5 Light-Year long stick question

  • Thread starter RCulling
  • Start date
  • #1
34
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

My friends and I are having an arguement over this question:

"Someone 5 LY away on a planet is getting "poked" by a 5 LY long stick from here on earth"

Does it take five years (or more) from the time one end of the stick is pushed until the person right next to the other end is poked by it? Or does it happen in next to no time at all?
- I personally believe that it will take alteast five years.. since if the person being poked had a telescope and watched the person push the stick, it would take the light ("information") 5 years to reach him.. and he can't get poked by the stick if it hasn't been pushed?

Is that right to say?

*Ignoring the fact of obvious problems with the situation, like requiring a massive force to move the stick.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
JesseM
Science Advisor
8,496
12
  • #3
34
0


- Thank you very much
 
  • #4


I understood all of it until
at the speed of sound
Why is it the speed of sound?
 
  • #5
Fredrik
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
10,851
406


Because it's a longitudinal wave in the material, and that makes it "sound" by definition. Sound has a specific speed in each material, so that's the speed this wave will have.

You could of course hit that stick with a hammer or something that moves faster than the speed of sound in the material, and then the first layer of atoms will move faster than the speed of sound. But the end of the stick that you hit will shatter, and the wave you caused will propagate faster than sound for a while, tearing the material apart at first and losing lots of energy, only to turn into a regular sound wave after a while.

The wave that starts out going faster than the speed of sound is definitely slower than the speed of light, since atoms are massive and the interaction between atoms is electromagnetic. Massive particles move at speeds <c and waves in the electromagnetic field propagate at speed c.
 
Last edited:
  • #6


Okay I get that... but what if instead of poking,prodding and hitting, we use an electric shock? How would that be calculated? (ie. how long would it take until Person B felt the shock sent by Person A)

Am I right to say that some factors are... the material of the stick (resistance), how strong the power supply is (volts) and how fast the current is moving (amps)?

And with those factors, am I then right to say that there can be no answer given unless I provide the specifics?
 
  • #7
907
2


Then you would generate an electromagnetic wave that travels down the stick at approximately the speed of light and still takes 5 years to reach the other end.
 
  • #8


lets say that the theoretical stick/rod has zero mass and is perfectly rigid (it doesn't deform), so wherever you go along its length, it moves the same distance in the same manner as it does at the point of transmission..what then?
 
  • #9
907
2


lets say that the theoretical stick/rod has zero mass and is perfectly rigid (it doesn't deform), so wherever you go along its length, it moves the same distance in the same manner as it does at the point of transmission..what then?
It is impossible to make a perfectly rigid stick.
 
  • #10
34
0


Zero mass? Why Zero mass? Kind of defeats the purpose then...
 
  • #11


oh for chrissake - you're taking this too literally - the very question is a postulate - more of a philosophical lets suppose..apparently its impossible to travel at the speed of light, but it didn't stop Einstein theorising.
I actually think the Original question is a bloody good one.
okay what if the stick is 5 metres long - and I poke you with it....you will feel the movement instantaneously - forgetting relativism, and internal factors for a second - so notionally, the resultant poke isn't governed by speed - time goes out of the equation...agreed?
 
  • #12
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
23,858
6,305


Why stop with perfectly rigid rods? Why not imagine invisible pink pixies?

Once you start with something which violates the laws of physics, you're not going to be able to draw a physical conclusion.
 
  • #13
sylas
Science Advisor
1,646
6


oh for chrissake - you're taking this too literally - the very question is a postulate - more of a philosophical lets suppose..apparently its impossible to travel at the speed of light, but it didn't stop Einstein theorising.
I actually think the Original question is a bloody good one.
okay what if the stick is 5 metres long - and I poke you with it....you will feel the movement instantaneously - forgetting relativism, and internal factors for a second - so notionally, the resultant poke isn't governed by speed - time goes out of the equation...agreed?
The answer to the original question is that such a thing is physically impossible. You can ask "what if" all our physics is incorrect, but what then will you assume to give an answer?

On the other hand, one thing you can do without breaking the laws of physics is this.

Instead of just pushing one end of the stick, have the whole stick mounted on little wheels, attached to clocks. Make sure all the clocks are synchronized with each other. Then, at a given time, ALL the wheels rotate, and the whole stick moves forward one inch.

So at least the movement of this stick is going to look like what you are proposing, right?

OK. Now here's the surprising thing. Whether the "front" or "back" of the stick moves first, or both at the same time, depends on how fast you are moving past the stick when the clocks tick over. This is not merely what "seems" to occur. The times really are different depending on the observer.

Weird, heh! But that's consequence of well tested and completely uncontroversial physics.

Does this help?

Cheers -- sylas
 
  • #14
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,794
925


lets say that the theoretical stick/rod has zero mass and is perfectly rigid (it doesn't deform), so wherever you go along its length, it moves the same distance in the same manner as it does at the point of transmission..what then?
It is precisely this thought experiment that shows that, even theoretically, there cannot be a "perfectly rigid" object.
 
  • #15


It is precisely this thought experiment that shows that, even theoretically, there cannot be a "perfectly rigid" object.
perhaps I'm on the wrong forum, but again, this seems to be breaking down into minutaie before its even begun.
maybe i haven't got the mathematical skills or am not as great as some of you, but often one's imagined greatness is an obstacle to enquiry. does physics ever progress?
where would i go to discuss things like this 5 year long stick in a more free environment. where i am not told what cannot happen, but am offered constructive conversation? -I'm not getting at you Ivy, its a more general attack.
it seems everyone has somehow accepted that there can exist a stick thats 5 light years long, but have trouble with the physics of a stick 5 metres long.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Doc Al
Mentor
44,882
1,129


where would i go to discuss things like this 5 year long stick in a more free environment. where i am not told what cannot happen, but am offered constructive conversation?
Why go to a physics site if you're not interested in what physics has to say?
it seems everyone has somehow accepted that there can exist a stick thats 5 light years long, but have trouble with the physics of a stick 5 metres long.
Why do you say that?
 
  • #17
1,460
1


perhaps I'm on the wrong forum, but again, this seems to be breaking down into minutaie before its even begun.
maybe i haven't got the mathematical skills or am not as great as some of you, but often one's imagined greatness is an obstacle to enquiry. does physics ever progress?
where would i go to discuss things like this 5 year long stick in a more free environment. where i am not told what cannot happen, but am offered constructive conversation? -I'm not getting at you Ivy, its a more general attack.
it seems everyone has somehow accepted that there can exist a stick thats 5 light years long, but have trouble with the physics of a stick 5 metres long.
Your original question has been answered in every way possible, so all that is left was to talk about the nature of the thought experiment you posed. Would you rather be ignorant? Here's a question... imagine a NON-ideal "stick" which follows a "normal" (curved) path who's total length = 5 Light Years (ly). Does that change what you're asking, AT ALL, which is really just a way of asking if Information (term of art) can exceed "c". The answer is still no, so don't blame a room full of experts (and duffers such as myself) and expect that to hold our interest long.

Why not learn about WHY you can't construct a striaght, rigid... ok... um... am I the only one who has been laughing inside ever since hamster said "It is impossible to make a perfectly rigid stick."? Just me? Hmmm, ok, I'm the only one who never matured... fair enough.

Anyway, why not learn about why a perfectly straight and rigid body can't exist? You might learn about geodesics, and all sorts of other fascinating material. Sylas gave you a fantastic answer to your (third, or fourth... I lost track) question, which you seem to have ignored in favour of telling a bunch of people on PF why they should ignore Physics in the Relativity sub-forum. Doesn't that strike you as a combination of odd, and deeply ungrateful?
 
  • #18


Why go to a physics site if you're not interested in what physics has to say?
I found the topic via a search engine - not thinking that I would find anything.
Why do you say that?
well i thought that was a given since people have responded to the OP's OP. its asking about a 5 LY stick.
I realise it sounds airy-fairy but I'm beginning to consider in terms of there there being no such thing as time, I guess I'm an absolutist...I believe that if two things don't happen "simultaneously", its merely that they happen one after the other - "after" not being related to a temporal concept, but merely non-coincidental - the temporal is a manmade idea IMO., albeit a deeply rooted one.
this is why i think this whole thing about lightspeed is a moot point. there is no speed, only travel in a direction.
another idea i had along these lines is that if you had an escalator of people as one got on, one would get off - there was no "give" - so what is happening there?
 
  • #19
1,460
1


well i thought that was a given since people have responded to the OP's OP. its asking about a 5 LY stick.
I realise it sounds airy-fairy but I'm beginning to consider in terms of there there being no such thing as time, I guess I'm an absolutist...I believe that if two things don't happen "simultaneously", its merely that they happen one after the other - "after" not being related to a temporal concept, but merely non-coincidental - the temporal is a manmade idea IMO., albeit a deeply rooted one.
this is why i think this whole thing about lightspeed is a moot point. there is no speed, only travel in a direction.
another idea i had along these lines is that if you had an escalator of people as one got on, one would get off - there was no "give" - so what is happening there?
Ok... here is the answer to your question, and a hand-grenade to feed to your pet theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity
 
  • #20
28,903
5,165


well i thought that was a given since people have responded to the OP's OP. its asking about a 5 LY stick.
I realise it sounds airy-fairy but I'm beginning to consider in terms of there there being no such thing as time, I guess I'm an absolutist...I believe that if two things don't happen "simultaneously", its merely that they happen one after the other - "after" not being related to a temporal concept, but merely non-coincidental - the temporal is a manmade idea IMO., albeit a deeply rooted one.
this is why i think this whole thing about lightspeed is a moot point. there is no speed, only travel in a direction.
another idea i had along these lines is that if you had an escalator of people as one got on, one would get off - there was no "give" - so what is happening there?
What is it about the anti-time crowd that insists on hijacking other people's threads rather than starting their own?

If you wish to discuss your anti-time musings you can do so in the philosophy section or on many other internet sites (e.g. SciForums). This forum is for discussing mainstream science where an idea is judged not by how pretty it looks on paper but by how well it agrees with experimental evidence. Judged in that light, the idea of time passes with flying colors having several centuries worth of experimental support and the idea of no time fails miserably.
 
  • #21
1,460
1


What is it about the anti-time crowd that insists on hijacking other people's threads rather than starting their own?

If you wish to discuss your anti-time musings you can do so in the philosophy section or on many other internet sites (e.g. SciForums). This forum is for discussing mainstream science where an idea is judged not by how pretty it looks on paper but by how well it agrees with experimental evidence. Judged in that light, the idea of time passes with flying colors having several centuries worth of experimental support and the idea of no time fails miserably.
Maybe believing in a timeless universe turns you into an *******? :wink: All kidding aside, really there are respected notions of imaginary time as a CONSTRUCT, but outside of that I'm really tired of this. No time = the realm of pseudoscience or a science advanced beyond our current ability to test it meanignfully... i.e. NOT SCIENCE.

I wonder if "no time" is somehow a step on the way to being a crank? Perhaps "no time" is the "hearing voices" of kooks! :rofl:
 
  • #22


Maybe believing in a timeless universe turns you into an *******? :wink: All kidding aside, really there are respected notions of imaginary time as a CONSTRUCT, but outside of that I'm really tired of this. No time = the realm of pseudoscience or a science advanced beyond our current ability to test it meanignfully... i.e. NOT SCIENCE.

I wonder if "no time" is somehow a step on the way to being a crank? Perhaps "no time" is the "hearing voices" of kooks! :rofl:
I realise what I'm hypothesising probably sounds a bit out there and maybe theres a better place to talk about this, but I'm interested in this kind of thing and I don't like your putdown.
 
  • #23
1,460
1


I realise what I'm hypothesising probably sounds a bit out there and maybe theres a better place to talk about this, but I'm interested in this kind of thing and I don't like your putdown.
I'm intersted in the Proto-Saxon language... shall I recite the Dream of The Rood here? No? Oh, because it's PHYSICS forums... not "whatever the hell floats through your head" forums. Got it. For the record, you're not "hypothesizing" anything, you're flailing without fully stating your case. I'm guessing that's because you don't HAVE a case to make with even the rigor requires to formulate a hypothesis.

P.S. "Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda..." :smile:
 
  • #24


I'm intersted in the Proto-Saxon language... shall I recite the Dream of The Rood here? No? Oh, because it's PHYSICS forums... not "whatever the hell floats through your head" forums. Got it. For the record, you're not "hypothesizing" anything, you're flailing without fully stating your case. I'm guessing that's because you don't HAVE a case to make with even the rigor requires to formulate a hypothesis.

P.S. "Feala ic on þam beorge gebiden hæbbe wraðra wyrda..." :smile:
i realise my argument could have been thought out better, but as i said I don't like your putdown.
 
  • #25
1,460
1


i realise my argument could have been thought out better, but as i said I don't like your putdown.
You don't HAVE an argument that you've presented, just the first hints of crackpottery. If you feel that having the absurdity of your own actions thrown in your face is a "putdown"... tough luck.
 

Related Threads for: 5 Light-Year long stick question

  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
535
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
Top