Layman question about distance and speed of light

AI Thread Summary
Light travels at a constant speed of approximately 3x10^8 m/s, meaning that if an observer is 30 million meters away, they would see the light from that location as it was 10 seconds ago. This principle applies universally, so an observer on a planet 70 light years away would indeed see Earth as it was 70 years ago, such as during WWII. The finite speed of light preserves causality, preventing paradoxes where events could influence their own history. This concept is similar to how we perceive sound, where there is a delay between seeing an event and hearing it. Ultimately, we are always observing celestial bodies as they were in the past, not as they are in the present.
Gaddasconi
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello, this has been bugging me for a bit, so some clarification would be greatly appreciated. Say I'm located on a planet 30x10^8 m away. And assuming light to be 3x10^8 m/s for easy calculation, it would take light 10s to travel to Earth, where you'd be able to see me, as I was 10 seconds ago, via an incredible telescope. Is this true (regardless of redshift, which I'm still struggling to comprehend)?

I apologize if this question has been asked before, but most of the questions raised are if light always travels at a constant speed, or if anything can travel faster than light. I'm not asking that, just wondering if my feeble theory holds, imagine a planet located 70 light years away with their own Hubble telescope. Would they be seeing us as we were 70 years ago, engaged in WWII? This is truly mind boggling!
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
to answer you simply, yes. yes to the first paragraph, and yes they would see us as we were 70 years ago. its mind boggling but true.
 
It is a necessary condition to preserve causality. Without a 'speed limit' on conveyance of 'information' everything in the universe would happen at the same time. If you deeply consider this, it would result in logical paradoxes. Everything would influence its own history. In statistics, this is called a bootstrap paradox.
 
Why is it so mind-boggling? Think of the finite speed of sound. When you hear a crash of thunder, you are not hearing the lightning bolt happening 'now', you are hearing it a few seconds after it happened. When you are at a baseball stadium sitting a long way from home plate, you hear the crack of the bat a fraction of a second after the bat hits the ball. This is really no different. In the above scenarios, since light travels so much faster than sound, you can see what is happening more or less immediately, so you get information from the light that arrives much sooner than the information that arrives with the sound. But if you close your eyes, then you have a situation like astronomy.
 
Yes, like when a bullet hits you and then you hear the gunshot. That was poignantly shown in the film Quigley Down Under where the protagonist kept picking his enemies off with his long-range rifle and they heard the report only after getting hit. That is to say they experienced the sound moments after it had already happened just like we visually experience the light approx four years after it has been emitted from the Alpha Centauri system and visually experience sunlight approx eight minutes after it is emitted from the sun toward earth. Light from the moon takes about 2.556 seconds. to reach us. So we are seeing these celestial bodies not as they are now but as they were.
 
Last edited:
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
Thread 'Could gamma-ray bursts have an intragalactic origin?'
This is indirectly evidenced by a map of the distribution of gamma-ray bursts in the night sky, made in the form of an elongated globe. And also the weakening of gamma radiation by the disk and the center of the Milky Way, which leads to anisotropy in the possibilities of observing gamma-ray bursts. My line of reasoning is as follows: 1. Gamma radiation should be absorbed to some extent by dust and other components of the interstellar medium. As a result, with an extragalactic origin, fewer...
Both have short pulses of emission and a wide spectral bandwidth, covering a wide variety of frequencies: "Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) are detected over a wide range of radio frequencies, including frequencies around 1400 MHz, but have also been detected at lower frequencies, particularly in the 400–800 MHz range. Russian astronomers recently detected a powerful burst at 111 MHz, expanding our understanding of the FRB range. Frequency Ranges: 1400 MHz: Many of the known FRBs have been detected...
Back
Top