how would you ever see it’s light or do we see stars getting dimmer and dimmer.
Serious issue that needs to be resolved. You use the term that objects move away at 70km/sec/parsec but that's not true. Space itself is expanding at that rate and it makes it seem that objects are moving. This is an important point. Your lectures tend to skim over these VERY important details that cause viewers to get a VERY wrong impression. Some of us really want to know what is going on. Is the tension of space creating mater to cause the expansion, since e=mc^2 then is that happening? These factual holes would help to get filled. Hearing the same simple explainations while entertaining isn't why I listen to you. So if you can, please spend more time on filling in the details, I'm sure they are relevant and super interesting.
Nothing can travel faster than light in a vacuum...
Can I travel faster than light?
Only when I stay at a Holiday Inn.😄
Prepare ship for Ludicrous Speed
No, no, NO.
1. Quantum Entanglement does NOT demonstrate anything moving faster than light. Like you said, you can’t use it to transmit information. This is because nothing is actually moving. The information is just correlated, no chain of causality has been established.
2. Recessional velocity does not indicate anything moving through space. The distance between us and remote patches of space itself are changing but nothing is actually moving.
If you don't wanna wast your time to find the conclusion of this video you can just skip to 29:02 😅😅
It feels far more likely that Light loses energy as it travels through space than it does not only increasing in speed but expanding overall. Can someone prove in simple terms this can't be the case without using circular logic of "Well its expanding sooo... derppp."
Why would light lose its energy? In a vacuum there is no obstacle or medium to react against it.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 Why would the universe expand faster and faster over time? Why would the edges of galaxies have angular momentum that makes it appear there is far more mass than their should be? Truth of the matter is we simply don't know. We see an effect and we are looking for a caused with dark energy and matter being placeholders so that we can talk about those effects in a coherent fashion despite not having the slightest idea why it is happening.
Space might be empty but empty space is bent in a way that causes planets moving in a straight line to orbit massive objects. If electrons do such things they lose energy in the form of photons.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 I would also like to point out the vacuum of space is anything but. Especially towards the beginning of the universe meaning if interactions with particles in the vacuum of space is the cause what we would see is more red shifting further away.... and less up close as there is far far more material due to higher density early on. Idk, all I am saying is we have all our eggs in a single basket right now with no one looking at other options or atleast not nearly as many. This is problematic as our current theories have not panned out for decades.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
It’s a good question so I looked up info on it. It’s called the “tired light” theory and from the wiki:
By the 1990s and on into the twenty-first century, a number of falsifying observations have shown that "tired light" hypotheses are not viable explanations for cosmological redshifts.[2] For example, in a static universe with tired light mechanisms, the surface brightness of stars and galaxies should be constant, that is, the farther an object is, the less light we receive, but its apparent area diminishes as well, so the light received divided by the apparent area should be constant. In an expanding universe, the surface brightness diminishes with distance. As the observed object recedes, photons are emitted at a reduced rate because each photon has to travel a distance that is a little longer than the previous one, while its energy is reduced a little because of increasing redshift at a larger distance. On the other hand, in an expanding universe, the object appears to be larger than it really is, because it was closer to us when the photons started their travel. This causes a difference in surface brilliance of objects between a static and an expanding Universe. This is known as the Tolman surface brightness test that in those studies favors the expanding universe hypothesis and rules out static tired light models.
we do. always did.
THINK about traveling to Andromeda galaxy, now think about traveling back ... your thought just traveled a million times faster than light.
Light isn't an electromagnetic field traveling through space, it's a wave traveling through the electromagnetic field. 🙄
If you put a mirror on the surface of the Moon and shine a laser beam at it from Earth, it'll take 2.4 seconds for the beam to bounce off the mirror and get back to Earth.