Why Are We Living In A Prison Of Light ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Mithal
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Light
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the speed of light as a limit for motion and perception, exploring whether there could be phenomena or objects that exceed this speed. Participants engage with ideas from relativity, superstring theory, and the nature of sound and light, examining implications for our understanding of speed and visibility.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that our inability to perceive speeds greater than light may be analogous to our limited perception of dimensions in superstring theory.
  • Others argue that the speed limit imposed by relativity is a fundamental conclusion of physics, supported by extensive experimental evidence.
  • There is a discussion about whether traveling faster than light would prevent us from seeing an object, with some suggesting that it would not be analogous to sound, which requires a medium.
  • One participant speculates that if a source were moving toward an observer faster than light, the observer would not see it in time, raising questions about the nature of perception and speed.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that light's role as a measure limits our ability to prove anything moving faster than it, as we rely on light to gauge existence and change.
  • Some participants challenge the idea that speed can only be measured while an object is in motion, proposing that knowing an object's location at two points can allow for speed calculation, even if the object moves faster than light.
  • There is a contention regarding the implications of measuring time and velocity, with some arguing that knowing velocity is necessary to determine time, while others suggest that distance and time can be used to infer speed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the implications of traveling faster than light, the nature of sound and light, and the limitations of measurement. The discussion remains unresolved with no consensus on the various claims presented.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of speed and measurement, as well as the unresolved nature of the implications of faster-than-light travel on perception and existence.

Mithal
Messages
28
Reaction score
0
Relativity has set an upper limit for all speeds , the speed of light . But the problem we can not perceive any thing going greater than the speed of light , that's our vision limit neither can we experiment with . If superstring theory predicts a universe with ten dimensions and we are only experiencing four including time . Can't the same apply for speed ? . That's we cannot go beyond our senses capability . Could'nt there be things going faster than the speed of light that we cannot see ?.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The speed limitation is not like the dimension question. String physicists found they needed the extra dimensions and since we don't see any, they had to hide them, which they did by curling them up tinier than fundamental particles. But the relativity speed limit arises out of basic physics; it is a conclusion not a finesse.

Nobody can say what the physics of the far future may be like, but relativity and its speed limit have passed an enormous number of physical tests; they are the basis of all the atom smashers, and those machines wouldn't work if the facts of relativity weren't what they are.
 
Also, traveling faster than the speed of light would not preclude us from seeing an object any more than traveling faster than the speed of sound precludes us from hearing it.
 
russ_watters said:
Also, traveling faster than the speed of light would not preclude us from seeing an object any more than traveling faster than the speed of sound precludes us from hearing it.

How can you hear a sound you are moving faster than ; it would'nt catch up with you ? .
 
russ_watters said:
Also, traveling faster than the speed of light would not preclude us from seeing an object any more than traveling faster than the speed of sound precludes us from hearing it.

How can you hear a sound you are moving faster than ?, it would'nt catch up with you.
 
What if you go towards the sounds source? You'll hear it...
 
Pengwuino said:
What if you go towards the sounds source? You'll hear it...

I am not sure about that . But in the case if a source is traveling toward you with a speed exceeding the speed of light .By the time you see it , it would have gone .
 
Mithal said:
I am not sure about that . But in the case if a source is traveling toward you with a speed exceeding the speed of light .By the time you see it , it would have gone .

Ever heard a sonic boom?
 
Pengwuino said:
Ever heard a sonic boom?

I think with sound the story is different , you will hear sound at the speed of sound whether the source is moving away from you or toward you at any whatever speed the source is moving .

but in the case of seeing a source moving at speed greater than the speed of light , you have two cases :

1- if the source moving away from you , you wouldn't able to see it because it is moving faster than your ability to see it .

2- if the source moving toward you, you wouldn't able to see it either because by the time you see it , it would have gone .
 
  • #10
russ_watters said:
Also, traveling faster than the speed of light would not preclude us from seeing an object any more than traveling faster than the speed of sound precludes us from hearing it.

SOUND NEEDS MEDIUM TO TRAVEL IN , LIGHT DOES'NT .SO YOUR ARGUMENT WOULDN'T WORK FOR LIGHT
 
  • #11
from what i hear about the speed of light, you can't travil faster than it because of time, the faster you go the slower time becomes, and time reachs stoping point at the speed of light, go faster than speed of light, and you go back in time as it was, but strange things could happen like feed back in space. let's say light was just feed back in space if you reached the speed of light, you would just turn into light! but that's just my thiory. could light be feedback in space?
 
  • #12
But what is time? Time is just a measure. Light is in all matter so i guess "faster" than light doesn't have any physical meaning.
 
  • #13
Well, I think something could travel faster than light, but the only way to know that it was at a given location is with the use of light.

So, if particle A traveled to place B at faster than the speed of light, we would only know it got to place B once light reached that point, right?

And since we only justify something's existence or 'truth' once it is proved, things are limited to how fast light moves, because light is the basis for proving a change?

I know I'm not using very good physics terminology, but the logic is there I think.

We say things can not move faster than light because to know it moved faster than light we'd have to use light to gauge or prove it, and light has its limitations, and a measurement cannot exceed its limitations. There is only one PROVEABLE maximum speed, and that is light, anything else can't be proved to have realistically moved faster, right?
 
  • #14
Not necessarily true. Velocity is distance/time so if you know an objects location at any 2 points and the time that it took to go between them then you may not be able to measure the object while it's moving but you can determine what it's speed was. By knowing the objects location (in relation to the observer) you can figure in any lag time needed for the light to reach you.
 
  • #15
dontbelievthebull said:
Not necessarily true. Velocity is distance/time so if you know an objects location at any 2 points and the time that it took to go between them then you may not be able to measure the object while it's moving but you can determine what it's speed was. By knowing the objects location (in relation to the observer) you can figure in any lag time needed for the light to reach you.

How can you know the time without knowing the velocity first, because there's no way to measure the time it took to get to the second location if it moves faster than light.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Let's say you see an object in the sky and note the time. Sometime later the same object appears at a different position and you note that time as well. Assuming that you know the distance between the two points and from yourself it's simple math to figure out how fast it had to travel to cover that distance in the given amount of time.
If the object truly traveled FTL then it would show up in the second location first though.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 120 ·
5
Replies
120
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 130 ·
5
Replies
130
Views
16K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K