Astronomy Without A Telescope – Light Speed

by Steve Nerlich on October 8, 2011

You could cross the universe in a matter of hours without ever 'breaking light speed' - it is not the speed limit that it seems to be.

The recent news of neutrinos moving faster than light might have got everyone thinking about warp drive and all that, but really there is no need to imagine something that can move faster than 300,000 kilometres a second.

Light speed, or 300,000 kilometres a second, might seem like a speed limit, but this is just an example of 3 + 1 thinking – where we still haven’t got our heads around the concept of four dimensional space-time and hence we think in terms of space having three dimensions and think of time as something different.

For example, while it seems to us that it takes a light beam 4.3 years to go from Earth to the Alpha Centauri system, if you were to hop on a spacecraft going at 99.999 per cent of the speed of light you would get there in a matter of days, hours or even minutes – depending on just how many .99s you add on to that proportion of light speed.

This is because, as you keep pumping the accelerator of your imaginary star drive system, time dilation will become increasingly more pronounced and you will keep getting to your destination that much quicker. With enough .999s you could cross the universe within your lifetime – even though someone you left behind would still only see you moving away at a tiny bit less than 300,000 kilometres a second. So, what might seem like a speed limit at first glance isn’t really a limit at all.

The effect of time dilation is negligible for common speeds we are familiar with on Earth, but it increases dramatically and asymptotically as you approach the speed of light.

To try and comprehend the four dimensional perspective on this, consider that it’s impossible to move across any distance without also moving through time. For example, walking a kilometer may be a duration of thirty minutes – but if you run, it might only take fifteen minutes.

Speed is just a measure of how long it takes you reach a distant point. Relativity physics lets you pick any destination you like in the universe – and with the right technology you can reduce your travel time to that destination to any extent you like – as long as your travel time stays above zero.

That is the only limit the universe really imposes on us – and it’s as much about logic and causality as it is about physics. You can travel through space-time in various ways to reduce your travel time between points A and B – and you can do this up until you almost move between those points instantaneously. But you can’t do it faster than instantaneously because you would arrive at B before you had even left A.

If you could do that, it would create impossible causality problems – for example you might decide not to depart from point A, even though you’d already reached point B. The idea is both illogical and a breach of the laws of thermodynamics, since the universe would suddenly contain two of you.

So, you can’t move faster than light – not because of anything special about light, but because you can’t move faster than instantaneously between distant points. Light essentially does move instantaneously, as does gravity and perhaps other phenomena that we are yet to discover – but we will never discover anything that moves faster than instantaneously, as the idea makes no sense.

We mass-laden beings experience duration when moving between distant points – and so we are able to also measure how long it takes an instantaneous signal to move between distant points, even though we could never hope to attain such a state of motion ourselves.

We are stuck on the idea that 300,000 kilometres a second is a speed limit, because we intuitively believe that time runs at a constant universal rate. However, we have proven in many different experimental tests that time clearly does not run at a constant rate between different frames of reference. So with the right technology, you can sit in your star-drive spacecraft and make a quick cup of tea while eons pass by outside. It’s not about speed, it’s about reducing your personal travel time between two distant points.

As Woody Allen once said: Time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once. Space-time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening in the same place at once.

  • Anonymous

    Lol, … oopsy, …
    Only if you skip such irrelevancies as accelerative G-forces on the human body, … or
    The fantasy time-dialation factoring, … you might travel 4 light years in real time two years, … turn around and come back in real time two years, … having travelled 8 light years distance.
    You will still be only 4 years older, … and those who did not take the trip with you will only have real time aged 4 years, … just like you.
    However if you travel 4 light years in two years, … and they travel the same distance at light speed it will take them 4 years, … real time eight years return trip for them.
    Regardless, … by the time you ‘ get together again ‘ eight years will have passed, … no time dialation, … both will be eight years older.
    Just my opinion, …

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      Actually it isn’t that bad. The usual “if we had a star drive” scenario assumes 1 g acceleration. After a year you observe the relativity effects easily, and the accumulative effects builds quickly from there.

      The accelerated system will age slower, and these effects are so pervasive that your GPS system has to take them into account. (Since orbiting satellites accelerate differently than you do while you inhabit the surface of the Earth.)

      If you accelerate and decelerate at 1 g to stop at a star system, you will roughly cover 4 light years in 5 years of planetary reference frame. (About the distance to the nearest stars.)

      The ship passengers will age about 2 year since they get sufficiently close to light speed after 1 year of acceleration: 1 year to accelerate, 1 year to decelerate, nothing much in between for such a short trip.

      Having two travelers accelerate on the same schedule will make them age equally. So they will be 2 years older, while the planet inhabitants will age 5 years.

      • Anonymous

        Hi, … nice to see somebody is actually reading what is written.
        There is an old expression about ‘ assume ‘, … not meaning it in a derogatory manner.
        ‘ I ‘ am not using the standard accelerative / decelleration model, … just straight simple actual factuals discounting that particular aspect as being ‘ equally utilized by both parties ‘.
        Same thing as the ‘ getting to or exceeding light speed ‘.
        Thank you for your input, … two thumbs up.

  • Alexandre

    Why does light move instantaneously? You said there is nothing special about light, but what enables it to move instantaneously between point A and B, while I cannot? Is it mass?

    • Torbjörn Larsson

      In simplest terms it is light’s invariant mass being exactly zero that makes the relativistic time dilation (time factor) become zero. So from the light perspective it takes “no time” between it is created by emission and destroyed by absorption.*

      And conversely it is your mass not being zero that makes the factor larger.

      ———–
      * In terms of classical field physics, photons are created by a “near field” of an electromagnetic antenna, which can well be the electron cloud of an atom. The near field is when the separate electric and magnetic field from accelerated charges (often electrons) couple over a short distance, typically a few antenna lengths, to become EM wavepackets (photons).

      That process takes time, and so does absorption when conversely the photon couples through the near field to matter again.

      • Alexandre

        Interesting.

        And is it known why light has no mass, while everything else has mass? Does light have energy? If so, shouldn’t E=mc^2 yield a non-zero mass for light?

        What does it mean to have no mass, except that you can move in no time and have no dimensions? I mean structurally, is the inner makeup of a photon so different that it can have no mass?

        • Torbjörn Larsson

          I actually made comment up-thread that may be helpful. Btw, I meant to say “intrinsic invariant” mass above, sorry for the confusion. That is what is zero mass, the photon has relativistic mass of course.

          Some of what you ask in the 2nd paragraph is also answered in the appendix below the line in that comment. The characteristics of dimension is totally separated from characteristics of mass, for example the massive electron can be considered to be pointlike as of yet.

          [Most particle characteristics are independent of each other, modulo quantum mechanics coupling of conjugate variables. So you can have mass but no dimension.]

  • Torbjörn Larsson

    Time is nature’s way of keeping everything from happening at once.

    Often said; I didn’t know Allen said that.

    Wikipedia pegs it as originating with Ray Cummings (1922); I didn’t know that either. That is a better pedigree, since Cummings was a scifi writer. =D

  • Erik Mason

    interestingly enough, i just tossed an email to OPERA and CERN about three weeks ago asking if they had accounted for relativistic time dilation with their neutrino experiments. i love it when great minds think alike.

  • Duncan Ivry

    Steve, does time really stand still for photons?

    I would like to know how you would do a *real* physical experiment. “Real” is crucial, because with a thought experiment alone you can’t be sure that any statement in physics is correct.

    I know it’s difficult, because we can’t really attach clocks — the pertinent measurement devices — to photons. We indeed are able to attach clocks to certain material things, e.g. planes, satellites, and space probes, accelerate them to higher velocities, and move them up and down in the gravity field. This way we have a foundation in reality when we speak e.g. about high speed muons raining down from space, “experiencing” a slow down of their own time, because of which their decay rate is smaller as for muons with smaller velocities. Above that we have the explanation given by the theory of relativity.

    Now, extrapolating this to a photon, how would you show in a real physical experiment, that time really stands still for it? And, because of this, it would be correct saying that from a photon’s frame of reference it moves instantaneous (different words expressing just the same). By the way, a physical frame of reference includes clocks; thus it’s even questionable whether its correct talking about a frame of reference of a photon *this* way (but I’m not sure).

    As an example it would not be enough trying to show (or worst: only say), that no physical feature of a photon does ever change. That’s because the energy, or the frequency, respectively, of a photon changes when it moves through a gravity field. As far as I’m concerned, this does not look like time standing still.

  • Anonymous

    It is true that in the neutrino’s frame of reference travel time is shorter than that measured in a stationary frame. Wasn’t the CERN measurement made in the stationary frame?

  • Anonymous

    Hi, …
    Not everyone is necessarily interested in the same thing, … for the same purposes.
    Is there any specificly identified Neutrino’s which can be accelerated ???
    ” I ” am looking for what to me has been a longer time quandry, … communications at beyond light-speed. Hmmm, … ergo, … if two ‘ ships ‘ are travelling at faster than light, … the ‘ lead ship ‘ would be able to send back a message to the following ship.
    However the following ship would be ‘ unable ‘ to transmit forward at faster than light speed.
    Easiest rationale is two speed boats in a slower moving river, … the lead boat can throw a hunk of wood in which reduces to the speed of the river, …
    ???

Previous post:

Next post: