this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
482 points (94.5% liked)

Asklemmy

44908 readers
1234 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

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_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

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
[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 18 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

For anyone looking for other cool ideas or videos about speed of light etc

What Is The Speed of Dark? - Vsauce (13m:31s)

  • Cool older vsauce video going over shadows and light speed etc

The Faster-Than-Light Guillotine - Because Science (w/ Kyle Hill) (14m:19s)

  • Basically goes over the "FTL Scissor action" that a lot of people have covered but he does a good segment covering it.
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Unlearned9545@lemmy.world 77 points 1 day ago (1 children)

When you push something you push the atoms in the thing. This in turn pushes the adjacent atoms, when push the adjacent atoms all the way down the line. Very much like pushing water in the bathtub, it ripples down the line. The speed at which atoms propogate this ripple is the speed of sound. In air this is roughly 700mph, but as the substance gets harder* it gets faster. For example, aluminum and steel it is about 11,000mph. That's why there's a movie trope about putting your ear to the railroad line to hear the train.

If you are talking about something magically hard then I suppose the speed of sound in that material could approach the speed of light, but still not surpass it. Nothing with mass may travel the speed of light, not even an electron, let alone nuclei.

*generalizing

[–] MTK@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Best answer

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 44 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Even if it were perfectly rigid, supernaturally so, your push would still only transmit through the stick at the speed of light. The speed of light is the speed of time.

[–] rbesfe@lemmy.ca 30 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The push would travel at the speed of sound in the stick, much slower than the speed of light

[–] dragonfucker@lemmy.nz 22 points 1 day ago

In a "perfectly rigid" stick (a fictional invention), the speed of sound is the speed of light.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 95 points 1 day ago (2 children)

The problem lies in what "unstretchable" and "unbendable" means. Its always molecules and your push takes time to reach the other end. You think its instantaneous because you never held such a long stick. The push signal is slower than the light

[–] rainerloeten@lemmy.world 70 points 1 day ago (6 children)

You think its instantaneous because you never held such a long stick.

Speak for yourself! 😏

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] dutchkimble@lemy.lol 10 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Shou@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago

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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 24 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There's no such thing as a perfectly rigid object.

[–] DWin@feddit.uk 41 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There was, but now I'm getting older and more tired

[–] bluewing@lemm.ee 7 points 1 day ago

Have you spoken to your healthcare provider about Viagra^tm^? It may be able to help with your issue. (Please seek immediate medical help with an erection lasting more than 4 hours).

[–] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 237 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (9 children)

The problem is that when you push an object, the push happens at the speed of sound in that object. It's very fast but not anywhere near the speed of light. If you tapped one end of the stick, you would hear it on the moon after the wave had traveled the distance.

For example, the speed of sound in wood is around 3,300 m/s so 384,400/3,300 ~= 32.36 hours to see the pole move on the moon after you tap it on earth.

[–] Metostopholes@midwest.social 78 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your math is off. The Moon is about 384,400 KILOmeters from the Earth, not meters. So 116,485 seconds, or a bit over 32 hours.

[–] tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 26 points 1 day ago

Oh right. I'll edit my comment

[–] ech@lemm.ee 66 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

I swear I've seen a video of someone timing the speed of pushing a very long pole to prove this very thing. If I can find it I'll post it here.

*Found it! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqhXsEgLMJ0 I can't speak to the rigorousness of the experiment, but I remember finding it enlightening.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheGuyTM3@lemmy.ml 36 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Damn, so that means no FTL communication for now... 😅

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 30 points 1 day ago (9 children)

Hear me out... What about a metal stick?

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world 10 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

[–] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 14 hours ago

The photons move from laser to moon and it takes time of light's speed. FTL is not possible in that case. Also the information is transmittes from earth to moon and not from one side of moon to other side of moon

[–] underwire212@lemm.ee 8 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (2 children)

With your example, nothing is “moving”.

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 “crash” 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)
[–] elidoz@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 day 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

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.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 day ago

You'd still be limited by light speed to transmit the information between the two locations to compare times or indicate they received a signal.

[–] OutsiderInside@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] lorty@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 day ago

Matter is made of atoms. Things are only truly rigid in the small scales we deal with usually.

[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 120 points 1 day ago (10 children)

It would work, but only in the impossible world where you have a perfectly rigid unbreakable stick. But such an object cannot exist in this universe.

Pick up a solid rigid object near you. Anything will do, a coffee cup, a comb, a water bottle, anything. Pick it up from the top and lift it vertically. Observe it.

It seems as though the whole object moves instantaneously, does it not? It seems that the bottom of the object starts moving at the exact same instant as the top. But it is actually not the case. Every material has a certain elasticity to it. Everything deforms slightly under the tiniest of forces. Even a solid titanium rod deforms a little bit from the weight of a feather placed upon it. And this lack of perfect rigidity means that there is a very, very slight delay from when you start lifting the top of the object to when the bottom of it starts moving.

For small objects that you can manipulate with your hands, this delay is imperceptible to your senses. But if you observed an object being lifted with very precise scientific equipment, you could actually measure this delay. Motion can only transfer through objects at a finite speed. Specifically, it can only move at the speed of sound through the material. Your perfectly rigid object would have an infinite speed of sound within it. So yes, it would instantly transfer that motion. But with any real material, the delay wouldn't just be noticeable, but comically large.

Imagine this stick were made of steel. The speed of sound in steel is about 5120 m/s. The distance to the Moon is about 400,000 km. Converting and dividing shows that it would actually take about 22 hours for a pulse like that to travel through a steel pole that long. (Ignoring how the steel pole would be supported.)

So in fact, you are both right and wrong. You are correct for the object you describe. A perfectly rigid object would be usable as a tool of FTL communication. But such an object simply cannot exist in this universe.

[–] docd@lemmy.world 1 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

As an object becomes "closer" to a perfectly rigid object it becomes denser, would such an object eventually collapse onto itself and become a black hole? Or is there another limit to how dense/rigid an object can be?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[–] tigeruppercut@lemmy.zip 20 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I predict we'll have FTL travel before we can invent a stick that's "unfoldable".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Ephera@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 day ago (5 children)

Perhaps also worth pointing out that the speed of light is that exact speed, because light itself hits a speed limit.

As far as we know, light has no mass, so if it is accelerated in any way, it should immediately have infinite acceleration and therefore infinite speed (this is simplifying too much by using a classical physics formula, but basically it's like this: a = f/m = f/0 = ∞). And well, light doesn't go at infinite speed, presumably because it hits that speed limit, which is somehow inherent to the universe.

That speed limit is referred to as the "speed of causality" and we assume it to apply to everything. That's also why other massless things happen to travel at the speed of causality/light, too, like for example gravitational waves. Well, and it would definitely also apply to that pole.

Here's a video of someone going into much more depth on this: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/

[–] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 24 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Actually, the thing that applies to the pole is the speed of sound (of the pole material), which is the speed the atoms in the pole move at. Not even close to the speed of light.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 26 points 1 day ago

always had this question as a kid

And then went, draw it out, and asked.
I applaud that (and the art), good for you.

(And the good people already provided answers.)

[–] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

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

[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day 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 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.

[–] propter_hog@hexbear.net 50 points 1 day ago (12 children)

So I found a dowel rod online that's 1 meter long by 25 mm in diameter made of beech, which is pretty typical for this kind of rod. Each rod weighs 420 g. 300,000 km is 300,000,000 m. So for a dowel rod to be 300,000,000 m long, it would weigh 126,000,000,000 g, or 126,000,000 kg. You would never be able to push this rod. If you had a magical hydraulic ram that could, it would just compress the soil under it. This is on the scale of the foce released from an atomic bomb.

But let's throw that out and pretend the whole thing weighs 420 grams instead. Maybe it's made of a novel, space-age material instead of beech. And since you've said it can't bend or break, the portion at the surface of the earth would be spinning at roughly 1,000 kph (due to the rotation of the earth), and the portion at the end of the rod would be spinning at about 28 km/s. Most of the mass of the rod would be spinning faster than escape velocity, so you wouldn't be able to hold onto it. It would be gone almost instantly.

Let's pretend you could hold onto it. Then the person on the moon couldn't hold it, because the earth rotates on its axis about 28 times faster than the moon travels around its orbit. So you can see how this problem devolves into ever more layers of magic and hand-waiving.

The final problem is the fundamental difference between classroom physics and material engineering. If you could fix the moon to the end of the rod, and you used a space-age material that weighs 420 g for the whole thing, and it could be so rigid as to not bend, then it would have to break instead. If, instead, it's designed to not break, then it must be able to bend. This is just how real materials work. But even if it does neither, or at most only bends a little, it is still true that as you push on the rod it would compress. So the tip wouldn't move at first. The pressure would move through the rod like a wave. You can't send information faster than light.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] agent_nycto@lemmy.world 6 points 1 day ago (10 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.

[–] bloup@lemmy.sdf.org 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

The idea that the velocity of a person walking forward on a train is simply the velocity of the train plus the velocity of the person walking with respect to the train is called “Galilean relativity”.

Einstein realized that Galilean relativity has a big problem if you take for granted the idea that the speed of light is the same for all observers, regardless of reference frame, and people had a lot of reasons at the time to suspect this to be true.

In particular, he imagined something like watching a train passing by him, but on board the train is a special clock which works by shooting a pulse of light at a mirror directly overhead which reflects back down and hits a sensor. Every time the light pulse hits the sensor, the clock ticks up by one and another light pulse is sent out. People usually call this the “light clock thought experiment” if you want to learn more about it.

Anyway, Einstein realized if he was watching the light clock as the train passed by him while he’s standing on the station, the path the light beam traces out will take the form of a zigzag. Meanwhile, for a person standing on the train, it will just be going straight up and down. If you know anything about triangles, you will realize that the zigzag path is longer than the straight up and down path. So if everyone observes the speed of light to be the same exact thing, it must be the case that it will take the light a longer amount of time to traverse the zigzag path. And so the person standing on the platform will see that clock ticking slower than the person on the train will. This phenomenon is called “time dilation”.

From this point, you can apply some simple trigonometry to figure out just how much slower things would be appearing to move on the train. And it turns out that the velocity the person watching the train observes the person walking on the train to have is not the velocity of the train plus the velocity of the person walking on the train. But rather, it’s something like that velocity, but divided by 1 + (train velocity)•(walking velocity)/c^2, where c is the speed of light (and this is called “Lorentzian relativity” if you want to read more about it).

It’s important to notice that since trains and walking come nowhere close to the speed of light, the value you’re adding to one is very small in these kinds of situations, and so what you’re left with is almost exactly the same thing you would get with Galilean relativity, which is why it still is useful and works. But when you want to consider the physics of objects that are moving much much faster, all of this is extremely important to take into account.

And lastly if you wanna read more about this stuff in general, this is all part of “the theory of special relativity” and there’s probably helpful YouTube videos covering every single thing that I’ve put in quotation marks.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] maxmalrichtig@discuss.tchncs.de 7 points 1 day 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 (8 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›