B Confused about time dilation and cosmic speed limit

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on confusion regarding the cosmic speed limit and its relation to the speed of light, likening it to restrictions in video games. Participants express that the laws of physics, including why the speed limit exists, delve into philosophical territory rather than scientific inquiry. The concept of time dilation and its implications are also raised, with a suggestion to rely on credible physics textbooks for better understanding. The conversation emphasizes the need for foundational knowledge in physics to address such complex topics accurately. Ultimately, the discussion highlights the intersection of physics, philosophy, and the challenges of comprehending the universe's fundamental rules.
Sciencelad2798
Messages
46
Reaction score
2
[Moderator's note: Thread spun off from previous thread due to topic/forum change.]

Time dilation sounds really weird, can i assume it has a logical explanation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
I am still confused about the cosmic speed limit. It kinda reminds me of how in video games coders make restrictions on physical aspects as to not break the game. I heard that if an object with matter would go the speed of light, the universe would explode, and I feel like a computer would do the same. I know I'm not well versed in this, but it's all so eerily similar to a video game that I was hoping there was a more logical explanation to this too. Also, why is the speed limit the same as the speed of light? This also reminds me of a coder, the last thing necessary for human life is the fastest you can go, because there's no need to go any faster.

Sources: https://www.space.com/speed-of-light-properties-explained.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...eed-limit-and-it-isnt-the-speed-of-light/amp/

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mo...-light-because-we-have-not-tried-hard-enough/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Skeptical
Likes PeroK
Sciencelad2798 said:
...why is the speed limit the same as the speed of light?

https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/mo...-light-because-we-have-not-tried-hard-enough/

Physics looks to discover the patterns, nuances and ramifications of the laws of nature. Trying to answer the "why" questions is not part of that. We have plenty of unanswered questions about the standard models, and those will keep us occupied for many years to come.

Asking "why" the laws (rules) of physics are as they are is ultimately a philosophical (or religious) exercise which will never have a clear, final answer. If you say God created the universe that way, then you might logically ask why God chose to do it that way and not some other way. Ultimately, it is pure speculation... without any facts or data to support one answer over another. I would not call it science.
 
  • Like
Likes EPR
phinds said:
I read some of those posts and had two questions that weren't quite answered in it:

1. The OP mentions that the speed limit is kinda like an invisible hand that just stops things from traveling faster, and that the mass of an object keeps going higher and higher until it just stops. This was kinda my question too, but no one really adressed it there, was hoping you might have an explanation.

2. Someone mentioned its possible the universe "selected" this speed, and I was confused on what this meant

Edit: these two articles kinda confused me too, mostly the part about how the sun we see is 8 minutes behind and how if it "disappeared", we wouldn't know until 8 minutes later. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/physics-speed-light-stop-trapping-particles-inside-crystals-796385?amp=1

https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...w-do-photons-experience-time/?sh=46a619df278d



 
Last edited:
Sciencelad2798 said:
these two articles
Are not valid sources for learning the actual physics. You have two threads now in two different forums based on questions prompted by you not reading valid sources. Stop reading pop science articles and start learning physics from textbooks and peer-reviewed papers. For relativity, Taylor & Wheeler's Spacetime Physics is an excellent introduction.

Once you have read some actual textbooks or peer-reviewed papers, you are welcome to ask questions if you don't understand things from those sources.

This thread is closed.
 
In Birkhoff’s theorem, doesn’t assuming we can use r (defined as circumference divided by ## 2 \pi ## for any given sphere) as a coordinate across the spacetime implicitly assume that the spheres must always be getting bigger in some specific direction? Is there a version of the proof that doesn’t have this limitation? I’m thinking about if we made a similar move on 2-dimensional manifolds that ought to exhibit infinite order rotational symmetry. A cylinder would clearly fit, but if we...

Similar threads