Why would'nt this work?
-
I don't think gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light is the same as the gravitational attraction being apparently felt faster than light travels. Similarly, electric attraction between + and - charges is different from electromagnetic waves being transmitted in the field. It's not light that is "communicating" that attraction.
-
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
The compression on the end of the stick wouldn't travel faster than the speed of sound in the stick making it MUCH slower than light.
-
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
You're forgetting the speed at which the shockwave from the compression travels through the stick. I guess it's around the speed of sound in that material, which might be ~2 km/s
-
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
What about the speed of the earth's rotation though, could that fuck up the stick holding?
-
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 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.
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.
-
What about the speed of the earth's rotation though, could that fuck up the stick holding?
It'll knock the moon and earth out of orbit!
-
The compression on the end of the stick wouldn't travel faster than the speed of sound in the stick making it MUCH slower than light.
But.. But.. The stick is unfoldable!
-
I don't think gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light is the same as the gravitational attraction being apparently felt faster than light travels. Similarly, electric attraction between + and - charges is different from electromagnetic waves being transmitted in the field. It's not light that is "communicating" that attraction.
I don't think gravitational waves traveling at the speed of light is the same as the gravitational attraction being apparently felt faster than light travels.
I don’t know how you would measure gravitational waves without measuring gravitational attraction.
It's not light that is "communicating" that attraction.
Nobody said it was. The “speed of light” isn’t about “light”. Gravity propagates at the same speed, aka “c.”
This Reddit discussion on r/AskPhysics might help clear up your misconceptions. Notably:
Just to clarify: when people talk about the speed of gravity, they mean the speed at which changes propagate. It's the answer to questions like: if I take the Sun and wiggle it around, how long does it take for the Earth to feel the varitation in the force of gravity? And the answer is that changes in gravity travel at the speed of light.
But that's not what you're asking about. Whenever you're close to the Earth, gravity is always acting on you: it's not waiting until you step off a cliff, like in the Coyote and the Roadrunner. The very instant your foot is no longer on the ground, gravity will start to move it downwards. The only detail is that it takes some time for it to build up an appreciable speed, and this is what allows us to do stuff like jump over pits: if you're fast enough, gravity won't be able to accelerate you enough - but gravity is still there.
I get the sense that you’re thinking about the second scenario when objecting to the concept that gravity travels at the speed of light.
-
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 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.
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 travel faster than the speed of light? Of course not. I think that is a similar analogy to the laser movement concept you described.
-
Gravity waves doesn't go faster than light though?
I'm going way way out against the standard model here.
No spacetime, no dark matter or dark energy, not even photons.
Just a '3D big ball of yarn single object universe'.If light is a 'turn of the "stick"', then gravity is how 'the "sticks" are binding the atoms together'.
And so there would not be any gravity waves.
And any measurement of them would then have nothing to do with gravity. -
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
There's a thought experiment about this in most intro classes on relativity, talking about "length compression". To a stationary observer a fast-moving object appears shorter in its direction of travel. For example, at 87% of the speed of light, length compression is about 50%. So if you are carrying a pole 20 meters long and you run by someone at that speed, to them the pole will only look 10 meters long.
In the thought experiment you run with this pole into a barn that's only 10 meters long. What happens?
The observer, seeing you bringing a 10-meter pole into a 10-meter barn, shuts the door behind you, closing it exactly at the point where you're entirely in the barn. What happens when you stop, and how does a 20-meter pole fit in a 10-meter barn in the first place?
First, when the pole gets in the barn and the door closes, the pole is no longer moving, so now to the observer it looks 20 meters long. As its speed drops to zero the pole appears to get longer, becoming 20 meters again. It either punches holes in the barn and sticks out, or it shatters if the barn is stronger.
Looking at the situation from the runner's point of view, since motion is relative you could say you're stationary and the barn is moving toward you at 87% of the speed of light. So to you the 10-meter barn only looks 5 meters long. So how does a 20-meter pole fit in?
The answer to both questions is compression - or saying it another way, information doesn't travel instantly. When the front end of the pole hits the inside of the barn and stops, it takes some time for that information to travel through the pole to the other end. Meanwhile, the rest of the pole keeps moving. By the time the back end knows it's supposed to stop, from the runner's point of view the 20-ft pole has been compressed down to 5 meters. From the runner's point of view the barn then stops moving, so it's length returns to 10 meters, but since the pole still won't fit it either punches holes in the barn or shatters.
-
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
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.
-
Long winded video about it:
'Are solid objects really “solid”?' (go-to 7:30)
That was a really good video!
-
It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?
If your stick is unbreakable and unavoidable you have already broken laws of physics anyway
-
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 travel faster than the speed of light? Of course not. I think that is a similar analogy to the laser movement concept you described.
I mean, for a little the guy on the right would be correct, but the using math you should be able to tell who was actually correct, right?
-
You're pushing the atoms on your end, which in turn push the next atoms, which push the next ones and so on up to the atoms at the end of the rod which push the hand of your friend on the moon.
As it so happens the way the atoms push each other is electromagnetism, in other words sending photons (same thing light is made of) to each other but these photons are not at visible wavelengths so you don't see them as light.
So pushing the rod is just sending a wave down the rod of atoms pushing each other which the gaps between atoms being bridged using photons, so it will never be faster than the speed at which photons can travel in vacuum (it's actually slower because there's some delay since part of the movement of that wave is actual atoms moving and atoms have mass so they can't travel as fast as the speed of light).
In normal day to day life the rods are far to short for us to notice the delay between the pushing the rod on one end and the rod pushing something on the other end.
Thank you for this. Everything above it was just people saying the stick would move slower than light, nothing about why!
-
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.
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?
-
Glass easily bends
But will it fold?
-
I mean, for a little the guy on the right would be correct, but the using math you should be able to tell who was actually correct, right?
That’s the thing. The math says they’re both correct, and that it depends on the viewpoint of the observer.
I’m inside a car moving at 60 mph. I throw the ball forward (let’s ignore air resistance) at 30 mph.
Me, who’s inside the car, sees the ball move forward at 30 mph.
You, who’s outside the car, sees the ball move at the car’s speed PLUS the throw speed (60 + 30 =90 mph)
So, the ball is moving both at 30 mph and 90 mph. How can that be? It depends entirely upon your reference frame (inside the car? Outside the car? Inside another car moving at 40 mph?). The ball moves at all these speeds, and they are all “correct” within universal terms.
-
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 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.
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
