this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
42 points (95.7% liked)

Ask Science

17186 readers
45 users here now

Ask a science question, get a science answer.


Community Rules


Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.


Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.


Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.


Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.


Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.


Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.


Rule 7: Report violations.Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.


Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.


Rule 9: Source required for answers.Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.


By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.

We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.

For answers to historical questions, please check out our sister community: !askhistorians@lemmy.world


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I'm asking this because there is a scifi book I'm reading, and in the book there's a scene where someone is communicating with a person in a spacecraft moving at lightspeed. I know their ability to communicate would probably not be possible, but let's just put that aside for a second. Hypothetically, if you could communicate with someone moving lightspeed, would the time dilation make it so that they would appear to be moving and speaking very slowly relative to you?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I know what your asking, but im picturing someone zooming by at lightspeed, screaming their message. The person on the ground/stationary just hears the faintest dopler effect as LS person speeds by.

[–] MilkToast@breakfast.haus 3 points 2 months ago

Something like this perhaps. Maybe not quite lightspeed, but surely close

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 13 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

Anything moving at the speed of light in one reference frame is moving at the speed of light in every reference frame—including its own.

Which is to say, it’s not a real reference frame at all—the experience of moving at the speed of light would be instant teleportation with no subjective elapsed time. So trying to talk to someone moving at light speed would be like talking to a still image.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

the experience of moving at the speed of light would be instant teleportation with no subjective elapsed time

I thought time slows down when you approach the speed of light though

[–] khannie@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Only in comparison to (relative to) others. A photon from the sun experiences no time at all between leaving the sun and landing in your eye but we perceive it as eight minutes.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 months ago

Oh I see. That makes sense. The fact that it's experiencing less time is why, relative to us, it's time seems to be running slower

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Physicist here. Many common misconceptions in the comments.

  1. No, someone traveling at light speed won't arrive "instantly" or anything of the sort. It's simply not possible for massive objects to travel at the speed of light in any valid (inertial) frame of reference. Any system that does travel at the speed of light (e.g. a photon) does not have a frame of reference in which it is at rest - instead, it moves at the speed of light in all frames of reference.

If the other person travels at some speed (just) below the speed of light, the signal they send will be Doppler shifted/time dilated according to their relative velocity.

  1. No, quantum entanglement cannot and never has been used to communicate faster than light. See: no-communication theorem.
[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Thanks for clearing that up

It’s simply not possible for massive objects to travel at the speed of light in any valid (inertial) frame of reference.

I know there are a lot of impossibilities baked into how this scenario is set up. But hypothetically, if you could have a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and hypothetically if they could communicate with someone who is stationary (ignoring Doppler effect etc), what would it be like to talk to them? Would the time dilation make it seem like the person travelling at lightspeed is speaking very slow?

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 4 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

This hypothetical is of the type "immovable object versus unstoppable force." The question becomes: which of the axioms of relativity do you want to discard? Yet, once you do, you are leaving the realm of physics and entering the realm of sci-fi, in which anything may be possible.

If you want to maintain any link to our current understanding of physics, there are no hypotheticals, no ifs or buts. It's simply not possible to have a set of laws of physics consistent with relativity as we understand it, wherein massive objects can travel at the speed of light in vacuum.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Yes. Distant galaxies that are moving away from us at relativistic speeds exhibit measurable time dilation in their inner workings.

How would you even measure time dilation in a distant galaxy? Consider standard candles like 1a supernova, which explode with near uniform power. These supernova can be observed from intergalactic distances. Gather data and record the times for various supernova explosions. You'll find that the same types of explosions take longer in more distant galacies, and that the extra time is exactly what relativity predicts.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You’ll find that the same types of explosions take longer in more distant galacies, and that the extra time is exactly what relativity predicts.

That's incredibly cool. From a point of view of a being near that supernova, would we be moving a lot faster?

[–] tburkhol@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

From the point of view being near the distant supernova, we are moving away from them at relativistic speed, so as much slower as they appear to us, we should appear that much slower to them.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (5 children)

I'm struggling to wrap my brain around this

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] imahappyguy@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

So, I would assume that you would be communicating through radio waves. If an object broadcasting a signal moving at the speed light away from you, I would further assume you experience a severe Doppler effect. To the point that I don't think you would experience anything coherent. You would receive small packets of information at a time, scattered across several million years.

This is just my initial impression on the fly, do not take this as any sort of gospel. I also did some communcations work for a time. So, this is tickling my brain and I might spend the rest of my evening in my books.

[–] shoomemer@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago (2 children)

If we assume that the person moving at light speed is going in circles about the stationary person instead of linearly away. Would the radio waves be doppler shifted if transmitted orthogonally?

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

Ooh, interesting point.

I suspect all EM would be shifted according to the angle relative to the target - so at exactly 90° It would be "half shifted" - or zero. (Assumption based on blue/red shift of light).

I'm assuming the traveler is at a percentage of C, not at C (I think being at C is a completely different scenario, like would any EM escape the traveler?).

But I'm only an armchair quantum physicist (I've read a few books over the years). Look forward to what someone who understands Quantum Weirdness has to say.

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 months ago

One would have to be orbiting the other. I don't think you'd get any doppler shift in that signal, because the distance between transmitter and receiver remain constant.

The fun part of that scenario is that emitted photons carry momentum from your motion. If you're moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light, hopefully you're using an omnidirectional transmitter.

[–] CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

I remember in the game series Mass Effect they spoke of being able to break the EM communication barrier problems. They used a quantum entangled pair. Wiggle one, and the other instantaneously adopts the same position anywhere in the universe.

FTL travel needs FTL coms and radio ain't that. Star Trek handwavium called it subspace. Both of science fiction, but hey, isn't that what all this is about.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (6 children)

If an object broadcasting a signal moving at the speed light away from you, I would further assume you experience a severe Doppler effect.

In principle you could have equipment that cancels out any doppler effect, no?

I also did some communcations work for a time. So, this is tickling my brain and I might spend the rest of my evening in my books.

That's awesome, let me know if you find anything interesting

[–] Onomatopoeia@lemmy.cafe 6 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

To cancel the effect of someone moving away from you, the equipment would simply hold the transmission until you received the whole thing.

Like waiting for someone to finish leaving a message on an amswerimg machine before hitting play.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Huh?

What manner of communication moves faster than light?

It would have to be some sort of entanglement, And I think the entanglement would also normalize any time dilation. There's not exactly a way to test that yet, it's all hypothetical.

But it should just cancel out and be like you're talking to someone in the same room.

Like, there's no way for the communication (in any form) to go faster than light continuously. If it was two stationary points than wormholes or other stuff could work.

But moving at light speed, it has to be entanglement

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What manner of communication moves faster than light?

It would have to be some sort of entanglement, And I think the entanglement would also normalize any time dilation. There’s not exactly a way to test that yet, it’s all hypothetical.

Yeah, in the book I'm reading this conversation is facilitated through quantum entanglement. Though I know in real life that wouldn't be possible because entanglement still can't be used to transmit information faster than light.

And I think the entanglement would also normalize any time dilation.

This is interesting. How does that work?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Though I know in real life that wouldn’t be possible because entanglement still can’t be used to transmit information faster than light.

The entire point of it, is that it can...

How does that work?

It's still entangled...

Everything about the two still has to be exactly the same, even adjusted for time dilation.

So if one is experiencing 10x the speed, 1 second of its "input" takes 10 seconds on the slow side to "output". The 1/10th speed replies and 1 second there is "output" as 10 seconds, just like it's relatively spinning 10x the speed as the reference particle.

Again, technically hypothetical because we can't build anything like that yet to actually see if it wouldnhappen. It's just one of those things where it just has to work out like that logically even though we can't see it.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 months ago

Though I know in real life that wouldn’t be possible because entanglement still can’t be used to transmit information faster than light.

The entire point of it, is that it can…

Intuitively it seems like it should, but apparently that doesn't work.

So if one is experiencing 10x the speed, 1 second of its “input” takes 10 seconds on the slow side to “output”. The 1/10th speed replies and 1 second there is “output” as 10 seconds, just like it’s relatively spinning 10x the speed as the reference particle.

Ah okay I see what you mean. So I guess, for one participant in the conversation would seem like they were talking very slowly, and the other would seem to be talking very fast. But they could still be in sync, they would just perceive the time differently

[–] gsv@programming.dev 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Exactly at the speed of light, the γ-coefficient would be infinite and so would be the time dialation. The eigen time of the moving person would thus be infinitely slower than the non-moving person. From the perspective of the stationary person, the time of the moving person would stand still and thus the person would never say anything. Very close to the light speed, when the coefficients are large, this problem eases but persists. The stationary person would have to wait for very long (and use a massive Doppler shift of the moving signal) to perceive something. At the end of the conversation, it will have lasted much longer for the stationary person, spending years on this. The twin paradox would basically kick in as well. If the moving person is at a speed too close to the speed of light, the stationary person might die before the conversation is over—assuming the stationary person is not immortal. That is kind of a very slow motion, yes. What a dedication, spending a lifetime on a person who can’t slow down ;-) Funny enough, from the perspective of the moving person, the effect is reversed.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 months ago

Interesting. That makes sense, thanks for explaining

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 2 months ago

I don't actually know, but to my understanding...

Firstly it would be impossible because of the doppler effect and the fact that at these speeds you would go around the earth in about the same time it takes to say "Hello" , but if you ignore that:

At a difference of around 260,000 KM/S you could actually have a time dilation difference that would be perceived by the observer (the slow one) as 0.5x and anything said by the traveler would be heard by the observer in slow motion.

Again, I have no physics background, so...

Think Star Trek uses a stability feild so the time dilation is void. I'm trying to remember but they actually turned it off in one episode and jumped to like Jupiter and back to close the time gap. So, they could be using a similar idea of technology.

load more comments
view more: next ›