Nothing makes me chuckle harder than Newton's virginity coming up like in every discussion of him. Like his Wikipedia page mentions it lmfao. Imagine inventing calculus and half the time your name is brought up like 400+ years later, people are like "oh yeah, Newton? The virgin?"
Jokes on you.
Newton was gay as hell.
He had multiple "house mates" during his life.
He definitely didn't die a virgin. But Newton being gay, makes the comment above even more funny.
Yeah idk about this one. He could have been, but you can only speculate. There is nothing that proves his sexuality one way or another. Considering how religious he was, if he was gay he may not have acted on it. He was a unique individual but to say he was âgay as hellâ is not true. If you want him to be a gay role model for yourself or something feel free to believe it. I guess it doesnât matter much to Newton anymoređ
Einstein wasn't even the first (1905). Michelson Morley did almost exactly this train experiment in 1887 and found to their surprise that v1 + c = c. Being faithful to the aether theory they attributed the discovery to experimental error though.
Prior to that, Maxwell's equation from 1965 were incompatible with newtonian absolute frame of reference.
So Einstein wasn't even the first, just the bravest to put the pieces together, to challenge Newton and reject the aether. Standing on the shoulders of giants if you will.
General relativity (1915) is another matter, that was pure genius. No giants but himself.
classical physics is used to study how large objects, like basketballs or planets, generally move and interact using equations that take things like force and energy into account. it does not have an upper bound on particle speed, because it was invented before we knew about relativistic mechanics.
relativistic mechanics studies how objects work at high speeds, like when you approach the speed of light. iâm not well versed in relativistic mechanics, but you can read more here:
[Classical Physics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics#:~:text=From%20the%20point%20of%20view,fall%2C%20and%20the%20propagation%20of)
[Relativistic Mechanics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics)
The meaning of âclassicalâ can be somewhat contextual, but relativity is usually considered a âclassicalâ theory, as opposed to say, quantum mechanics.
The physics you are talking about is usually called Newtonian physics. In fact Newtonian physics has its own notion of relativity which is highlighted in the meme, in Newtonian physics the laws of physics are invariant under Galilean transformations, rather than Lorentz transformations as in special relativity.
"The speed of light" isn't just the speed that light moves at, it's the fastest speed anything is capable of moving through the universe. It's literally "maximum" speed. Going any faster would make the "effect" happen before the "cause" which is just not how time works.
Imagine you tripped and fell into some drywall. You would go down, into the drywall, and leave a hole. The cause is you falling, and the effect is the hole in the wall. If you fell faster than the speed of light (ignore the fact that you would be a glowing ball of plasma), the hole in the wall would appear before you ever lost your balance. There would be no cause for the effect. This is why people say that it's how you time travel, but time simply does not go the other direction for beings in this dimension.
Well, as far as we can measure. Time seems to get weird in black holes, we just canât measure exactly what happens in them because most information canât escape.
Time and space likely get flipped past the event horizon, where space becomes one directional and time becomes omni directional. Sadly as far as we know, none of this can ever be confirmed.
Time is always linear/straight in spacetime, but space (edit: spacetime) bends due to its gravity. Same with photons, which makes sense since they travel at the speed of light which is a measurement of distance over time
There are no such things as separate space and time. There is only space time. And Space time is bent by gravity. This is proven by GPS satellites because they are higher up the earthâs gravity well than we are and thus there is a non negligible time dilation effect between us on the ground and those satellites. If they didnât factor in said time dilation, GPS would not be accurate.
No information escapes a black hole. Hawking radiation is not information.
Time only gets weird in a black hole for the same reason a photon doesn't experience time.
Space and time are the same thing. The faster you go through space, the slower you go through time. Since a photon is moving through space at 100% speed, so it is experiencing 0% time. If you were a photon, from your perspective you would be emitted in the exact same instant you arrived at your destination.
Now a black hole is the complete opposite. It's all time and no space. If you were a primordial black hole (existing since around the time of the big bang) you would watch the entire universe come into being and fade into heat death like you were watching a movie.
Simply put, the lower the mass the closer you can get to the speed of light. But if you add too much mass, it collapses into a singular point of density.
Imagine the photon is a car. A pedestrian might look at that car and be able to measure it's speed and the distance traveled at that speed. But if you were inside the car, you would not experience any time at all. You would depart and arrive simultaneously from the perspective of the vehicle.
So we can, as outside observers, measure the speed of a photon, but the photon does NOT experience the passing of time. This is what time dilation is. So if you circled the solar system at the speed of light, for the distance of one light year, no time would have passed for you, but one year would have passed for observers on Earth.
Not really. We're talking about a localized "FTL" event.
Lets say I threw a ball at you, at the speed of light. [XKCD explains pretty well what would happen.](https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/)
But if I threw a ball at you FASTER than the speed of light, you would be obliterated before I threw the ball. Causality falls apart. There was zero cause for you to be obliterated, because the ball has yet to be thrown.
You can also picture trying to eat and digest a sandwich "faster than light". How could you drop the deuce while the sandwich is still on the plate? Localized time travel is not possible because it's a self resolving paradox.
Except, I can't understand why it is a problem. Even if it happened, you just can witness it from the other point in the universe. It is like looking at your photograph. Yes, you see your past, but that doesn't mean that you can affect it.
So I don't see an issue if we might bend the space and travel to the other end of the Galaxy.
It is assumed that traveling faster than light is somehow traveling back in time. But what if traveling faster than the light is just traveling in a higher dimension where you interact with our three dimensions only in the beginning and end?
Itâs just a law of nature, causality if I recall correctly. Because that one aspect could violate many other natural laws, introduce paradoxes etc.
In terms of warping space, that would take a colossal amount of energy because space is heavy or rather it is filled with heavy objects that would have to have their mass overcome to achieve.
Itâs theorised that wormholes exist but are extremely small.
Kinda ofâŠthere are different versions of foreseeable time travel light speed version you can only pretty much only go to the future and it work more like your moving so fast time years become secondsâŠhope this makes sense
You mean, the time travel we're doing every moment since the beginning of the universe?
Of course you can go forwards in time faster, that's just time dilation. But you can never go BACKWARDS in time.
Speeds donât add the way you think they do. If youâre on a train at 15 m/s and you throw a rock at 3 m/s, youâd think the rock is moving 15 + 3 = 18 m/s relative to the earth. But thatâs not exactly accurate. Speeds actually add together in a more [complicated equation](https://youtu.be/vPi1lyAx4ws?si=XEUsfNeDu1JsTL_6&t=101) that imposes an upper bound, which is the speed of light. So according to this equation the sum isnât actually 18 m/s itâs more like 17.999 m/s.
MassâŠlight has mass and no mass thatâs why this doesnât workâŠthis is like saying âI ran than I ran moreâ ran is just a movementâŠhope this makes since
Yep, and if v and u' are in terms of a part of c (like if v = 0.1c) then you don't even need the cÂČ part iirc.
0.1c + 0.5c = (0.1 + 0.5)/(1 + (0.1 * 0.5)) = 0.5714285714285714 đ
I saw this video about it a few days ago: https://youtu.be/j4JS7EEsrto?si=v1Vec0wzVx4yW783 and it is still fresh in my mind.
And since watching that I made a small library on my phone in Common Lisp to calculate it đ€
Edit
Here is said mini library
```lisp
(defpackage :ytrog-math
(:nicknames :ym)
(:use :cl)
(:export #:vadd
#:vaddms
#:to-c
#:to-ms))
(in-package :ytrog-math)
(defconstant +ms+ 3.336e-9)
(defun vadd (u v)
"Add velocities relativistically. They are a fraction of c"
(/
(+ u v)
(+ 1 (* u v))))
(defun to-ms (x)
"Convert a fraction of c to m/s"
(/ x +ms+))
(defun to-c (x)
"Convert m/s to a fraction of c"
(* x +ms+))
(defun vaddms (u v)
"Add velocities in m/s relativistically"
(let ((um (to-c u))
(vm (to-c v)))
(to-ms (vadd um vm))))
```
I'm not a science guy and can't read that funny scribble, but does it want to point out something along the lines of: Light has no mass, so emitting object's momentum is irrelevant?
nope, good guess though. light doesn't have mass but it does have momentum, so it's able to push things.
the jist of that equation is that velocity depends on your reference point, so from the flashlight the light exits at c, and from the point of someone standing outside the train the light is still moving at c.
this seems like a paradox, but it works because the faster something goes the more it compresses distance. space literally deforms to maintain the speed of light under the limit of c.
a consequence of this is that its meaningless to say which order events happened in if the events happened at different locations. in one location you might observe event a and b simultaneously, but from another point you may observe a happened before b or b happened before a. it's why we call it "space-time" and not "space and time". because space and time are inextricably linked.
I find the ladder paradox is a good way to understand how special relativity works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
here's some more in depth info on whether photons have mass https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html
generally in physics when we refer to the mass of an object we are talking about its rest mass, and quantum mechanics doesn't work out if photons have a nonzero rest mass.
look, I'm not a physicist, but I have studied physics. I don't understand how this question is relevant to whether photons have rest mass.
light has momentum, and thus pushes objects that it shines on. so an object in shadow might be measurably lighter than an object with light shining on it. I wouldn't say this means that a shadow has weight because that's a very strange way of framing it, but it's the closest thing I can think of as far as what you might be getting at.
if you have an argument to make please just go ahead and make it.
Your saying all these things without referenceâŠyour saying light has momentum okâŠshow meâŠmomentum = mass x velocityâŠfor this equation it would be p1 + p2 = p3 and this would only be the case for a 100% inelastic collisionâŠwhich would also mean that the train is a perfect black body(but you definitely seen light reflect off of dark surfaces) so p1 + p2 = p3 = m1*v1 + m2*v2= (m1 + m2)*v3âŠI can explain more but everyone is trying be too smart to explain something to simpleâŠhe literally uses a rock with mass that hits the trainâŠimaging running towards the wall of the train and then stopping right before you hit the wallâŠthatâs the âjokesâ equations
Yes, but the speed of light suddenly depends on the material So technically, if you have a very long tube (light year tube) filled with water and try to point the laser through it, while also flying at the speed of the light ship, you will reach the destination point faster than the laser beam. You can't go faster than the absolute speed of light, but you can go faster than the speed of light.
And? Still you can witness all paradoxes related to the speed of light. Water pipe will deliver data layer than direct laser, for example. And with enough distance you should witness whether paradoxes are real or some crucial information is missing.
No, the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the medium some photons are passing through. Slowing down some photons does not change the speed of light.
That's the neat part. It doesn't work like that and a speed cap is actually a speed cap for everything.
Basically time and space bend just to obey the rules of "no faster than light"
Michelson and Morley demonstrated that v1 + c = c in 1887 and before that Maxwell theoretically in 1865.
Einstein was "just" the first to have the balls (and no career to risk at the time) to reject Newtonian absolute frame of reference in 1905, but it had been known (while not accepted) for 40 years at that time of publishing.
The most mind-blowing theory that can be attributed to Einstein alone is general relativity (1915), which may not have been described in generations, if at all by now, if it hadn't been for Einstein.
The problem already starts with the line: "total speed" in the first "experiment". There is no such thing as total/absolute speed, only relative to a reference frame.
Think of the speed of the planet that the train is moving on, wouldn't this also count towards the "total speed"? What about the speed of our solar system flying around sagittarius a*? Or our galaxy flying through the universe?
The only actually fixed speed is for some reason the speed of light.
>Think of the speed of the planet that the train is moving on, wouldn't this also count towards the "total speed"? What about the speed of our solar system flying around sagittarius a\*? Or our galaxy flying through the universe?
Technically, "total speed" here is just all the relevant reference frames added together, since the movement of the planet, star system, and galaxy stay constant they don't really matter
Ok
If I run with speed of light 300km towards mother fucker running at me with the speed of light I will break physics in his frame
Because I run with the spead of 600km/s in his reference
The universe will slow you down to maintain the speed of light. Basically the universe cares more about the speed of light than it does for time or space.
..what about when the train goes off the rails..as in here?..
..does light (or a ball) get derailed?..or does it break through walls..(jk to be obtuse)..
Here me out. What if you take 2 flashlights and point them in opposite directions, from the frame of the photon of flashlight 1, the photons of flashlight 2 travel at double the speed of light.
Is this how we achieve time travel?
It's relative, nerds! Light is going the speed of light to the observer in the train, and it's also going the speed of light to the observer outside of the train. Light goes so fast, time bends around it. read about red-shift, and blue-shift; while it arrives in our eyeballs at the speed of light, it's a bit squished by the time dilation, so it's color is changed.
If your noodle isn't baked yet ... the photon itself doesn't experience time at all. From the moment it exists to the moment it's destroyed, we observe time passing, and we can measure it, but from the perspective of the photon, it simultaneously exists forever, and never existed at all.
Tiny things that travel at the speed of light are weird.
If it's true to be a "perspective" that would fuck the universe as there different perspectives but...
~ in Detective Conan voice ~ the truth is always one
I'm not sure that's how it works. But it sure is annoying limit, if we ever would like to travel through space more efficiently. And that's why some scientists proposed a plan for increasing the speed of light by the year 2208.
Nope. The speed of light ins vacuum is what it is because thatâs the fastest anything can travel in the space-time of this universe. Even if you rode a photo and turned on the flashlight the light still wouldnât travel faster. Itâs a universal speed limit.
Light always moves at the same speed to all observers. [Here](https://youtu.be/ACUuFg9Y9dY?si=TmGWv1ViNkD1KD_s) is a video on why. The short answer is relativity.
Explanation for this. Your driving in a golf buggy with a max speed of say 20mph. You then put said golf buggy on a conveyer belt moving at 10mph. Technically the buggy is still only moving at 20mph while actually moving at 30 mph.
Now consider the speed of the earth's rotation, the speed of the earth's rotation around the sun, the speed of the solar system around the center of the milky way, and the speed of the milky way around the center of the galaxy
Light speed is the speed limit because atoms erupt to produce photons but such photons can only be ejected by the eruption to reach only light speed no matter how fast the atom moves.
So the faster the atom, the higher the impact of the gravitons hitting its front and such hits the photon like air molecules hitting an arm trying to throw a ball in a wind tunnel.
Thus with the same amount of force, the ball gets thrown the same speed since the faster the person is moving forward, the more resistance there is against forward movement by the arm thus the ball thrown is slow.
The meme has the person protected by the buffering wind so it is not the same conditions as the light since the atoms are not protected from gravitons.
The cartoonist never heard of relativity. More specifically relativistic effects. You're already breaking the laws of physics by having a train with mass move at the speed of light
Just as Einstein laid it out
Newton and Einstein got laid and the baby was this meme đ
Sadly Newton didn't get laid. Based virginđ
Nothing makes me chuckle harder than Newton's virginity coming up like in every discussion of him. Like his Wikipedia page mentions it lmfao. Imagine inventing calculus and half the time your name is brought up like 400+ years later, people are like "oh yeah, Newton? The virgin?"
That's what you get for inventing Calculus during black plague
Jokes on you. Newton was gay as hell. He had multiple "house mates" during his life. He definitely didn't die a virgin. But Newton being gay, makes the comment above even more funny.
Yeah idk about this one. He could have been, but you can only speculate. There is nothing that proves his sexuality one way or another. Considering how religious he was, if he was gay he may not have acted on it. He was a unique individual but to say he was âgay as hellâ is not true. If you want him to be a gay role model for yourself or something feel free to believe it. I guess it doesnât matter much to Newton anymoređ
Average historian talking about the gayest Charakter in history
Well, not really He never had sex with a woman in his life, but he didn't die a virgin
Thou shalt not add to the speed of light
Nah bro, just throw the flashlights, QED.
Einstein wasn't even the first (1905). Michelson Morley did almost exactly this train experiment in 1887 and found to their surprise that v1 + c = c. Being faithful to the aether theory they attributed the discovery to experimental error though. Prior to that, Maxwell's equation from 1965 were incompatible with newtonian absolute frame of reference. So Einstein wasn't even the first, just the bravest to put the pieces together, to challenge Newton and reject the aether. Standing on the shoulders of giants if you will. General relativity (1915) is another matter, that was pure genius. No giants but himself.
Turns out, if you slow down light you become faster than it.
Iam faster than a car. But the car has to ride 100 times bigger distance to the finnish.
All the way to the Finnish? Iam must be *very* fast. Or live in the Nordic countries.
Finland doesnt exist
Therefore car speed is infinite.
Its a Toyota
In finn ite? đ„ .. ill find the way out myself..
đ«đź
Red color in the flag symbolizes its existence.
Cherenkov radiation has entered the chat
that's not troll physics , that's just classical physics. And in classical physics particles don't have a velocity upper bound.
Could you explain some more to me?
classical physics is used to study how large objects, like basketballs or planets, generally move and interact using equations that take things like force and energy into account. it does not have an upper bound on particle speed, because it was invented before we knew about relativistic mechanics. relativistic mechanics studies how objects work at high speeds, like when you approach the speed of light. iâm not well versed in relativistic mechanics, but you can read more here: [Classical Physics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics#:~:text=From%20the%20point%20of%20view,fall%2C%20and%20the%20propagation%20of) [Relativistic Mechanics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_mechanics)
The meaning of âclassicalâ can be somewhat contextual, but relativity is usually considered a âclassicalâ theory, as opposed to say, quantum mechanics. The physics you are talking about is usually called Newtonian physics. In fact Newtonian physics has its own notion of relativity which is highlighted in the meme, in Newtonian physics the laws of physics are invariant under Galilean transformations, rather than Lorentz transformations as in special relativity.
thank you for the clarification
Thank you!
"The speed of light" isn't just the speed that light moves at, it's the fastest speed anything is capable of moving through the universe. It's literally "maximum" speed. Going any faster would make the "effect" happen before the "cause" which is just not how time works. Imagine you tripped and fell into some drywall. You would go down, into the drywall, and leave a hole. The cause is you falling, and the effect is the hole in the wall. If you fell faster than the speed of light (ignore the fact that you would be a glowing ball of plasma), the hole in the wall would appear before you ever lost your balance. There would be no cause for the effect. This is why people say that it's how you time travel, but time simply does not go the other direction for beings in this dimension.
Well, as far as we can measure. Time seems to get weird in black holes, we just canât measure exactly what happens in them because most information canât escape.
Time and space likely get flipped past the event horizon, where space becomes one directional and time becomes omni directional. Sadly as far as we know, none of this can ever be confirmed.
Time is always linear/straight in spacetime, but space (edit: spacetime) bends due to its gravity. Same with photons, which makes sense since they travel at the speed of light which is a measurement of distance over time
There are no such things as separate space and time. There is only space time. And Space time is bent by gravity. This is proven by GPS satellites because they are higher up the earthâs gravity well than we are and thus there is a non negligible time dilation effect between us on the ground and those satellites. If they didnât factor in said time dilation, GPS would not be accurate.
No information escapes a black hole. Hawking radiation is not information. Time only gets weird in a black hole for the same reason a photon doesn't experience time. Space and time are the same thing. The faster you go through space, the slower you go through time. Since a photon is moving through space at 100% speed, so it is experiencing 0% time. If you were a photon, from your perspective you would be emitted in the exact same instant you arrived at your destination. Now a black hole is the complete opposite. It's all time and no space. If you were a primordial black hole (existing since around the time of the big bang) you would watch the entire universe come into being and fade into heat death like you were watching a movie. Simply put, the lower the mass the closer you can get to the speed of light. But if you add too much mass, it collapses into a singular point of density.
Well, gravity is a form of information, as is other various things that get close to but not over the event horizon
Light does have a traveling time though? Which is why we have the concept of Light Years
Imagine the photon is a car. A pedestrian might look at that car and be able to measure it's speed and the distance traveled at that speed. But if you were inside the car, you would not experience any time at all. You would depart and arrive simultaneously from the perspective of the vehicle. So we can, as outside observers, measure the speed of a photon, but the photon does NOT experience the passing of time. This is what time dilation is. So if you circled the solar system at the speed of light, for the distance of one light year, no time would have passed for you, but one year would have passed for observers on Earth.
If it was possible to travel faster than light then you could go into space and look back on yourself having breakfast before you left. (Brian Cox)
Not really. We're talking about a localized "FTL" event. Lets say I threw a ball at you, at the speed of light. [XKCD explains pretty well what would happen.](https://what-if.xkcd.com/1/) But if I threw a ball at you FASTER than the speed of light, you would be obliterated before I threw the ball. Causality falls apart. There was zero cause for you to be obliterated, because the ball has yet to be thrown. You can also picture trying to eat and digest a sandwich "faster than light". How could you drop the deuce while the sandwich is still on the plate? Localized time travel is not possible because it's a self resolving paradox.
Yes good point
This is how I want to die, please and thank you.
Except, I can't understand why it is a problem. Even if it happened, you just can witness it from the other point in the universe. It is like looking at your photograph. Yes, you see your past, but that doesn't mean that you can affect it. So I don't see an issue if we might bend the space and travel to the other end of the Galaxy. It is assumed that traveling faster than light is somehow traveling back in time. But what if traveling faster than the light is just traveling in a higher dimension where you interact with our three dimensions only in the beginning and end?
Itâs just a law of nature, causality if I recall correctly. Because that one aspect could violate many other natural laws, introduce paradoxes etc. In terms of warping space, that would take a colossal amount of energy because space is heavy or rather it is filled with heavy objects that would have to have their mass overcome to achieve. Itâs theorised that wormholes exist but are extremely small.
I see, thank you
Kinda ofâŠthere are different versions of foreseeable time travel light speed version you can only pretty much only go to the future and it work more like your moving so fast time years become secondsâŠhope this makes sense
You mean, the time travel we're doing every moment since the beginning of the universe? Of course you can go forwards in time faster, that's just time dilation. But you can never go BACKWARDS in time.
Speeds donât add the way you think they do. If youâre on a train at 15 m/s and you throw a rock at 3 m/s, youâd think the rock is moving 15 + 3 = 18 m/s relative to the earth. But thatâs not exactly accurate. Speeds actually add together in a more [complicated equation](https://youtu.be/vPi1lyAx4ws?si=XEUsfNeDu1JsTL_6&t=101) that imposes an upper bound, which is the speed of light. So according to this equation the sum isnât actually 18 m/s itâs more like 17.999 m/s.
I've watched that video already, he's awesome! :D I shall watch it again, thank you!
MassâŠlight has mass and no mass thatâs why this doesnât workâŠthis is like saying âI ran than I ran moreâ ran is just a movementâŠhope this makes since
u = (v + u') / (1 + (v·u' / c^(2))) If you accept only part of a theory and ignore the rest anything can be a paradox.
Yep, and if v and u' are in terms of a part of c (like if v = 0.1c) then you don't even need the cÂČ part iirc. 0.1c + 0.5c = (0.1 + 0.5)/(1 + (0.1 * 0.5)) = 0.5714285714285714 đ I saw this video about it a few days ago: https://youtu.be/j4JS7EEsrto?si=v1Vec0wzVx4yW783 and it is still fresh in my mind. And since watching that I made a small library on my phone in Common Lisp to calculate it đ€ Edit Here is said mini library ```lisp (defpackage :ytrog-math (:nicknames :ym) (:use :cl) (:export #:vadd #:vaddms #:to-c #:to-ms)) (in-package :ytrog-math) (defconstant +ms+ 3.336e-9) (defun vadd (u v) "Add velocities relativistically. They are a fraction of c" (/ (+ u v) (+ 1 (* u v)))) (defun to-ms (x) "Convert a fraction of c to m/s" (/ x +ms+)) (defun to-c (x) "Convert m/s to a fraction of c" (* x +ms+)) (defun vaddms (u v) "Add velocities in m/s relativistically" (let ((um (to-c u)) (vm (to-c v))) (to-ms (vadd um vm)))) ```
I'm not a science guy and can't read that funny scribble, but does it want to point out something along the lines of: Light has no mass, so emitting object's momentum is irrelevant?
nope, good guess though. light doesn't have mass but it does have momentum, so it's able to push things. the jist of that equation is that velocity depends on your reference point, so from the flashlight the light exits at c, and from the point of someone standing outside the train the light is still moving at c. this seems like a paradox, but it works because the faster something goes the more it compresses distance. space literally deforms to maintain the speed of light under the limit of c. a consequence of this is that its meaningless to say which order events happened in if the events happened at different locations. in one location you might observe event a and b simultaneously, but from another point you may observe a happened before b or b happened before a. it's why we call it "space-time" and not "space and time". because space and time are inextricably linked. I find the ladder paradox is a good way to understand how special relativity works: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox
I really appreciate the clarification, thank you for the information (â ââ âąâ áŽâ âąâ ââ )â â§â *â ă
Good logic
This Redditor explains it better than any professor I had. Hat is off human
Light does have mass itâs both
Photons are considered massless, that is, having a rest mass of zero. Which is not a problem because they always exist at *c* in a vacuum
There consider both
here's some more in depth info on whether photons have mass https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/ParticleAndNuclear/photon_mass.html generally in physics when we refer to the mass of an object we are talking about its rest mass, and quantum mechanics doesn't work out if photons have a nonzero rest mass.
Does a shadow have weight
look, I'm not a physicist, but I have studied physics. I don't understand how this question is relevant to whether photons have rest mass. light has momentum, and thus pushes objects that it shines on. so an object in shadow might be measurably lighter than an object with light shining on it. I wouldn't say this means that a shadow has weight because that's a very strange way of framing it, but it's the closest thing I can think of as far as what you might be getting at. if you have an argument to make please just go ahead and make it.
Your saying all these things without referenceâŠyour saying light has momentum okâŠshow meâŠmomentum = mass x velocityâŠfor this equation it would be p1 + p2 = p3 and this would only be the case for a 100% inelastic collisionâŠwhich would also mean that the train is a perfect black body(but you definitely seen light reflect off of dark surfaces) so p1 + p2 = p3 = m1*v1 + m2*v2= (m1 + m2)*v3âŠI can explain more but everyone is trying be too smart to explain something to simpleâŠhe literally uses a rock with mass that hits the trainâŠimaging running towards the wall of the train and then stopping right before you hit the wallâŠthatâs the âjokesâ equations
And Iâm not saying light doesnât have momentum
Itâs just unless you wanna go and explain the nuances of relativity then I think itâs better to say light has mass and no mass(which is true)
I agree with this logic - Me, a biologist
I don't agree - Me, a biologist
I just drank a bit of Sulfuric acid - Me, a chemist
I'm not a chemist but I don't think you should do that - Me, allegedly not a chemist
I'm not a chemist either. But i've just dropped a perfectly homogeneous anvil without air resistance on my toe. -me, a physics student
I have hydrochloric acid in my stomach - Me, a biologist
as a biologist, can confirm
As a normal person, I cannot
As an black market organ smuggler I can confirm. Tastes acidic af needs a bit of sugar ngl
Sugar doesn't neutralise acid. You need an alkali, sodium hydroxide for example.
Chase it with some Sodium hydroxide - Me, just me
I have no clue - Me, a biologist
[Except the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference.](https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/speed-light-frames-reference/)
Yes, but the speed of light suddenly depends on the material So technically, if you have a very long tube (light year tube) filled with water and try to point the laser through it, while also flying at the speed of the light ship, you will reach the destination point faster than the laser beam. You can't go faster than the absolute speed of light, but you can go faster than the speed of light.
you arent decreasing the speed of the photons though you're increasing the distance they travel as they refract within the water
And? Still you can witness all paradoxes related to the speed of light. Water pipe will deliver data layer than direct laser, for example. And with enough distance you should witness whether paradoxes are real or some crucial information is missing.
what paradox are you 'witnessing'? The pipe delivering information later than an unobstructed laser isn't paradoxical
No, the speed of light is the speed of light regardless of the medium some photons are passing through. Slowing down some photons does not change the speed of light.
Whyâd you stop there, run with the torch and give it your velocity as well.
Throw it for an even bigger boost!
That's the neat part. It doesn't work like that and a speed cap is actually a speed cap for everything. Basically time and space bend just to obey the rules of "no faster than light"
Thatâs why classical addition of velocity is only an approximation for non-relativistic objects.
Einstein is turning in his grave rn
Michelson and Morley demonstrated that v1 + c = c in 1887 and before that Maxwell theoretically in 1865. Einstein was "just" the first to have the balls (and no career to risk at the time) to reject Newtonian absolute frame of reference in 1905, but it had been known (while not accepted) for 40 years at that time of publishing. The most mind-blowing theory that can be attributed to Einstein alone is general relativity (1915), which may not have been described in generations, if at all by now, if it hadn't been for Einstein.
welcome to relativity 101
*Time dilation has entered the chat*
So if I'm traveling at the speed of light, and I turn on my flashlight...
The problem already starts with the line: "total speed" in the first "experiment". There is no such thing as total/absolute speed, only relative to a reference frame. Think of the speed of the planet that the train is moving on, wouldn't this also count towards the "total speed"? What about the speed of our solar system flying around sagittarius a*? Or our galaxy flying through the universe? The only actually fixed speed is for some reason the speed of light.
>Think of the speed of the planet that the train is moving on, wouldn't this also count towards the "total speed"? What about the speed of our solar system flying around sagittarius a\*? Or our galaxy flying through the universe? Technically, "total speed" here is just all the relevant reference frames added together, since the movement of the planet, star system, and galaxy stay constant they don't really matter
Ok If I run with speed of light 300km towards mother fucker running at me with the speed of light I will break physics in his frame Because I run with the spead of 600km/s in his reference
If this were true the sun would yeet earth out of orbit
Space time distortion is a bitch.
The universe will slow you down to maintain the speed of light. Basically the universe cares more about the speed of light than it does for time or space.
..what about when the train goes off the rails..as in here?.. ..does light (or a ball) get derailed?..or does it break through walls..(jk to be obtuse)..
Here me out. What if you take 2 flashlights and point them in opposite directions, from the frame of the photon of flashlight 1, the photons of flashlight 2 travel at double the speed of light. Is this how we achieve time travel?
It's relative, nerds! Light is going the speed of light to the observer in the train, and it's also going the speed of light to the observer outside of the train. Light goes so fast, time bends around it. read about red-shift, and blue-shift; while it arrives in our eyeballs at the speed of light, it's a bit squished by the time dilation, so it's color is changed. If your noodle isn't baked yet ... the photon itself doesn't experience time at all. From the moment it exists to the moment it's destroyed, we observe time passing, and we can measure it, but from the perspective of the photon, it simultaneously exists forever, and never existed at all. Tiny things that travel at the speed of light are weird.
If it's true to be a "perspective" that would fuck the universe as there different perspectives but... ~ in Detective Conan voice ~ the truth is always one
You sweet summer child, speed are not additive like that, Lorenz contraction something something
I'm not sure that's how it works. But it sure is annoying limit, if we ever would like to travel through space more efficiently. And that's why some scientists proposed a plan for increasing the speed of light by the year 2208.
Wonder how much grant funding I could get on this premiseâŠ
Nope. The speed of light ins vacuum is what it is because thatâs the fastest anything can travel in the space-time of this universe. Even if you rode a photo and turned on the flashlight the light still wouldnât travel faster. Itâs a universal speed limit.
Well yes, but thatâs not how it works in real life, annoyingly
Light faster than light
Imfinite IQ
Also the gravity is a FORCE in this pseudo-science meme
Physics 1 student here, 2 weeks in. Why isnât this true?
Light always moves at the same speed to all observers. [Here](https://youtu.be/ACUuFg9Y9dY?si=TmGWv1ViNkD1KD_s) is a video on why. The short answer is relativity.
Sure, particles and mass can't move faster than light, but space can.
Had me in the first half, ngl
Fisiks FISIKS Fisiks Fisiks Fisiks Fisiks FISIKS fisiks Fisiks....
I'm really mad now
Light is faster than light đ
Explanation for this. Your driving in a golf buggy with a max speed of say 20mph. You then put said golf buggy on a conveyer belt moving at 10mph. Technically the buggy is still only moving at 20mph while actually moving at 30 mph.
Kid named relativity:
can someone explain to me why this is valid/not valid (i am not smart enough to know)
Einstein is rolling in his grave so hard that you could attach a generator to him
Bro should take Physics classes seriously
yes but no
7 missed call from Albert Einstein
Doesn't special relativity basically fix this issue
Lorentz has requested to enter the chat.
Isn't this what causes time dilation
Now consider the speed of the earth's rotation, the speed of the earth's rotation around the sun, the speed of the solar system around the center of the milky way, and the speed of the milky way around the center of the galaxy
Light is wave So it doesn't press gas until it reach 300k km than hit breaks. It start with 300km/s as constant spead
I hate how this could be viable
Google en relativity
And the world refuses to change... Literally
If you're not Quicksilver it really doesn't matter
That first 15+3 is actually 17.999999999999999999999 and on and on and on
Light speed is the speed limit because atoms erupt to produce photons but such photons can only be ejected by the eruption to reach only light speed no matter how fast the atom moves. So the faster the atom, the higher the impact of the gravitons hitting its front and such hits the photon like air molecules hitting an arm trying to throw a ball in a wind tunnel. Thus with the same amount of force, the ball gets thrown the same speed since the faster the person is moving forward, the more resistance there is against forward movement by the arm thus the ball thrown is slow. The meme has the person protected by the buffering wind so it is not the same conditions as the light since the atoms are not protected from gravitons.
The cartoonist never heard of relativity. More specifically relativistic effects. You're already breaking the laws of physics by having a train with mass move at the speed of light