Maximum speed?

  • #1
4
3

Summary:

The maximum speed in therory
Hello!
My kid asks if this is theoretical idea is correct and I just don't know this stuff very well:
It is impossible to travel at light speed but not impossible to travel just below. So the highest theoretical speed should be:
"The distance light has traveled in one second" minus "One Planck length"

I ask: How about "The distance light has traveled in on hour" minus "One Planck length", isn't that closer to the speed of light?

He didn't like that because he think that a Planck length is the smallest thing and cannot be divided. How should we think about this?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
ZapperZ
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
Insights Author
35,847
4,663
Or how about the distance light travelled in one year minus a planck length? Or the distance light travelled over 13.8 billion years minus a Planck length, etc ad nauseum...

What exactly is the point in all this?

Zz.
 
  • #3
13,457
10,516
The highest possible speed is the speed of light in a vacuum (c). However, this is only achievable for particles without mass. For everything that has a mass, c can theoretically be approached as close as one has energy to accelerate the mass. But that gets soon in ranges where the total energy of the universe isn't sufficient anymore. So there is a practical limit below c, depending on the mass. The difference between any actual speed and c has nothing to do with the Planck length. The value is c, regardless whether measured in km/h, mph, lightseconds/second, lighthours/hour or whatever. This difference is a difference of speeds, hence measured in the same units. If it is close to c, then it is something like 0.999999999999999991c and the difference will be 1c-0.999999999999999991c=0.000000000000000009c and thus has the same unit as c has. There is no Planck length ansywhere.
 
  • #4
etotheipi
Gold Member
2019 Award
2,540
1,474
speed should be:
"The distance light has traveled in one second" minus "One Planck length"
Presumably also divided by one second :wink:
 
  • Like
Likes berkeman
  • #5
4
3
I asked him again what he meant. He says that speed cannot change less than one Planck-length per second.
I think this is the question I should have asked to begin with.
 
  • #6
13,457
10,516
This doesn't make sense. Second is an arbitrary unit. Why should it have any physical relevance? If you say Planck-length per Planck-time you end up exactly with c.
 
  • #7
4
3
Ok, I'll try this: Can something travel less than one Planck length.
 
  • #8
PeroK
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
14,351
6,724
I asked him again what he meant. He says that speed cannot change less than one Planck-length per second.
I think this is the question I should have asked to begin with.
The Planck length and Planck time are irrelevant. It's a common misconception that you have picked up that they have some significance in this respect. Time and space are not quantised like that.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters and etotheipi
  • #10
4
3
The Planck length and Planck time are irrelevant. It's a common misconception that you have picked up that they have some significance in this respect. Time and space are not quantised like that.
I'll use this answer and tell him that Planck length may be a smallest unit, but distances aren't a fixed number of Planck units and speeds can change less than one Planck length per second.

Thanks for helping me out, you guys are great!
 
  • Like
Likes etotheipi and PeroK
  • #11
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,132
8,243
I'll use this answer and tell him that Planck length may be a smallest unit
It may. Or the smallest length could be something else. Or there may be no smallest length.
 
  • Like
Likes DennisN
  • #12
berkeman
Mentor
57,957
8,034
Summary:: The maximum speed in therory

It is impossible to travel at light speed but not impossible to travel just below. So the highest theoretical speed should be:
It might be helpful for your child to understand the energies required to accelerate an object to near light speed. That might help to end the "how super close" type questions. Calculate the energy it takes to accelerate even a small particle close to light speed, and you start to get an appreciation for how hard it is. Even for "theoretical" questions, you cannot exceed reasonable amounts of energy input.
 
  • #14
russ_watters
Mentor
19,783
6,190
I'll use this answer and tell him that Planck length may be a smallest unit, but distances aren't a fixed number of Planck units and speeds can change less than one Planck length per second.

Thanks for helping me out, you guys are great!
It may. Or the smallest length could be something else. Or there may be no smallest length.
Well, it's even worse: due to time dilation and length contraction the chosen units/intervals won't necessarily be consistent with each other for different observers, or the same observer at different points in a trip.
 
  • #15
Vanadium 50
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Education Advisor
2019 Award
25,132
8,243
due to time dilation and length contraction
This is sort of fixable, but of course there is always cost. For now I would say it's an idea that lacks both experimental evidence and theoretical motivation.
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters

Related Threads on Maximum speed?

  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Top