B Is the case for a Universal Speed Limit experimental or theoretical?

  • Thread starter geordief
  • Start date
...Or even based on logic?

I understand that it is expected that there might be a Universal Speed Limit and that this seems with extremely high probability to coincide with the speed of em transmission in a vacuum.

This is borne out by experimentation and observation.

Are there any other approaches to reaching this conclusion?

Can it be argued that such a speed limit must exist and that the lack of such a speed limit would lead to fundamental contradictions?

Are there physical reasons why relative motion between any two bodies cannot exceed such a limit or is it simply the case that we observe this to be so and "cut our cloth" accordingly?

...and everything then falls into place.

Btw does the existence of this universal speed limit necessitate the invariance of the speed of light (and massless objects)?
 
Last edited:

.Scott

Homework Helper
2,284
754
The "universal speed limit" is the speed of light - or the speed of EM propagation in a vacuum.
This is an essential part of the Special Theory of Relativity ... and it works!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity

It has been around since 1905 and every prediction it has made has been spot on.

It was based on Einstein's insight an logic in trying to resolve measurement issues. One major issue was the result from the Michelson Morley experiments with their interferometer. Light seemed to be travelling at a set speed - but a set speed relative to what? Was it relative to the Sun? If so, we should be able to measure the difference that light travels relative to Earth as the light moves in the same direction of Earth's orbit in comparison with moving in the opposite direction. But no such difference was found. So was the Earth dragging some kind of ether that the light was moving through?
Einstein resolved the issue by coming up with a system where light would be travelling at the speed of light no matter the reference frame of the observer. Given that the speed of light is constant no matter the reference frame, you can logically deduce that that speed is a sort of "Universal Speed limit". BTW: That limit seems to be on the speed at which information can be transmitted from on location to another.

So, with regard to your question: "does the existence of this universal speed limit necessitate the invariance of the speed of light (and massless objects)?": It's the other way around. The invariance of the speed of light was the starting point. From there, it is deduced that that speed forms a limit.
 
Last edited:
True (it seems) that the invariance of the speed of light was first observed and not posited or expected.

I am trying to imagine a sort of "anti-thought" experiment whereby nobody had even thought to test the speed of light relative to different frames of reference...

Might it have been (at that innocent stage) possible to adopt as an assumption that there must be an upper speed limit and proceed from that assumption?

Is it possible to show without recourse to experimental observation (not ,of course rejecting those observations) that it would lead to contradictions if there was not an upper speed limit?

(I was previously under the impression that this would "cause all things to happen at the same time" but have been disabused of this belief.)

Are there any good reasons why there really must be an upper speed limit or is it simply the case that we have observed it to be so and that is the end of the matter?

Might it even be the case that in one of the hypothetical parallel or other universes that there might not be an upper speed limit and things would just proceed there along those lines?
 

Nugatory

Mentor
12,111
4,587
Might it have been (at that innocent stage) possible to adopt as an assumption that there must be an upper speed limit and proceed from that assumption?
The assumption of an upper speed limit is equivalent to there being exactly one speed which will be the same for all observers; if you assume either one the other will follow. So as far as the logic is concerned, if you can proceed from one you can proceed just as well from the other. Of course in practice you'll start with assumptions that seem plausible to you, and that's what Einstein did; by 1905 nature had provided many hints that light speed would be invariant so that was the natural starting point.

The best one-word answer to the question in the title is "Both".
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,578
4,810
Are there any good reasons why there really must be an upper speed limit or is it simply the case that we have observed it to be so and that is the end of the matter?
I feel like this has been answered already; it's both. It is a key component of Special Relativity, and it has been confirmed experimentally.

Sorry, there are no loopholes here.
 
The assumption of an upper speed limit is equivalent to there being exactly one speed which will be the same for all observers; if you assume either one the other will follow.
Yes that had actually occurred to me too** ,but only as an intimation.(it felt to me as if ,as one approached the speed limit differences in measurements of relative motion to it might go to zero as a limit -but I was not confident about it)

Is there a way of showing that rigorously to be the case (on its own merits ,not because it is so and not because it is part of Relativity with all its successful predictions?

**yesterday I was laid up with a headache and had a bit of time to think on my own when it eased.
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
Yes that had actually occurred to me too** ,but only as an intimation.(it felt to me as if ,as one approached the speed limit differences in measurements of relative motion to it might go to zero as a limit -but I was not confident about it)

Is there a way of showing that rigorously to be the case (on its own merits ,not because it is so and not because it is part of Relativity with all its successful predictions?

**yesterday I was laid up with a headache and had a bit of time to think on my own when it eased.
Please Check out the link I provided. It has links to papers showing from pure symmetry considerations, there are only two possibilities: an infinite invariant speed (Newtonian physics) or a finite invariant speed (SR). Experiment has shown the latter.
 
Please Check out the link I provided. It has links to papers showing from pure symmetry considerations, there are only two possibilities: an infinite invariant speed (Newtonian physics) or a finite invariant speed (SR). Experiment has shown the latter.
Thanks very much . I will have a look.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,578
4,810
Is there a way of showing that rigorously to be the case (on its own merits ,not because it is so and not because it is part of Relativity with all its successful predictions?
That's how Relativity was derived, but every line of logic has to start with some assumptions. Nothing is ever fully from scratch.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
308
33
I feel like this has been answered already; it's both. It is a key component of Special Relativity, and it has been confirmed experimentally.

Sorry, there are no loopholes here.
As an aside, what constitutes a loophole? A material object cannot move through space faster than light but a patch of space itself can and it can in theory carry an object along (the Alcubierre 'Warp Drive' concept). Also, the 'wormhole' concept would allow an object to circumvent the universal speed limit. The universe as a whole apparently violated it during its inflationary period. Entanglement seems to violate it. Aren't these loopholes in a way?
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
As an aside, what constitutes a loophole? A material object cannot move through space faster than light but a patch of space itself can and it can in theory carry an object along (the Alcubierre 'Warp Drive' concept). Also, the 'wormhole' concept would allow an object to circumvent the universal speed limit. The universe as a whole apparently violated it during its inflationary period. Entanglement seems to violate it. Aren't these loopholes in a way?
First, the topic was special relativity, not general, so that excludes all your examples except entanglement. Further, most physicists do not view entanglement as a loophole because neither mass/energy nor information travel faster than c.

As to GR, cosmological recession rates are fundamentally distinct from relative velocity. In GR, relative velocity for separated objects is ambiguous, but still less than c even during inflation.

Finally, while GR does allow alcubierre drives and wormholes, there are good reasons to believe they cannot exist in our universe (the degree of violation of energy conditions required, and that either actually existing means closed timelike curves are also possible and accessible).
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,578
4,810
As an aside, what constitutes a loophole? A material object cannot move through space faster than light but a patch of space itself can and it can in theory carry an object along (the Alcubierre 'Warp Drive' concept). Also, the 'wormhole' concept would allow an object to circumvent the universal speed limit. The universe as a whole apparently violated it during its inflationary period. Entanglement seems to violate it. Aren't these loopholes in a way?
I don't want to take this too far off topic, but I agree with you and might have chosen a different word if I'd thought about it more. I tend to see a "loophole" as a way around a limit without breaking a theory. The OP seems to be looking to see if the theory itself might be wrong. A missing piece in its development.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
308
33
Are there physical reasons why relative motion between any two bodies cannot exceed such a limit or is it simply the case that we observe this to be so and "cut our cloth" accordingly?

Physically, the mass of an object goes to infinity as it's speed approaches c (as calculated by an observer in the reference frame the speed is in reference to).

Interestingly, the relative motion between two bodies can exceed light speed as observed by another observer. Suppose two ships are traveling virtually at c for convenience away from earth in opposite directions. While I can't say, and both ships can't say either moves faster than c in any frame of reference, I can say they are moving apart as I see them at a rate of almost 2c. I didn't call it speed but the distance between them is growing faster than light could cover it...according to me.
 
Last edited:

Mister T

Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,216
621
Is it possible to show without recourse to experimental observation (not ,of course rejecting those observations) that it would lead to contradictions if there was not an upper speed limit?
I don't think so. It is only through experiment and observation that we justify Einstein's assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. From that, as has already been pointed out in this thread, a universal speed limit follows.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
308
33
First, the topic was special relativity, not general, so that excludes all your examples except entanglement. Further, most physicists do not view entanglement as a loophole because neither mass/energy nor information travel faster than c.

As to GR, cosmological recession rates are fundamentally distinct from relative velocity. In GR, relative velocity for separated objects is ambiguous, but still less than c even during inflation.

Finally, while GR does allow alcubierre drives and wormholes, there are good reasons to believe they cannot exist in our universe (the degree of violation of energy conditions required, and that either actually existing means closed timelike curves are also possible and accessible).
Thanks, but I thought that the original question was fairly general, it didn't limit the discussion only to SR which was brought up only in the responses.
 

Nugatory

Mentor
12,111
4,587
Physically, the mass of an object goes to infinity as it's speed approaches c.
Even after setting aside the standard objections to the notion of relativistic mass increase, we cannot suggest this as an explanation for the speed limit. The problem is that the relativistic mass increase is a mathematical consequence of the speed limit, so using it to explain the speed limit is circular logic.

Interestingly, the relative motion between two bodies can exceed light speed as observed by another observer. Suppose two ships are traveling virtually at c for convenience away from earth in opposite directions. While I can't say, and both ships can't say either moves faster than c in any frame of reference, I can say they are moving apart as I see them at a rate of almost 2c. I didn't call it speed but the distance between them is growing faster than light could cover it...according to me.
True, but as you say that change in distance with time isn’t the speed of anything.
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
I don't think so. It is only through experiment and observation that we justify Einstein's assumption that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the source. From that, as has already been pointed out in this thread, a universal speed limit follows.
As the FAQ link I provided earlier shows, there are ways that get close to what the OP wants. You can assume only isotropy, homogeneity, and that physical laws are the same in any inertial frame (without assuming anything about them, e.g. Maxwell or light), and conclude there there must be an invariant speed, with Galilean relativity resulting in the limit of infinite invariant speed. Then, indeed, experiment must choose among these two possibilities.
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
Interestingly, the relative motion between two bodies can exceed light speed as observed by another observer. Suppose two ships are traveling virtually at c for convenience away from earth in opposite directions. While I can't say, and both ships can't say either moves faster than c in any frame of reference, I can say they are moving apart as I see them at a rate of almost 2c. I didn't call it speed but the distance between them is growing faster than light could cover it...according to me.
It is important to distinguish a separation speed in some coordinates from a relative velocity. Even in SR, there is no upper bound on separation speed (e.g. if you set up cosmological type coordinates in special relativity you get a separation speed = recession rate in these coordinates that can be any multiple of c at all). The same is true of separation speeds = recession rate in GR.

Meanwhile, relative velocity is the comparison of one object speed to the the other, as if either was at rest. As I'm sure you know, this is always less than c in SR, e.g. the relative velocity corresponding to two objects moving .9c apart in some frame is about .994c. This operation is unambiguous in SR because parallel transport of vectors is path independent, so you can unambiguously bring vectors together and compare them (the vectors being 4-velocities). In GR, parallel transport of vectors is path dependent, but no matter what path you use, you still have a relative velocity of less than c - you just can't pick which one.

The more interesting notion of FTL is beating a light signal. Cosmology provides no example of a body outracing a light ray from some start event to some destination world line.

Wormoles and albubierre drive do provide and example of winning such a race by virtue of 'shortcuts' through spacetime. Even in alcubierre drive, the body inside a warp bubble is not locally outracing light, and its relative velocity to some outside observer remains less than c (essentially because every possible parallel transport path crosses the bubble), but compared to light following an a altogether different path to some common ending world line, the drive gets there first. Ultimately this is all because in GR there can be multiple lightlike geodesics from a starting event to a given world line (destination). In normal cases (e.g. gravitational lensing), this provides no apparent shortcuts, but in exotic cases, it does.
 

bob012345

Gold Member
308
33
It is important to distinguish a separation speed in some coordinates from a relative velocity. Even in SR, there is no upper bound on separation speed (e.g. if you set up cosmological type coordinates in special relativity you get a separation speed = recession rate in these coordinates that can be any multiple of c at all). The same is true of separation speeds = recession rate in GR.

Meanwhile, relative velocity is the comparison of one object speed to the the other, as if either was at rest. As I'm sure you know, this is always less than c in SR, e.g. the relative velocity corresponding to two objects moving .9c apart in some frame is about .994c. This operation is unambiguous in SR because parallel transport of vectors is path independent, so you can unambiguously bring vectors together and compare them (the vectors being 4-velocities). In GR, parallel transport of vectors is path dependent, but no matter what path you use, you still have a relative velocity of less than c - you just can't pick which one.

The more interesting notion of FTL is beating a light signal. Cosmology provides no example of a body outracing a light ray from some start event to some destination world line.

Wormoles and albubierre drive do provide and example of winning such a race by virtue of 'shortcuts' through spacetime. Even in alcubierre drive, the body inside a warp bubble is not locally outracing light, and its relative velocity to some outside observer remains less than c (essentially because every possible parallel transport path crosses the bubble), but compared to light following an a altogether different path to some common ending world line, the drive gets there first. Ultimately this is all because in GR there can be multiple lightlike geodesics from a starting event to a given world line (destination). In normal cases (e.g. gravitational lensing), this provides no apparent shortcuts, but in exotic cases, it does.
Thanks for expanding your earlier answers. I wasn't aware of the GR perspective of separation speeds. BTW, I've always wondered, if an Alcubierre warp bubble carrying a ship crosses paths with a material object, I assume it's going to be a real bad day for those inside the ship? In other words, the bubble doesn't push objects out of the way does it?
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
Thanks for expanding your earlier answers. I wasn't aware of the GR perspective of separation speeds. BTW, I've always wondered, if an Alcubierre warp bubble carrying a ship crosses paths with a material object, I assume it's going to be a real bad day for those inside the ship? In other words, the bubble doesn't push objects out of the way does it?
Actually, a real bad day for both. Stopping a warp bubble near a planet would vaporize the planet.


From the conclusion:

"any people at the destination would be gamma ray and high energy particle blasted into oblivion"
 
The OP seems to be looking to see if the theory itself might be wrong. A missing piece in its development.
Didn't think I was questioning the theory (I don't have the basic mastery to do that)

Apologise if I gave that impression
 

PAllen

Science Advisor
7,642
1,012
There is, sometimes, a small distinction that needs to be made, that involves the actual

meaning of the term. . . speed of light. . :smile:


One-way speed of light - Wikipedia
.
True, but there are so many reasons to expect isotropy of physical laws, it is in practice, absurd to consider anisotropy of the speed of light. Allowing it while matching all experiment is indeed possible, but almost every equation in physics then becomes more complex. In modern symmetry focused physics, isotropy is taken as an assumption. This would be questioned only if it led to complexity rather than simplification.
 

A.T.

Science Advisor
9,452
1,423

Want to reply to this thread?

"Is the case for a Universal Speed Limit experimental or theoretical?" You must log in or register to reply here.

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top