Why have we ruled out the possibility of finding something faster when we’ve only scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding?
In: 144
The proper term for this is the speed of causality (the “c” in E=mc^2.
The speed of causality is the fastest speed at which any energy can propagate, and is a fundamental property of the universe (meaning there is no simpler explanation).
It just so happens that light propagates at the speed of causality, which is why we call it the speed of light.
The proper term for this is the speed of causality (the “c” in E=mc^2.
The speed of causality is the fastest speed at which any energy can propagate, and is a fundamental property of the universe (meaning there is no simpler explanation).
It just so happens that light propagates at the speed of causality, which is why we call it the speed of light.
The proper term for this is the speed of causality (the “c” in E=mc^2.
The speed of causality is the fastest speed at which any energy can propagate, and is a fundamental property of the universe (meaning there is no simpler explanation).
It just so happens that light propagates at the speed of causality, which is why we call it the speed of light.
The term lightspeed confused me for ages, but it’s not really to do with light, there’s a maximum speed to anything in the universe. Light in a vacuum moves at that speed – the fastest speed anything can move. This is because it has no mass so no inertia.
The term lightspeed confused me for ages, but it’s not really to do with light, there’s a maximum speed to anything in the universe. Light in a vacuum moves at that speed – the fastest speed anything can move. This is because it has no mass so no inertia.
I’m a layman with zero experience and extremely limited understanding…isn’t quantum computing ‘faster’ than light in that, the computations are faster than the speed of light?
Am I understanding that correctly?
I’m a layman with zero experience and extremely limited understanding…isn’t quantum computing ‘faster’ than light in that, the computations are faster than the speed of light?
Am I understanding that correctly?
So, it turns out that everything is moving at the same speed all the time. That’s because if you add how fast something is moving in *space* and how fast something is moving in *time*, you get the same result. For everything. For that to work, fast things in space have to move slower in time.
And it turns out, they do.
We don’t notice this in our daily life because, in the grand scheme of things, everything in our lives moves at about the same speed so the time difference doesn’t get noticed. People who work with satellites notice it, though, and they have to correct for it constantly. It’s a big deal at grand scales and unnoticeable at small scales.
But back to light. It turns out the light is going *so fast* in space-speed that the only way for that equation to balance is if the time-speed for light was 0. And we have confirmed experimentally that it is! That means that to go faster than light, one of two things has to happen:
– our equation, which has worked over and over again for everything, must be broken, or
– somehow you can move so slowly in time-speed that you go negative, moving backwards in time
The first one is pretty unlikely because it’s worked so well experimentally for so many different things. The second one… well, there’s no eli5 version, I’m afraid. It’s very complicated and probably not possible at macro scales but it’s an area of ongoing research.
So, it turns out that everything is moving at the same speed all the time. That’s because if you add how fast something is moving in *space* and how fast something is moving in *time*, you get the same result. For everything. For that to work, fast things in space have to move slower in time.
And it turns out, they do.
We don’t notice this in our daily life because, in the grand scheme of things, everything in our lives moves at about the same speed so the time difference doesn’t get noticed. People who work with satellites notice it, though, and they have to correct for it constantly. It’s a big deal at grand scales and unnoticeable at small scales.
But back to light. It turns out the light is going *so fast* in space-speed that the only way for that equation to balance is if the time-speed for light was 0. And we have confirmed experimentally that it is! That means that to go faster than light, one of two things has to happen:
– our equation, which has worked over and over again for everything, must be broken, or
– somehow you can move so slowly in time-speed that you go negative, moving backwards in time
The first one is pretty unlikely because it’s worked so well experimentally for so many different things. The second one… well, there’s no eli5 version, I’m afraid. It’s very complicated and probably not possible at macro scales but it’s an area of ongoing research.
The term lightspeed confused me for ages, but it’s not really to do with light, there’s a maximum speed to anything in the universe. Light in a vacuum moves at that speed – the fastest speed anything can move. This is because it has no mass so no inertia.
Latest Answers