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 speed of light is the speed of causality before it is the speed of light. It is the fastest that any two things can interact with each other before it is the speed of light. Light travels that fast because it has no mass, so it has no choice but to travel at the maximum possible speed.
For anything to travel faster than light, it would need more than infinite energy and it would then travel backwards in time.
The speed of light is the speed of causality before it is the speed of light. It is the fastest that any two things can interact with each other before it is the speed of light. Light travels that fast because it has no mass, so it has no choice but to travel at the maximum possible speed.
For anything to travel faster than light, it would need more than infinite energy and it would then travel backwards in time.
> when we’ve only scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding?
Physicists make some basic assumptions about the universe. All science has to start from assumptions — your axioms. These are really basic assumptions like:
* The universe is *rotationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment doesn’t change depending on the angle you observe it from;
* The universe is *translationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending where the experiment is performed (all other things being equal); and
* The universe is *time symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending when the experiment is performed (all other things being equal).
These are explicitly assumptions — we can’t prove them without observing every point in the universe at every point in time from every angle. But, they seem pretty reasonable, and they’ve held so far in our exploration — and most importantly, we can’t really *do physics* as we know it if they’re incorrect! So we’ve made them part of our axioms, and all of physics is built with these assumptions.
That’s important because it means, as we observe the universe through telescopes and radio receivers, we can assume that things work fundamentally the same *over there* as they do here — even though *over there* is a different place *and* a different time (since it takes time for the light to reach us to observe). This lets us do experiments by making a prediction here, and then observing how things are going *over there* where the conditions are right.
So far of those experiments and observations have matched *very* closely to what our standard models in physics predict. This gives us a lot of confidence that our models are accurate. We know they’re not perfect — we know our models have some gaps and inconsistencies, like how general relativity and quantum mechanics disagree a bit on gravity — but we’re confident that they’re not *fundamentally* incorrect.
Now, of course, we can’t *know* that our models are fundamentally incorrect until we make observations that contadict them. For example, in the late 1800s we noticed (among other things) that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different than our models at the time predicted. That led us to doubt the accuracy of Newtonian physics and ultimately to adopt the model of general relativity. Similarly, in the early 1800s we noticed (again, among other things) that light didn’t always behave as our models predicted. That led us, over the next couple hundred years, to develop and refine the model of quantum mechanics.
If we find contradicting observations, physics will have to adopt new models. Maybe we will find some exotic (to us) type of matter that violates our assumptions about spacetime and the shed of light. Most likely, to start with, we’d try to incorporate it by tweaking our existing models. They’ve done a very good job so far, so we’d like to keep as much of them as we can. But, if we can’t make it fit — like the orbit of Mercury and the behavior of light couldn’t fit in the Newtonian model — we’ll have to come up with a new model that fits everything we’ve observed so far, *plus* the new stuff.
> when we’ve only scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding?
Physicists make some basic assumptions about the universe. All science has to start from assumptions — your axioms. These are really basic assumptions like:
* The universe is *rotationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment doesn’t change depending on the angle you observe it from;
* The universe is *translationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending where the experiment is performed (all other things being equal); and
* The universe is *time symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending when the experiment is performed (all other things being equal).
These are explicitly assumptions — we can’t prove them without observing every point in the universe at every point in time from every angle. But, they seem pretty reasonable, and they’ve held so far in our exploration — and most importantly, we can’t really *do physics* as we know it if they’re incorrect! So we’ve made them part of our axioms, and all of physics is built with these assumptions.
That’s important because it means, as we observe the universe through telescopes and radio receivers, we can assume that things work fundamentally the same *over there* as they do here — even though *over there* is a different place *and* a different time (since it takes time for the light to reach us to observe). This lets us do experiments by making a prediction here, and then observing how things are going *over there* where the conditions are right.
So far of those experiments and observations have matched *very* closely to what our standard models in physics predict. This gives us a lot of confidence that our models are accurate. We know they’re not perfect — we know our models have some gaps and inconsistencies, like how general relativity and quantum mechanics disagree a bit on gravity — but we’re confident that they’re not *fundamentally* incorrect.
Now, of course, we can’t *know* that our models are fundamentally incorrect until we make observations that contadict them. For example, in the late 1800s we noticed (among other things) that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different than our models at the time predicted. That led us to doubt the accuracy of Newtonian physics and ultimately to adopt the model of general relativity. Similarly, in the early 1800s we noticed (again, among other things) that light didn’t always behave as our models predicted. That led us, over the next couple hundred years, to develop and refine the model of quantum mechanics.
If we find contradicting observations, physics will have to adopt new models. Maybe we will find some exotic (to us) type of matter that violates our assumptions about spacetime and the shed of light. Most likely, to start with, we’d try to incorporate it by tweaking our existing models. They’ve done a very good job so far, so we’d like to keep as much of them as we can. But, if we can’t make it fit — like the orbit of Mercury and the behavior of light couldn’t fit in the Newtonian model — we’ll have to come up with a new model that fits everything we’ve observed so far, *plus* the new stuff.
It’s all math first, experiments and confirmation later. It’s also the same for everything else we *think* we know about the universe despite not actually seeing it happen, just like dimensions or how we have always thought blackholes existed, but never saw one until recently.
Basically, smart people played with the extremest version of the speed equation, which involved 0 mass, and concluded that to achieve this result (speed), something must not gain mass no matter what.
We then found out that the lightest thing in the universe can’t be weighed at all, which are photons.
Since they can’t gain weight (because they are mass-less and essentially are “born” already running away from the source), it’s only mathematically logical that they move at the most extreme speed. Since photons are light particles, this speed is then labeled the speed of light.
PS: I welcome any corrections as this is just the result of me asking similar questions way back in my internet-curious days.
> when we’ve only scratched the surface of space exploration and understanding?
Physicists make some basic assumptions about the universe. All science has to start from assumptions — your axioms. These are really basic assumptions like:
* The universe is *rotationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment doesn’t change depending on the angle you observe it from;
* The universe is *translationally symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending where the experiment is performed (all other things being equal); and
* The universe is *time symmetric* — that the behavior of an experiment don’t change depending when the experiment is performed (all other things being equal).
These are explicitly assumptions — we can’t prove them without observing every point in the universe at every point in time from every angle. But, they seem pretty reasonable, and they’ve held so far in our exploration — and most importantly, we can’t really *do physics* as we know it if they’re incorrect! So we’ve made them part of our axioms, and all of physics is built with these assumptions.
That’s important because it means, as we observe the universe through telescopes and radio receivers, we can assume that things work fundamentally the same *over there* as they do here — even though *over there* is a different place *and* a different time (since it takes time for the light to reach us to observe). This lets us do experiments by making a prediction here, and then observing how things are going *over there* where the conditions are right.
So far of those experiments and observations have matched *very* closely to what our standard models in physics predict. This gives us a lot of confidence that our models are accurate. We know they’re not perfect — we know our models have some gaps and inconsistencies, like how general relativity and quantum mechanics disagree a bit on gravity — but we’re confident that they’re not *fundamentally* incorrect.
Now, of course, we can’t *know* that our models are fundamentally incorrect until we make observations that contadict them. For example, in the late 1800s we noticed (among other things) that the orbit of Mercury was slightly different than our models at the time predicted. That led us to doubt the accuracy of Newtonian physics and ultimately to adopt the model of general relativity. Similarly, in the early 1800s we noticed (again, among other things) that light didn’t always behave as our models predicted. That led us, over the next couple hundred years, to develop and refine the model of quantum mechanics.
If we find contradicting observations, physics will have to adopt new models. Maybe we will find some exotic (to us) type of matter that violates our assumptions about spacetime and the shed of light. Most likely, to start with, we’d try to incorporate it by tweaking our existing models. They’ve done a very good job so far, so we’d like to keep as much of them as we can. But, if we can’t make it fit — like the orbit of Mercury and the behavior of light couldn’t fit in the Newtonian model — we’ll have to come up with a new model that fits everything we’ve observed so far, *plus* the new stuff.
It’s all math first, experiments and confirmation later. It’s also the same for everything else we *think* we know about the universe despite not actually seeing it happen, just like dimensions or how we have always thought blackholes existed, but never saw one until recently.
Basically, smart people played with the extremest version of the speed equation, which involved 0 mass, and concluded that to achieve this result (speed), something must not gain mass no matter what.
We then found out that the lightest thing in the universe can’t be weighed at all, which are photons.
Since they can’t gain weight (because they are mass-less and essentially are “born” already running away from the source), it’s only mathematically logical that they move at the most extreme speed. Since photons are light particles, this speed is then labeled the speed of light.
PS: I welcome any corrections as this is just the result of me asking similar questions way back in my internet-curious days.
It’s all math first, experiments and confirmation later. It’s also the same for everything else we *think* we know about the universe despite not actually seeing it happen, just like dimensions or how we have always thought blackholes existed, but never saw one until recently.
Basically, smart people played with the extremest version of the speed equation, which involved 0 mass, and concluded that to achieve this result (speed), something must not gain mass no matter what.
We then found out that the lightest thing in the universe can’t be weighed at all, which are photons.
Since they can’t gain weight (because they are mass-less and essentially are “born” already running away from the source), it’s only mathematically logical that they move at the most extreme speed. Since photons are light particles, this speed is then labeled the speed of light.
PS: I welcome any corrections as this is just the result of me asking similar questions way back in my internet-curious days.
On the other hand, if we could build a ship that traveled at light speed. Then once that ship moved at light speed the trip would be instantaneous from the passengers point of view. Which brings up the question. Since everything in the universe moves, how much time dilation are we currently experiencing as opposed to sitting still in relation to the rest of the universe?
It’s not just about “light”. Light is just a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum that we can see. This includes radio waves all the way up to X-rays and gamma rays.
The speed of light( “C” for short) is actually the speed of *Causality*. The speed of cause and effect.
If something does not have mass (and is not currently interacting with something) it moves *at* C. That’s not just the maximum speed that it can travel that is the speed that it *does* travel.
Why/How?
The “how” is described by insanely complex mathematics.
I think the why has to do with the “Anthropic Principle”. Without a maximum speed limit, the history of the universe would go from start to finish instantaneously. Nothing can be observed in the universe if we don’t have time to observe it.
Latest Answers