So maybe in the last scenes of 2001 a space odyssey, the change of colors over land scapes might indicate that Dave was travelling closer to the speed of light.
Back then, not many people were thinking of these things. But now it is becoming common thinking so that would explain the condescending remarks from some of these people who try to get recognition for their intelligence.
Pishposh Magoo that is simply not true. It’s a theory but never been proven, and actually been lots of studies to suggest otherwise tho nothing is conclusive. This is the problem with the internet. People just say stuff like it’s fact without even knowing for sure. That’s called ego.
Lol, you can see colors that cant normaly be seen with the eye on lsd anyway. Or without lsd, i had a dream where i was floating through space and saw a black hole of colors and i saw colors that cant be seen with the human eye.
@@velocirapper8862 On one of my very intense mushroom trips whenever I would close my eyes I would see a teal/cyan/green color that I have never seen sober. Safe to say i spent a lot of time with closed eyes for that trip.
@@SeeMeRolling time is relative but it becomes even more relative when you’re on lsd especially since time starts to distort and the perception of time goes bananas
You are sitting on the living room carpet. You are really really REALLY stoned. So much you can't even move. Moving would require infinite energy at this point. There is a bag of chips on the far side of the carpet. And those chips would be SOOOO good right now. But from your perspective the bag is as far away as Alpha Centauri is from Earth. Then it hits you! Eureka! Moving at any speed may be impossible, the speed is a constant, but space and time is not. At this point time has ceased to exist, so you are left with only space. You start pulling at the carpet. Space starts to warp ahead of you. The bag of chips appears to come closer. You did it! To travel without moving, that is the secret! In the vast darkness outside your living room an observer passes by. He sees someone pulling at a rug whilst laughing and grinning madly, shakes his head and keeps walking. Yet from your perspective you are a genius, having cracked the very secrets of the universe itself! It truly is all relative...
@@Buttermi1kJesus op’s comment was 1 year ago. For their father, who presumably went to Miller’s planet to get some milk, only less than 10 minutes have passed. You gotta give the man a little more time.
Don't forget, not only is there a "tiny tiny tiny time delay" (6:34) because of the time it takes for the light from the screen to reach your eyes, but there is also an additional tiny tiny tiny delay because of the time it takes for the nerve impulses to travel from your retina into your brain and for those signals to be processed.
while nerve impulses are on the order of milliseconds, light travelling around 30cm is on the order of nanoseconds, so it's about 6-7 orders of magnitude (1000000-10000000x) difference
The reason why you seem to speed up is not actually because of time dilation. You will still seem to move at the same speed but distances will get shorter in front of you. This is known as length contractions, where distances in your direction of motion gets shorter. Thus you can travel between 2 points at a seemingly faster speed when in fact is is the path which gets shorter.
4:09 not quite. The gravity of Earth also dilates time. The time dilation caused by the difference in gravity for us vs the satellites is much larger than the time dilation the satellites experience from their velocity and is in the other direction. The satellites experience more time than us, they age more. And it's not trivial, it's 0.02 seconds a year. At the speed they're going, they will be at a significantly different location in that time.
i came here to say this, but youre wrong about the second part. time dilation is always in the same direction, so gravity and velocity have the same effect. but no human build vehikle is fast enough to produce any signification dilation effect. btw, thats why start trek 4 circled around the sun in high speed. the idea was to combine both effects to time travel. no satellites indeed experience less time relatively to earth. a fact that was known for a long time however, it only matters in a certain altitude. funny story the first sattelites had a faulty equation on board that could not level out that effect as they planned but it didnt matter. however i think it was the first GPS satellites this became more significant. at a certain threshold the effect was big enough to trigger certain safety mechanism because of time desync and almost lead to self destruction (safety protocol) in one of them. thats when they discovered that they send sats with a faulty equation for decades to space (all based on the same libraries).
@@woswasdenni1914 from an outside perspective, someone who entered a place with very strong gravity (like close to a black hole) and then came back would look like it aged more slowly (a clock would tick slower in a stronger gravity). Maybe you've seen that in sci fi movies or something, it was a thing in interstellar for example. Fun fact: we are in a stronger gravity than the satellites above us. So for a satellite, our clock would seem to tick more slowly. And for us, a satellite's clock would seem to tick more quickly (i.e. the satellite ages more quickly).
Satellites do age more quickly due to experiencing less gravity from Earth, but that effect is overshadowed by the time dilation experienced via special relativity/the much higher velocity of the satellite.
@@woswasdenni1914 The time dilation for a clock near a massive body moves more slowly than a clock far away from it, so a satellite would age more quickly from gravitational time dilation alone. The time dilation due to velocity overwhelms it, however. There has never been a GPS satellite, or any satellite (other than test satellites intended to research explosions in space) rigged with a self-destruct mechanism. It really makes no sense why anyone would do that. If you explode a faulty satellite, you still don't have a working satellite, but now you have thousands of untracked pieces of space debris flying around. They'd just let the orbit decay until the satellite burned up in the atmosphere.
@@hetsmiecht1029 How would you know the time is out of sync? How can you compare two clocks over such distance? Why would the reference time (RF, speed of light communication) not be affected by time dilation?
Just speculating, but this program probably uses a decent amount of processing power. Easier to run with a smaller game-space and little to no rendering
so when dio uses za warudo, the cool colorful effect is actually semi realistic! since time is stopped, light particles will be hitting your eyes in weird ways same with the Lorentz effect, as you move around in stopped time, things will probably get all distorted
With a realistic timestop power, you won't be able to see anything, since photons stop moving. You won't be able to breath either, since air molecules stop entering your lungs. In fact, you won't be able to move at all, unless coming into contact with stuff enters them into your time bubble. Even then, the since the particles will stop as soon as they leave it again, which would mean they immediately get caught again if you're moving forward, will create a sheathe of high energy plasma in front of you, and quite possibly leave the area drained of air if you stand still. TL;DR: Realistic timestop is the worse power ever if there's no mitigating factors. Get a Bullet time power instead.
@@Mernom the light wouldnt need to travel if you are walking into the photons though. You going to them instead of them coming to you solves the sight problem. Breathing however is a good point, and it's hilarious to think that the silly character Guldo from DBZ actually has breathing as the major flaw of his time stop power.
@@TailsClock Realistically speaking, you wouldn't be able to move, because if the time is stopped, signals your brain sends to your muscles would never reach their destination, since time is stopped. You wouldn't even be conscious, because your brain activity was stopped. If your brain did function in this time bubble, signals from it reached your muscles and you could move, then there are 2 other problems. 1. Air, as explained above. 2. If you were to move into the photons, you'd probably leave an empty trail of light behind you. Like, standing in place would give you only a single image, after which you'd need to move forward a bit, which would produce yet another image. Going back to the same place wouldn't let you see the image again, because all the other photons in that place would be pushed away. At least that's how I imagine it, if someone knows better feel free to share.
@@Mernom when dio hit solid objects, they move, i think it's like a temporary local desactivation of his power idk, may "explain" certain things, tho i hope he won't stand still too long because of CO2 doesn't explain light
@@TailsClock 'walking towards the light' wouldn't have enough photons to really allow you to see enough, and it would also capture photons regardless of which direction they're moving to. This would probably make getting a coherent image impossible.
I keep catching myself staring at this like a young child watching a magician for the first time. Laughing, smiling, holding my breath in anticipation. Space man, space... Ain't it somethin'?
@@nocturnalpisces1299 Funny you should say that; My name is Eamon, my birthday is Feb 21st, and I am a total night creature. It's 0541 in New Orleans. (5:41am) Looks like we have a lot in common. But, the sun is about to come up so it's almost my bed time. What does eamonia mean anyway? I used to be a huge chem nerd in elementary and middle school so I just thought it sounded like ammonia. (Yeah ammonia nitrate) Of course I was into nitrates as a kid playing with chemicals. Back when chemistry sets were a lot more fun ;)
If the universe has an end, such as a big crunch or a big freeze, then you would not ever actually be able to "experience" reaching 100% of light speed. Because as you get closer, time for you slows down, until it gets so extreme (before you reach 100%) that the entire universes lifetime will appear to swish past in the blink of an eye, at which point you will either experience the big crunch or big rip, before you reached 100% of light speed. Thus, this is why it is impossible to reach lightspeed (with physical momentum, not talking about circumventing it via warp drives). Becuase you cant attain that speed before the universe dies out of old age. Or rather, you cant experience and become aware of having reached 100% before the universe dies. This is kind of the same thing as with black holes. I have a similar theory where, i think nothing has ever reached, or can ever, reach that absolute singularity in a black hole. Because gravity also slows time down, and if we truly hypothesize that a singularity inside a black hole is "infinite" gravity, then the same applies as for light speed, time would slow down to almost being stopped. So any "person", or even just a single atom or particle, would NEVER have enough "time" to fall all the way down and reach the singularity, because time slows down the closer they get.. They would need the entire lifetime of the universe to get to the actual exect quantum point that represents infinite gravity. Thus, black holes cannot be "solid", they must be SHELLS of incredibly dense matter, like a gradient going radially inwards ever denser and denser, until it forms an essential "wall" in the boundary of time where no matter has managed to journey further, as it takes longer and longer to go further. For 1 particle to travel 1 "meter" (random example) in the outside of the shell, might take 1 year, but for 1 particle to travel 1 mm on the inside, might take a trillion years. So it must be a density gradient, that gets ever denser the closer in it gets as particles "clog up" as they travel ever shorter distnaces in the same time unit, with a perfect void of the singularity in the middle. Because no matter can have enough time to fall into the center. So a black hole must be the most dense matter ever imaginable (the shell), while also at the same time being the most perfect void imaginable (the immediate vicinity of the singularity, where time is so slowed down that even spontaneous quantum particles doesnt have enough time to pop into existance).
Wowww... incredible....idea about time dilation....I never thought of death of the universe but still do you have any idea of going back in time like traveling to past cz as far as my knowledge only 1% of traveling back in time is possible
I think going back in time is a kind of possible ... Bcz according to Einstein relative motion when you move with very high speed even the destination gets closer and closer .... So we can apply this even in dialing the time for example when we manage to go 10 year to the future then the present of our should movie back ward in time as we are relatively movie ahead in time so switching between us and the present we let the whole universe to move forward in time so then we would go back in time but mean while we would not be knowing what happened so we repeat the same thing again ... Maybe ..
Baleur Sorry but I’m you to debunk your hypothesis. Assuming the universe has some Big Crunch, the universe is still there. The universe doesn’t just disappear. It still exist as a compressed point, and thus time still passes. If I were to now travel at the speed of gluons, then I’d see infinitely far into the future, and even if there is a Big Crunch, I’ll continue to see infinitely far in the future. The Big Crunch doesn’t mean that time just stops. Time still goes on. And it’s likely that particles moving at c do not see infinitely far into the future. The time dilation equation most likely doesn’t apply to speeds moving at the speed c. And for your black hole hypothesis, it’s somewhat right. Objects cannot fall into black holes, but your reason is wrong. Again, the assumption that there is a Big Crunch doesn’t mean that time just stops. The reason why you can’t fall in a black hole is because in your perspective, the black holes would evaporate instantly due to Hawking radiation.
For some reason I feel like ruining this comment. A training expert actually has shown that naruto running is not only less safe, but it is also actually slower than common running, such as pumping your arms
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
I also run time dilation and gravitational distortion sims. What's interesting, is that this expansion of perceived space with increased lag looks an awful lot like the behaviour of dark energy. I can have a sim where only gravitational attraction is present. No strong force or repulsion of any kind. Just gravity with a lag, so that every point is drawn not to the current position of every other point, but to their last position, based on propagation of causality. What I observe is an expansion of the system. A gradient forming in spacetime that make it look like the system is gaining energy. All net forces are zero, yet the simulated space begins to grow.
Alex- as always, your videos bring the science of space down to an easily understood level. (Let's face it, scientific dissertations can be a bit dry!) A favorite sci-fi movie of mine which illustrates the effect of space-time is "Interstellar". A man leaves his young daughter on a mission to find another world. To him, very little time passes, but when he returns, he visits his daughter who is now on her deathbed and very old. I still maintain that you should do a separate series geared toward younger schoolchildren. I think they would be a huge success!
Mass creates a very similar warping effect to the passage of time, which is what Interstellar was based off :) I would like to make videos for kids too, but I'm really quite stretched as it is!
Adventures with Dogs I read a sci-fi book once called The Forever War where the subject is involved in a war with another race across the galaxy and due to massive time dilation each time he goes back to the war, when he returns to earth it’s a couple of hundred years in the future. This happens several times such that very soon he’s an object of curiosity to those on earth and society is completely altered. It was a spooky concept. For him it was just a few years but everything he knew back on earth was ancient history. When he finally returns the last time he discovers the war has long been over. I learnt later it was written by a Vietnam war vet and was a parable of his experience. I can see the connection.
@@robinhodgkinson I'll look for it on Amazon. Sounds right up my alley! Regarding Vietnam- I turned 19 in '75, just after the fall of Saigon, but I well remember how much our world changed in those years.
Adventures with Dogs I hear ya. I was just a couple years younger living in Australia. My older brother just missed out on being drafted. Much to the relief of my parents. Now we go on holiday there! Strange days..
I think that it's not that you can see a larger part of the spectrum, but that the visible part gets shifted. Looking forward the relativistic doppler shortens all the wavelengths of light, so infrared gets visible (near first, than thermal) but at the same time what was blue and violet becomes ultraviolet and you can no longer see it.
It's interesting. When you're approaching blue colour object, it will remain blue but get brighter. But while approaching red objects blueshift. Fun thought experim... oops brain overheating... rebooting. Hello there.
In MIT game, light travels at speed of YOU! Okay, jokes aside... The trick about near-light speed space travel that no one seems to talk about is this: time doesn't just flow faster on Earth while you are traveling; it also flows faster at your destination. So, when you get to your planned colony site at Alpha Centauri, only a week or two has passed for you, but four years have passed on your colony world. Oh, but the fun doesn't stop there. See, you have to slow down and stop when you get there. And when you do, the four years you didn't feel while traveling suddenly catch up with you in whatever short time it takes you to decelerate...IN ADDITION to the four year time lag due to Alpha Centauri's distance before you left. Of course, this does NOT mean you will suddenly age four years when you slow down...of course that won't happen. But the universe outside your ship will, and more so than you think. When you were at Earth getting ready to leave orbit, Alpha Centauri looked the way it did in 2016. Now that you are orbiting the colony world, it looks like it does right now...in 2024. The intel you left with is now EIGHT years out of date. This means that for interstellar travel, you have to do a good bit of your planning AFTER ARRIVING, as there will have been at least minor changes at your landing site. Not much, mind you...eight years is hardly a geological time frame...but in what seemed like only two weeks to you, there could have been an asteroid strike there, or quakes, or floods, or other weather disasters. You might have to start all over picking a different place to land.
@@sidhartharu You know, that is a very interesting question. It certainly seems like you would. But looking deeper, I don't think so. If you've been traveling at 95%c, then the images of your departure would have been just ahead of you all this time, and arrive at Alpha Centauri shortly before you did, so those images would be in front of you the whole time. You would not be able to look back and see them. And yet you make a compelling argument. Since you are now at Alpha Centauri in 2024, you would be seeing the Earth the way it was in 2020--when you left. Logically, it SEEMS like you would see your ship leaving Earth. So I suppose that's a bit of a paradox. Try asking this in a comment on one of Neil DeGrass Tyson's videos, and let me know which one you choose. I'll be very curious to see what kind of answers you get from the other commenters there.
Good to see people are actually paying attention. Yes indeed, our system is moving relative to other systems, and in fact we are actually quite outside. Take a spinning disc, the outside is spinning faster than the inside. See the galaxy? Where is our local system located? And isn't that galaxy also itself rotating against the center of the universe? Essentially traveling towards the center will put you in a place that is moving relative slower than Earth. So the opposite occurs once you stop at your destination. 10 years for you in your new world may be 1 year on Earth which is on the edge of that spinning thing. So even if we somehow discover FTL traveling, simply stopping at another system/planet will make your time out of sync from Earth. Interstellar voyages are essentially one way only, well, they may be two way, but forget anything and anyone you leave behind... You will age faster or slower relative to the people you left behind on Earth.
little known fact: Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters are the only known drink to work at light speed. As such, it’s the only drink you can order at the restaurant at the end of the universe. I’ve been there twice today already so I’m a tad fuzzy.
Alcohol definitely causes time dilation. Anyone that ever stopped after work for 'just a couple 'o drinks "cause I gotta get home..." knows this to be fact.
Something you forgot to mention is that to reach a speed close to that of light in the sort of timespan you infer would kill you. The acceleration would crush you to a pulp. Such accelerations are only possible for subatomic particles, as they do not form the fragile structure of the human body, which can only tolerate a prolonged acceleration of a couple of g without being killed. If you were put inside an artillery shell and it was fired, you would be dead before it had reached the end of the barrel, but even if that acceleration carried on for years you still wouldn't have reached the speed of light. In addition, if your pulp reached a speed of, say, 50% of c you would be bombarded by a storm of deadly radiation. Space is teeming with protons which would form a beam of radiation as your pulp raced through them, but when your pulp eventually hit a cosmic gas or dust cloud it would burn up.
that is unless you can uniformly translate all of the particles within a craft at the same velocity with some kind of force field. the reason inertia crushes you is because when you accelerate, the part of the craft that would be subjected to a thrusting force would be accelerating faster than the rest of the craft it is attached to, so if the bow of the craft was undergoing thrust, it would shear the craft in half, and if the stern was under thrust, it would flatten the craft like a tin can under the unrelenting force of a crane operated pylon driver. if you could apply the thrust uniformly to the entirety of the craft, there SHOULD be no discernible effects from inertia.
I really like the artillery shell analogy, it really puts the speed of light into perspective. Also I appreciate the number of times you mentioned “your pulp” lmfao
1) Constant acceleration at 1g. Kill two birds with one stone by getting the entire crew to light speed without killing anyone as well as providing artificial gravity. 2) The ship would have to have a shell of incredibly strong shielding. I hear hydrogen or ice make excellent shielding. Or perhaps you blast a powerful laser ahead of you, pushing most or all of the interstellar medium out of the way of the ship.
Something I didn’t quite understand was the part with traveling 40 years at the speed of light. Since I am traveling at the speed of light and that the speed of light is so insanely high, I just cover greater distances in shorter amount of time, but how would 40 years at the speed of light feel instantaneous instead of 40 years?🤯 I mean I think I understand because time moves slower, but from what I understood it seemed like you could “teleport” 40 years on earth in one second or something.
Hello, your comment is old but I will reply anyway. 40 years is simply the reference for those who are not traveling at speed of light. If you are the one doing it, it's instantaneous from your perspective because time doesn't exist at this speed. Don't forget that anything with a mass cannot possibly go at speed of light, as per Einstein's relativity, so this is all theoretical.
first you can go close to speed of light not reach it, so it would never be instantaneous, but if you were at 99.99999% speed of light it would take < 1 minute for you to reach Alpha centauri(4.5 light years away) while 4-5 years for anyone observing you on earth, so we can travel entire galaxy without ageing, but everyone on earth would be dead..
The opposite is true - blue shift would make the forward view very bright indeed as the cosmic microwave background is shifted into the visible band and then into the gamma ray band causing the fluid in your eyes to start to glow - you would by this time be very dead.
@@allangibson8494 ever seen a grape in a microwave? The waves match the length and resonate within Although you need that low frequency at high energy, not (comparatively) high frequency of infrared and higher like most stars give.
@@timothygooding9544 Liquid water resonates at 2.1GHz. That is how a microwave oven works. Excluding resonance the higher you go in frequency the higher the energy dissipated on interaction with matter. High speeds compact time as well so the energy per unit time rises as well. In short forward glows, crew glows and the ship glows (followed by it evaporating).
@@allangibson8494 Thats not the type of resonance I mean. It has to do with light instead of sound. A microwave's wavelength is about the length of a grape (radio waves are several meters) This allows the wave to continuously bounce off the insides of the grape causing the ends to accumulate an insane amount of energy. This energy is enough to ionize the air around the grape (search "grape in microwave" and you'll see it for yourself)
@@timothygooding9544 No - the microwave is electrically resonant with the hydrogen bond to the oxygen atom, the piezoelectric electrical coupling from this results in movement. A hydrogen bond to a carbon atom is close enough to resonate too (so fat gets heated too). The 2cm band with also causes impressive circulating currents on the surface of similar sized objects.
Imagine an astronaut travlled somewhere close to these speeds n came back after 40 years, he would have been gone an hour but his parents would have waited 40 years just to see him again, that's heartbreaking :(
The crazy thing would be that, say the astronaut is 30 years old, he'd be 70 when he'd return, but he'd actually still be 30 biologically. And if he were to die of old age at, let's say age 90, he'd actually die at age 130. Probably.
time dilation is one of the things space based sci-fi constantly gets so wrong. people zip around at light speed, and everywhere they go people are still the same age and little has changed.
if something is 60 light years away, it still takes 60 years to reach it traveling at the speed of light, hence "light years" so it makes the time trip even more interesting
Yeah but the point is that you will be unaffected by the passage of time, so people on Earth will observe your travel to take 60 years, but you from your perspective will appear at the destination instantaneously. and then discover that everyone are 60 years older. (except to discover that you'd have to go back, so it would be at least 120 years)
Also: If you are moving towards a galaxy at the speed of light, the spin of that galaxy will speed up. If you are moving away then it slow down but won't be visible as less photons will reach your eye. And also: If you are in a space ship then the front could have faster speed of time compared to the very back. The difference would depend totally on the total distance between the nose and end point of the spaceship.
@@jjt171 Exponential growth is not "graph goes up fast" and cannot be easily distinguished graphically. (but maybe approximated to some extent) from many other functions which have a positive both first and second derivatives. The mathematical expressionbetween speed and energy, shown graphically in the video, is (γ-1)mc^2, where γ is the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and c speed of light. Notice there is no exponential function used at all, but just squaring, division, subtraction and square root.
I don’t really think that is true in reality. If you were to talk with someone on earth on the phone from your spaceship, then you keep talking with them for 24 hours as you drive the speed of light, you would both agree you talked for 24 hours. (lets just ignore the speed of phone signals etc for now and pretend it’s instant). After 24 hours, you got really far, but 24 hours on your clock is still 24 hours on earth’s clock. I understand that when we look into the universe we see a delay, because light takes time to travel, however I don’t see how time would affect you differently as soon as you travel that fast. Your clock would move at the same paste as it did when you were driving slow, and your clock will still be in sync with every clock on earth no matter how far and fast you drive? Am I wrong? Please help me understand, someone.
@@richardstylez1950 the speed is faster, the space and time changes (relativity), so, for the space dude, the time goes slower (don't age) and that leave the earth dudes (normal speed) aging normal (for the space dude, faster as heck). I think it's pretty much it talking not cientifically.
Matías Titanico So if the space guy and the person on earth each had a syncronized clock, at what point would these clocks go out of sync? Once you drive the speed of light? And if they stay in sync, how come they would age differently? I just don’t see how this would work in real life, but I get the concept on a theoretical basis.
@@richardstylez1950 Technically speaking, the clocks would go out of sync as soon as the person left Earth (because gravity affects the flow of time too). Basically, if you has a video call with someone and you were moving at the speed of light, they would appear to be moving in slow motion.
People are just not getting the “speed of light” Speed in space is not the same as airspeed in the earths atmosphere. There’s nothing in space that’s relative to yourself that isn’t moving like there is on earth. Speed is relative to another object. Speed on earth is obviously related to the earth and the air, but not in space. Right now we are all moving faster than the speed of light compared to another object that appears to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us. Accelerating to that speed is something else.
@jay Each observer would see the other experience slower time. The famous twins' paradox emerges when they meet back: the net difference in experienced time in the end depends on who makes the deceleration to catch up with the other's speed: speed is relative, acceleration is not.
Yes, speed is relative. If you were travelling near the speed of light you'd observe effects shown in the video, but someone who's also travelling at the speed of light in the same direction would appear normal to you. That's why it doesn't matter whether the entire universe is moving somewhere or not
Always when I think about the speed of light, I realize it is always relative to something. Almost all explanations ignore the question "relative to what?".
Bingo. It's not the "speed" that causes time dilation but the acceleration of an object bc as we know, acceleration causes time dilation just like gravity does. Speed (velocity) is subjective, acceleration and gravity are not, they are objective.
The speed of light, c, is constant relative to everything: that's what's special about general relativity. The key idea is that we always assumed space and time transformed "rigidly" between observers, so that if I move at 10 m/s on a train going at 10 m/s, I appear to you as moving 20 m/s. So far so good. Now, if I turn a torchlight on on the train, I'll see the photons moving at the speed of light, c. Suppose the train is moving at 50% of c. Then someone on the ground will see the light moving at 150% of c. In principle this could be true, but experiments show that light *always* travels at c. We have verified this in the 1890s. We must conclude that space and time don't work like we have always assumed, and velocities don't simply "add together".
Sure you can, you can imagine being at very different speeds why can't you imagine experiencing very different times. You're not locked together at the same time. Going very fast you see way more stuff, that is time.
In fact, speed is a measure of distance over time. Now instead of locking your imagination of speed to movement and distance, imagine that you are speeding but not going any distance, so that you are in fact very fast but not traveling any distances.
well, that's up to how you define time travel. you can stop time, but you can achieve that also if you just freeze yourself, going faster IS kind of like travelling to the future. but you can never go backwards, otherwise you would have to go at negative speeds(?) and no, I don't mean walking the other direction, I mean literally to have a negative velocity, and I have trouble imagining that :D
The Hollistic Bartender Even if you did go -C you would reverse time on yourself. What would that even feel like? Would you be able to tell? What would outside observers see?
The Hollistic Bartender no you’re wrong. Freezing yourself does not make time stop for you. Negative velocity would not make you go back in time. If I run at 30m/s and then add a negative velocity of 5m/s I just run at 25m/s, still time traveling to the future, but slower. A pure -5m/s is impossible. That’s like saying Apple m/s. Running faster, does make you move into the future faster, and that’s what time travel is. In just 1 second I can file travel to the year 2050 if I run fast enough.
Time is an abstract concept we use to describe relationships. It does not go faster or slower anywhere. Only the references we use to quantify it change.
It would seem perfectly normal. What would screw us up is a really slow maximum speed of CAUSALITY. Causality is the important thing. Light just happens to be able to go that fast. Causality is the speed limit, not light.
Subtle/minor contention. From 2:45 ... "As you head into the flow of particles at speed, the more particles will hit your eye making everything ahead of you brighter. ... look behind you ... everything will get darker, because less photons are reaching you.". I believe this is not quite accurate. It is a subtle distinction. Your words could imply that the speed of photons reaching you from the forward direction is greater than that of photons coming from the rear; like the speed of raindrops hitting you from the front (versus the rear) as you run into the rain. But, the speed of light/photons is constant; they reach you at the same speed whether from front or rear. It is true that the view forward will be brighter, for 2 reasons: (1) Since time is dilated, more photons will reach you per unit of local time, i.e. sources appear brighter. This applies forwards & rearwards. (2) Relativistic Aberration (which you refer to later on as Light Aberration & Lorentz Transformation) -- Light coming from the front will appear concentrated into a narrower cone, while light from the rear will be dispersed in a wider cone. Nice video. Thanks.
That's interesting. I suppose the back view is still gonna be dimmer just because most photons will be shifted to infrared and radiowaves becoming invisible. Meanwhile, oncoming photons will be shifted up in frequency/energy. Thus, blue light would be shifted to UV, UV>Xrays and Xrays>Gamma rays, and with higher luminosity at that! Are we gonna get fried by high energy photons and our DNA shredded to pieces?
The light doesn't become bright instead it start shifting its frequency as you move towards the light the KINECTIC ENERGY of your and the photon gets added up only to you and this energy result in increse in the frequency of the radiation so when you move with the speed of light the frequency of radiation your body obsorbs twice the frequency of the radiation actually is so when a radio waves but you .you will be able to look at it but at the same time when visible light hits you you will blowned up the gamma frequency ....
@@hiteshv1612 why only twice the frequency? You will get the double the frequency at half the speed of light. And the frequency will keep doubling for every doubling of your speed. As you approach the speed of light, the energy of oncoming photons will be approaching infinity.
Robin Swamidasan but things behind you wouldn’t look darker they wouldn’t look like anything at all since they would be invisible (assuming that you’re ahead of the very first photon transmitting information).
@@canyadigit6274 why would that be? is that because you think we're traveling faster than light? Remember no matter how fast you're going light is always going to catch up with you - it might get incredibly stretched by the time it reaches you, but it will reach you.
5:06 We reach objects faster is NOT because our time progresses slower (think about it: that would be a contradiction), but that distances in the direcrion of our motion (for us: opposite to their direction of motion) for us become shorter. The relevant effect is NOT time dilation, but *length contraction*.
@@andrasfogarasi5014 In order to rule out FtL, one has to rule out new physics, exotic matter, changeable constants of nature, and hardest of all: supernatural phenomena. They used to be pretty sure that stuff just appeared around rotting food...
"...you need to travel at the speed of light and us humans can't even fathom the concept of that kind of time because it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really fun to think about taking a speed of light ride." - Dr. Jimes Tooper
yes i filmed it with my phone and the recording apeared in the 60s. it just didnt look so good because of slow computers back then could not translate the video material properly
@Ozymandias Heliogabal Nullifidian it seems reasonable .. since light is mass-less, it is very fast .. thus, space, which is both mass-less and also energy-less would be faster. it would however be hard to detect and quantify space, since it does not interact with anything.. although space limits the speed of light... any educated comments on this?
@@workhardism i assume it is instantaneous.. since it is not obstructed by neither the Higgs field nor electromagnetic ressistance ... Although there might be still other unknown variables.. i assume you mean darkness itself and not the absence of light.. because the absence of light would relate to the speed of any dissipating light? Just thinking here
@@RealPackCat you just freeze in time. Atoms and even electrons in your body can't move faster than light and since you're already travelling at speed of light you're basically frozen. You may traveled 100 years but electrons start flowing in your brain only on arrival and the last thing you remember is your departure from Earth.
It would be pretty weird. If you were traveling at the speed of light, would you freeze so that you couldn't even move your hand forward to the control panel? Rationale: your hand is already moving at the speed of light with you, the act of moving it forward would move it faster than the speed of light. Ergo, no forward motion (blood in your body, electrons in your nervous system, etc.) is possible. Electrical signals in the ship can only move to the rear of the ship, not the front. Moving faster than the speed of light, if you were moving away from the sun and looked back at it, you would watch it become younger as you caught up with the light that is further in transit. Looking forward, objects would age/evolve much quicker. It would become harder to anticipate objects that block your path (asteroids, etc.).
3:55 “Time dilation” is a convenient misnomer (I think, invented by journalists, or a scientist in a *pop*-sci book), and (thus) frequently misunderstood; including in this video (that is otherwise well done). What changes for a reference frame that is moving relative to a chosen rest frame (you have to word this carefully) is NOT that time progresses slower there - there is no "rate of time"; a rate itself depends on time - but less *proper* time elapses there than in the chosen rest frame whose elapsed time we *define* as elapsed proper time.
@@cannibalbananas no, there are solid math behind it. with today's computers you can simulate each photon, and the physics affecting them. Probably you have heard about raytracing if you are into gaming. That's kind of what they did. the colours (fequency at which photons hit the camera) the time dilation, they all can be calculated and visualized. so, it's actually pretty accurate.
You forgot to mention how hot the traveler would get if they could approach the speed of light. Seemingly empty space isn't empty, and traveling in it produces friction; impacts are also more destructive.
Very interesting and worthwhile video. There would be other effects in traveling at relativistic velocities. One's view to the front would become quite different, including what might otherwise be to the side or rear.
So what if you flew 40Ly away from Earth instantaneously and then back again right away? Would people on earth still be able to observe you heading away from them by the time you get back?
yes it would take 80 years for them to see you again and most of them would be dead. but you would just almost instantly dissapear from their perspective. and then 80 years later you would show up all of a sudden.
This video glosses over a few things: 1) The color change it refers to will vary depending on whether you are moving toward an object or away from it. The colors of objects you are moving toward will shift toward the blue end of the spectrum, while the colors of object you are moving away from will simultaneously shift toward the red end of the spectrum. And the colors of objects you are neither moving toward nor away from will not change at all. 2) Time dilation resulting from motion works both ways. A person on Earth will see your time as having slowed down, but you will see Earth's time as having slowed down. It's only if you turn around and go back to Earth that you will both end up agreeing that you have experienced less time than the people on Earth. 3) Even if you were travelling away from Earth at 99% of the speed of light in a vacuum, you would still measure the speed of the light coming toward you as being exactly the same. Another way of putting it would be to say that if you try to catch a beam of light, it will be sort of like chasing the horizon: You will always be as far away from your goal as you were when you started.
What if you were on a ship that can warp spacetime around itself like a bubble? Would chemical engines get you going faster than 186,000 miles per second?
The whole idea of relativity is that different obsevers experience time differently depending on their speed. What seemed like 40 years for an oudside stationary observer will seem less to you.
What's fascinating is that the speed of light is actually unknown it has never been measured going in one direction because no one has figured out how to measure it.
Your visible range doesn't become broader. It just shifts. What is now visible light would blue-shift in front of you until it disappears into ultraviolet and beyond. Infrared, and then microwaves and radio, would become visible. Behind you the opposite would happen. Visible would red-shift into infrared and microwave. But you'd be able to see ultraviolet, then x-rays and finally gamma rays. Very close to the speed of light even the "soft" microwave Cosmic Background Radiation from the Big Bang would be the hardest imaginable gamma radiation. You'd fry instantly.
It’s almost like the cosmos was designed in fine detail to support life. If any detail were different, down to the smaller measurement, we wouldn’t exist.
The faster I travel the larger my visible range becomes-that’s exactly what I told that cop who stopped me!
Sounds like a gta cop to me bud
😁😁😁
Safety first! Good on you, hopefully "the Man" will understand.
lool
Loooool
Actually its very possible humans can approach the speed of light especially if you grew up in a mexican household when mama grabs the shoe.
@Саддам Хусейн Go back to school before you consider insulting.
My Mama made us go get a switch!
😂
*noticed a similiar phenomena when aunty grabs the jandel...
Still reading again & again for vigorously laughing 😂
so going the speed of light is basically like a crazy ass mushroom trip lmao
Lol I can definitely relate because when mushrooms work I feel like there is either NO time or space, or that everything is changing speed of reality
Lol MIT knows they put giant mushrooms for decor.
No, you get to the speed of light by playing video games. Life is a video game he’s saying.
this reminded me of 2001 where Dave was traveling thru space. I never read the book but maybe that was what they were trying to portray.
EyeSeeYou, that's exactly what it reminded me of when they were talking about the time dilation. Pretty cool upload.
So maybe in the last scenes of 2001 a space odyssey, the change of colors over land scapes might indicate that Dave was travelling closer to the speed of light.
Underrated comment
This is Kubrick we're talking about so yeah, I agree.
That’s exactly what I thought about
I thought that was super obvious.
Back then, not many people were thinking of these things. But now it is becoming common thinking so that would explain the condescending remarks from some of these people who try to get recognition for their intelligence.
The shortest interval of measurable time is the time from when the light turns green and the guy behind you honks his horn.
That's funny
@@AB-wf8ek Not in downtown Hayward.
And the longest is the last 2 minutes of any sport.
Surely the mushrooms that are present aren’t a coincidence....
I rent the first reply so here won't be any spam aka "first", "agree", "lol" or " "
Pishposh Magoo that is simply not true. It’s a theory but never been proven, and actually been lots of studies to suggest otherwise tho nothing is conclusive. This is the problem with the internet. People just say stuff like it’s fact without even knowing for sure. That’s called ego.
magical mushrooms affect our vision in a similar manner
@Pishposh Magoo wtf. Who told you that? Are you off your medication?
IKR? 😁
You can travel at the speed of light but not at night cos it’s dark
😂
That made me giggle so much! :D
lol bruh
Wahh..wahhh..wahhh ☹️
jeremy western lil dis doggy funny😂😂
Imagine being on an LSD trip and then entering speed of light
*You would see colors that do not even exist*
time is relative who knows perhaps lsd is making time slower!!
Lol, you can see colors that cant normaly be seen with the eye on lsd anyway. Or without lsd, i had a dream where i was floating through space and saw a black hole of colors and i saw colors that cant be seen with the human eye.
Tried it once, turns out they just cancel each other out and you just end up sober.
@@velocirapper8862 On one of my very intense mushroom trips whenever I would close my eyes I would see a teal/cyan/green color that I have never seen sober. Safe to say i spent a lot of time with closed eyes for that trip.
@@SeeMeRolling time is relative but it becomes even more relative when you’re on lsd especially since time starts to distort and the perception of time goes bananas
You are sitting on the living room carpet. You are really really REALLY stoned. So much you can't even move. Moving would require infinite energy at this point.
There is a bag of chips on the far side of the carpet. And those chips would be SOOOO good right now. But from your perspective the bag is as far away as Alpha Centauri is from Earth.
Then it hits you! Eureka! Moving at any speed may be impossible, the speed is a constant, but space and time is not. At this point time has ceased to exist, so you are left with only space. You start pulling at the carpet. Space starts to warp ahead of you. The bag of chips appears to come closer. You did it! To travel without moving, that is the secret!
In the vast darkness outside your living room an observer passes by. He sees someone pulling at a rug whilst laughing and grinning madly, shakes his head and keeps walking. Yet from your perspective you are a genius, having cracked the very secrets of the universe itself! It truly is all relative...
Masterpiece
Freakin genius
Albert, is that you?
The moral of this story: Put the pot down and go read a book!
@@3DPDK the moral is to smoke pot BEFORE reading the book.
Oh time dilation, that's the reason why it takes so long for my dad to come back.
r/holup
Interstellar in a nutshell.
@@Buttermi1kJesus op’s comment was 1 year ago. For their father, who presumably went to Miller’s planet to get some milk, only less than 10 minutes have passed. You gotta give the man a little more time.
Don't forget, not only is there a "tiny tiny tiny time delay" (6:34) because of the time it takes for the light from the screen to reach your eyes, but there is also an additional tiny tiny tiny delay because of the time it takes for the nerve impulses to travel from your retina into your brain and for those signals to be processed.
That's how TV (CRT) worked, you're watching a dot scan across the screen a high speed.
About 200mph
And it's probably greater than the delay caused by the speed of light
while nerve impulses are on the order of milliseconds, light travelling around 30cm is on the order of nanoseconds, so it's about 6-7 orders of magnitude (1000000-10000000x) difference
it looks like it feels when you're dreaming and you're trying to run, but barely getting anywhere
This is an underrated comment xD so true
The reason why you seem to speed up is not actually because of time dilation. You will still seem to move at the same speed but distances will get shorter in front of you. This is known as length contractions, where distances in your direction of motion gets shorter. Thus you can travel between 2 points at a seemingly faster speed when in fact is is the path which gets shorter.
4:09 not quite. The gravity of Earth also dilates time. The time dilation caused by the difference in gravity for us vs the satellites is much larger than the time dilation the satellites experience from their velocity and is in the other direction. The satellites experience more time than us, they age more. And it's not trivial, it's 0.02 seconds a year. At the speed they're going, they will be at a significantly different location in that time.
i came here to say this, but youre wrong about the second part. time dilation is always in the same direction, so gravity and velocity have the same effect.
but no human build vehikle is fast enough to produce any signification dilation effect.
btw, thats why start trek 4 circled around the sun in high speed. the idea was to combine both effects to time travel.
no satellites indeed experience less time relatively to earth. a fact that was known for a long time however, it only matters in a certain altitude.
funny story the first sattelites had a faulty equation on board that could not level out that effect as they planned but it didnt matter. however i think it was the first GPS satellites this became more significant.
at a certain threshold the effect was big enough to trigger certain safety mechanism because of time desync and almost lead to self destruction (safety protocol) in one of them. thats when they discovered that they send sats with a faulty equation for decades to space (all based on the same libraries).
@@woswasdenni1914 from an outside perspective, someone who entered a place with very strong gravity (like close to a black hole) and then came back would look like it aged more slowly (a clock would tick slower in a stronger gravity). Maybe you've seen that in sci fi movies or something, it was a thing in interstellar for example.
Fun fact: we are in a stronger gravity than the satellites above us. So for a satellite, our clock would seem to tick more slowly. And for us, a satellite's clock would seem to tick more quickly (i.e. the satellite ages more quickly).
Satellites do age more quickly due to experiencing less gravity from Earth, but that effect is overshadowed by the time dilation experienced via special relativity/the much higher velocity of the satellite.
@@woswasdenni1914 The time dilation for a clock near a massive body moves more slowly than a clock far away from it, so a satellite would age more quickly from gravitational time dilation alone. The time dilation due to velocity overwhelms it, however.
There has never been a GPS satellite, or any satellite (other than test satellites intended to research explosions in space) rigged with a self-destruct mechanism. It really makes no sense why anyone would do that. If you explode a faulty satellite, you still don't have a working satellite, but now you have thousands of untracked pieces of space debris flying around. They'd just let the orbit decay until the satellite burned up in the atmosphere.
@@hetsmiecht1029 How would you know the time is out of sync? How can you compare two clocks over such distance? Why would the reference time (RF, speed of light communication) not be affected by time dilation?
Every time I learn something about the universe I rewatch 2001 A Space Odyssey and realize they tried to account for it.
Yeah exactly what I was thinking of: the scene with David traveling through the worm hole.
Developer: *creates simulation of travelling at the speed of light*
Also developer: *creates gamespace of a small canyon*
MIT devs no less.
It's still quite impressive
you missed the point of the whole videogame......you are not travelling at the speed of light......the light travels at walking speed
*facepalm* the whole is that you travel at your regular speed, while the light is progressively slowing down to walking speed.
Just speculating, but this program probably uses a decent amount of processing power. Easier to run with a smaller game-space and little to no rendering
This just went over my head at the speed of light
lmao, just this?
;)
Ron Hagelstein Mine too!
hahaha
😂😂😂
woa nice one
this video is so clear and perfectly written, his commentary with the game too really makes this all easier to understand
so when dio uses za warudo, the cool colorful effect is actually semi realistic!
since time is stopped, light particles will be hitting your eyes in weird ways
same with the Lorentz effect, as you move around in stopped time,
things will probably get all distorted
With a realistic timestop power, you won't be able to see anything, since photons stop moving. You won't be able to breath either, since air molecules stop entering your lungs.
In fact, you won't be able to move at all, unless coming into contact with stuff enters them into your time bubble. Even then, the since the particles will stop as soon as they leave it again, which would mean they immediately get caught again if you're moving forward, will create a sheathe of high energy plasma in front of you, and quite possibly leave the area drained of air if you stand still.
TL;DR: Realistic timestop is the worse power ever if there's no mitigating factors. Get a Bullet time power instead.
@@Mernom the light wouldnt need to travel if you are walking into the photons though. You going to them instead of them coming to you solves the sight problem. Breathing however is a good point, and it's hilarious to think that the silly character Guldo from DBZ actually has breathing as the major flaw of his time stop power.
@@TailsClock Realistically speaking, you wouldn't be able to move, because if the time is stopped, signals your brain sends to your muscles would never reach their destination, since time is stopped. You wouldn't even be conscious, because your brain activity was stopped.
If your brain did function in this time bubble, signals from it reached your muscles and you could move, then there are 2 other problems.
1. Air, as explained above.
2. If you were to move into the photons, you'd probably leave an empty trail of light behind you. Like, standing in place would give you only a single image, after which you'd need to move forward a bit, which would produce yet another image. Going back to the same place wouldn't let you see the image again, because all the other photons in that place would be pushed away.
At least that's how I imagine it, if someone knows better feel free to share.
@@Mernom when dio hit solid objects, they move, i think it's like a temporary local desactivation of his power idk, may "explain" certain things, tho i hope he won't stand still too long because of CO2
doesn't explain light
@@TailsClock 'walking towards the light' wouldn't have enough photons to really allow you to see enough, and it would also capture photons regardless of which direction they're moving to. This would probably make getting a coherent image impossible.
I keep catching myself staring at this like a young child watching a magician for the first time. Laughing, smiling, holding my breath in anticipation. Space man, space... Ain't it somethin'?
eamonia is such a pretty word
@@nocturnalpisces1299 Funny you should say that; My name is Eamon, my birthday is Feb 21st, and I am a total night creature. It's 0541 in New Orleans. (5:41am) Looks like we have a lot in common. But, the sun is about to come up so it's almost my bed time. What does eamonia mean anyway? I used to be a huge chem nerd in elementary and middle school so I just thought it sounded like ammonia. (Yeah ammonia nitrate) Of course I was into nitrates as a kid playing with chemicals. Back when chemistry sets were a lot more fun ;)
If the universe has an end, such as a big crunch or a big freeze, then you would not ever actually be able to "experience" reaching 100% of light speed. Because as you get closer, time for you slows down, until it gets so extreme (before you reach 100%) that the entire universes lifetime will appear to swish past in the blink of an eye, at which point you will either experience the big crunch or big rip, before you reached 100% of light speed.
Thus, this is why it is impossible to reach lightspeed (with physical momentum, not talking about circumventing it via warp drives). Becuase you cant attain that speed before the universe dies out of old age. Or rather, you cant experience and become aware of having reached 100% before the universe dies.
This is kind of the same thing as with black holes. I have a similar theory where, i think nothing has ever reached, or can ever, reach that absolute singularity in a black hole. Because gravity also slows time down, and if we truly hypothesize that a singularity inside a black hole is "infinite" gravity, then the same applies as for light speed, time would slow down to almost being stopped.
So any "person", or even just a single atom or particle, would NEVER have enough "time" to fall all the way down and reach the singularity, because time slows down the closer they get.. They would need the entire lifetime of the universe to get to the actual exect quantum point that represents infinite gravity.
Thus, black holes cannot be "solid", they must be SHELLS of incredibly dense matter, like a gradient going radially inwards ever denser and denser, until it forms an essential "wall" in the boundary of time where no matter has managed to journey further, as it takes longer and longer to go further. For 1 particle to travel 1 "meter" (random example) in the outside of the shell, might take 1 year, but for 1 particle to travel 1 mm on the inside, might take a trillion years.
So it must be a density gradient, that gets ever denser the closer in it gets as particles "clog up" as they travel ever shorter distnaces in the same time unit, with a perfect void of the singularity in the middle. Because no matter can have enough time to fall into the center. So a black hole must be the most dense matter ever imaginable (the shell), while also at the same time being the most perfect void imaginable (the immediate vicinity of the singularity, where time is so slowed down that even spontaneous quantum particles doesnt have enough time to pop into existance).
Wowww... incredible....idea about time dilation....I never thought of death of the universe but still do you have any idea of going back in time like traveling to past cz as far as my knowledge only 1% of traveling back in time is possible
Cool awesome do you have your theories .....
I think going back in time is a kind of possible ... Bcz according to Einstein relative motion when you move with very high speed even the destination gets closer and closer .... So we can apply this even in dialing the time for example when we manage to go 10 year to the future then the present of our should movie back ward in time as we are relatively movie ahead in time so switching between us and the present we let the whole universe to move forward in time so then we would go back in time but mean while we would not be knowing what happened so we repeat the same thing again ... Maybe ..
Baleur Sorry but I’m you to debunk your hypothesis. Assuming the universe has some Big Crunch, the universe is still there. The universe doesn’t just disappear. It still exist as a compressed point, and thus time still passes. If I were to now travel at the speed of gluons, then I’d see infinitely far into the future, and even if there is a Big Crunch, I’ll continue to see infinitely far in the future. The Big Crunch doesn’t mean that time just stops. Time still goes on. And it’s likely that particles moving at c do not see infinitely far into the future. The time dilation equation most likely doesn’t apply to speeds moving at the speed c.
And for your black hole hypothesis, it’s somewhat right. Objects cannot fall into black holes, but your reason is wrong. Again, the assumption that there is a Big Crunch doesn’t mean that time just stops. The reason why you can’t fall in a black hole is because in your perspective, the black holes would evaporate instantly due to Hawking radiation.
CanYaDigIt then where do you go after black hole evaporates
You can approach the speed of light by Naruto running
one Monster drink is enough for speeds upto 0.99c
I am a physicist and I can confirm this.
nothin' worse than a case of the runs!!😝😝
I tried it, and it worked! Also, have you tried hacking your Mario Kart to 999,999,999CC?
For some reason I feel like ruining this comment. A training expert actually has shown that naruto running is not only less safe, but it is also actually slower than common running, such as pumping your arms
This makes the Stargate scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey that much more interesting.
That is precisely what I was thinking.
Tido!
We all knew it was warped because of his speed
I thought the Stargate scene was created using video feedback.
that was the first thing i though of too...
"It's like moving in lag"
Me laughing in South African ping...
People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... timey wimey... stuff.
@Wiegraf I think he's making a Doctor Who reference.
So the ending sequences in 2001: A Space Odissey were scientifically accurate all along
Greatest movie
@@999titu Booooooring.
@@cosmefulanito5933 no
@@999titu yup. I had the opportunity to see it in a concert/movie event, I am glad I didn't miss it !
@@cosmefulanito5933 Only boring for people who can appreciate a slow movie.
So basically
Relavistic doppler 1:47
Searchlight effect 2:53
Time dilation 3:18
Lorrentz transformation 6:11
Thank you :D
If I was approaching the speed of light I would be like Weeeeeeeeeee
Thank you nice guy
Hello space-heads.
Sup
a59x what’s happenin-in
Howzit from ZA B-)
Space is..
hello
I also run time dilation and gravitational distortion sims. What's interesting, is that this expansion of perceived space with increased lag looks an awful lot like the behaviour of dark energy. I can have a sim where only gravitational attraction is present. No strong force or repulsion of any kind. Just gravity with a lag, so that every point is drawn not to the current position of every other point, but to their last position, based on propagation of causality. What I observe is an expansion of the system. A gradient forming in spacetime that make it look like the system is gaining energy. All net forces are zero, yet the simulated space begins to grow.
Could it be that dark matter/energy is not affected by time hence why its not visible to us?
Woah!
I've always wondered if dark matter isn't just lots of neutrinos out there traveling rediculously close to the speed of light.
Maybe the expansion of the Universe is just a natural cause of Relativity
Gotta love how the trees are mushrooms.. Another way to travel the speed of light
Alex- as always, your videos bring the science of space down to an easily understood level. (Let's face it, scientific dissertations can be a bit dry!)
A favorite sci-fi movie of mine which illustrates the effect of space-time is "Interstellar". A man leaves his young daughter on a mission to find another world. To him, very little time passes, but when he returns, he visits his daughter who is now on her deathbed and very old.
I still maintain that you should do a separate series geared toward younger schoolchildren. I think they would be a huge success!
Mass creates a very similar warping effect to the passage of time, which is what Interstellar was based off :) I would like to make videos for kids too, but I'm really quite stretched as it is!
Adventures with Dogs I read a sci-fi book once called The Forever War where the subject is involved in a war with another race across the galaxy and due to massive time dilation each time he goes back to the war, when he returns to earth it’s a couple of hundred years in the future. This happens several times such that very soon he’s an object of curiosity to those on earth and society is completely altered. It was a spooky concept. For him it was just a few years but everything he knew back on earth was ancient history. When he finally returns the last time he discovers the war has long been over. I learnt later it was written by a Vietnam war vet and was a parable of his experience. I can see the connection.
@@robinhodgkinson I'll look for it on Amazon. Sounds right up my alley! Regarding Vietnam- I turned 19 in '75, just after the fall of Saigon, but I well remember how much our world changed in those years.
Adventures with Dogs I hear ya. I was just a couple years younger living in Australia. My older brother just missed out on being drafted. Much to the relief of my parents. Now we go on holiday there! Strange days..
@@astrumspace " but I'm really quite stretched as it is!"
You are not approaching a black whole, I hope.
I think that it's not that you can see a larger part of the spectrum, but that the visible part gets shifted. Looking forward the relativistic doppler shortens all the wavelengths of light, so infrared gets visible (near first, than thermal) but at the same time what was blue and violet becomes ultraviolet and you can no longer see it.
Had the same thought. The wavelengths a person can perceive does not change. The actual wavelengths we perceive shift in the spectrum.
It's interesting. When you're approaching blue colour object, it will remain blue but get brighter. But while approaching red objects blueshift. Fun thought experim... oops brain overheating... rebooting.
Hello there.
Talk to those NPCs, they might give you quests or something
nope
they dont talk
To simulate going at the speed of light, you would have to actually run up the stairs after u turn off the light.
*excuse me what the fuck*
Run down the stairs REALLY DRUNK no lights no mercy
You could come even before you start jacking it!
In MIT game, light travels at speed of YOU!
Okay, jokes aside...
The trick about near-light speed space travel that no one seems to talk about is this: time doesn't just flow faster on Earth while you are traveling; it also flows faster at your destination. So, when you get to your planned colony site at Alpha Centauri, only a week or two has passed for you, but four years have passed on your colony world.
Oh, but the fun doesn't stop there. See, you have to slow down and stop when you get there. And when you do, the four years you didn't feel while traveling suddenly catch up with you in whatever short time it takes you to decelerate...IN ADDITION to the four year time lag due to Alpha Centauri's distance before you left. Of course, this does NOT mean you will suddenly age four years when you slow down...of course that won't happen. But the universe outside your ship will, and more so than you think. When you were at Earth getting ready to leave orbit, Alpha Centauri looked the way it did in 2016. Now that you are orbiting the colony world, it looks like it does right now...in 2024. The intel you left with is now EIGHT years out of date.
This means that for interstellar travel, you have to do a good bit of your planning AFTER ARRIVING, as there will have been at least minor changes at your landing site. Not much, mind you...eight years is hardly a geological time frame...but in what seemed like only two weeks to you, there could have been an asteroid strike there, or quakes, or floods, or other weather disasters. You might have to start all over picking a different place to land.
Amazing wow 🙈🥰
Once in FTL always in FTL, is a better option, just have to stay outside the (definitions of) universe.
Once you landed on destination and saw earth through telescope, will you be seeing your start of your journey?
@@sidhartharu You know, that is a very interesting question. It certainly seems like you would. But looking deeper, I don't think so. If you've been traveling at 95%c, then the images of your departure would have been just ahead of you all this time, and arrive at Alpha Centauri shortly before you did, so those images would be in front of you the whole time. You would not be able to look back and see them.
And yet you make a compelling argument. Since you are now at Alpha Centauri in 2024, you would be seeing the Earth the way it was in 2020--when you left. Logically, it SEEMS like you would see your ship leaving Earth. So I suppose that's a bit of a paradox. Try asking this in a comment on one of Neil DeGrass Tyson's videos, and let me know which one you choose. I'll be very curious to see what kind of answers you get from the other commenters there.
Good to see people are actually paying attention. Yes indeed, our system is moving relative to other systems, and in fact we are actually quite outside. Take a spinning disc, the outside is spinning faster than the inside. See the galaxy? Where is our local system located? And isn't that galaxy also itself rotating against the center of the universe?
Essentially traveling towards the center will put you in a place that is moving relative slower than Earth. So the opposite occurs once you stop at your destination. 10 years for you in your new world may be 1 year on Earth which is on the edge of that spinning thing.
So even if we somehow discover FTL traveling, simply stopping at another system/planet will make your time out of sync from Earth. Interstellar voyages are essentially one way only, well, they may be two way, but forget anything and anyone you leave behind... You will age faster or slower relative to the people you left behind on Earth.
When you realize this video is really just a let's play
I'm sure the students at MIT and Astrum made millions of dollars from this ad ;)
Blows my mind everytime to contemplate light speed, never gets old
Never BORN
It's also the sad reality to the limits to exploring our own galaxy, no matter how advanced in pupolsion we get..
Ok so as we see, alcohol is the key to time travel.
Entrophany you mean LSD
little known fact: Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters are the only known drink to work at light speed. As such, it’s the only drink you can order at the restaurant at the end of the universe. I’ve been there twice today already so I’m a tad fuzzy.
More like mdma
What kind of alcohol have you been drinking.
Alcohol definitely causes time dilation.
Anyone that ever stopped after work for 'just a couple 'o drinks "cause I gotta get home..." knows this to be fact.
Something you forgot to mention is that to reach a speed close to that of light in the sort of timespan you infer would kill you. The acceleration would crush you to a pulp. Such accelerations are only possible for subatomic particles, as they do not form the fragile structure of the human body, which can only tolerate a prolonged acceleration of a couple of g without being killed. If you were put inside an artillery shell and it was fired, you would be dead before it had reached the end of the barrel, but even if that acceleration carried on for years you still wouldn't have reached the speed of light. In addition, if your pulp reached a speed of, say, 50% of c you would be bombarded by a storm of deadly radiation. Space is teeming with protons which would form a beam of radiation as your pulp raced through them, but when your pulp eventually hit a cosmic gas or dust cloud it would burn up.
that is unless you can uniformly translate all of the particles within a craft at the same velocity with some kind of force field. the reason inertia crushes you is because when you accelerate, the part of the craft that would be subjected to a thrusting force would be accelerating faster than the rest of the craft it is attached to, so if the bow of the craft was undergoing thrust, it would shear the craft in half, and if the stern was under thrust, it would flatten the craft like a tin can under the unrelenting force of a crane operated pylon driver. if you could apply the thrust uniformly to the entirety of the craft, there SHOULD be no discernible effects from inertia.
I really like the artillery shell analogy, it really puts the speed of light into perspective.
Also I appreciate the number of times you mentioned “your pulp” lmfao
Interesting response
1) Constant acceleration at 1g. Kill two birds with one stone by getting the entire crew to light speed without killing anyone as well as providing artificial gravity.
2) The ship would have to have a shell of incredibly strong shielding. I hear hydrogen or ice make excellent shielding. Or perhaps you blast a powerful laser ahead of you, pushing most or all of the interstellar medium out of the way of the ship.
@@fellowtraveler2251 This is science fiction, its not possible in real life.
Something I didn’t quite understand was the part with traveling 40 years at the speed of light. Since I am traveling at the speed of light and that the speed of light is so insanely high, I just cover greater distances in shorter amount of time, but how would 40 years at the speed of light feel instantaneous instead of 40 years?🤯 I mean I think I understand because time moves slower, but from what I understood it seemed like you could “teleport” 40 years on earth in one second or something.
Hello, your comment is old but I will reply anyway. 40 years is simply the reference for those who are not traveling at speed of light. If you are the one doing it, it's instantaneous from your perspective because time doesn't exist at this speed. Don't forget that anything with a mass cannot possibly go at speed of light, as per Einstein's relativity, so this is all theoretical.
first you can go close to speed of light not reach it, so it would never be instantaneous, but if you were at 99.99999% speed of light it would take < 1 minute for you to reach Alpha centauri(4.5 light years away) while 4-5 years for anyone observing you on earth, so we can travel entire galaxy without ageing, but everyone on earth would be dead..
The lights go out and it gets very very dark.
The opposite is true - blue shift would make the forward view very bright indeed as the cosmic microwave background is shifted into the visible band and then into the gamma ray band causing the fluid in your eyes to start to glow - you would by this time be very dead.
@@allangibson8494 ever seen a grape in a microwave? The waves match the length and resonate within
Although you need that low frequency at high energy, not (comparatively) high frequency of infrared and higher like most stars give.
@@timothygooding9544 Liquid water resonates at 2.1GHz. That is how a microwave oven works. Excluding resonance the higher you go in frequency the higher the energy dissipated on interaction with matter. High speeds compact time as well so the energy per unit time rises as well. In short forward glows, crew glows and the ship glows (followed by it evaporating).
@@allangibson8494 Thats not the type of resonance I mean. It has to do with light instead of sound. A microwave's wavelength is about the length of a grape (radio waves are several meters) This allows the wave to continuously bounce off the insides of the grape causing the ends to accumulate an insane amount of energy. This energy is enough to ionize the air around the grape (search "grape in microwave" and you'll see it for yourself)
@@timothygooding9544 No - the microwave is electrically resonant with the hydrogen bond to the oxygen atom, the piezoelectric electrical coupling from this results in movement. A hydrogen bond to a carbon atom is close enough to resonate too (so fat gets heated too).
The 2cm band with also causes impressive circulating currents on the surface of similar sized objects.
Imagine an astronaut travlled somewhere close to these speeds n came back after 40 years, he would have been gone an hour but his parents would have waited 40 years just to see him again, that's heartbreaking :(
The crazy thing would be that, say the astronaut is 30 years old, he'd be 70 when he'd return, but he'd actually still be 30 biologically. And if he were to die of old age at, let's say age 90, he'd actually die at age 130. Probably.
i think the only solution for all is to make the entire planet a ship that will goes with the speed of light...no more time dilatation problem !
Ciubuc John You realize how many problems that would cause?
BD Right, like who needs a life.
Basically Interstellar in a nutshell.
“They’ve gone plaid!”
Maren Denison ludacris speed !!
Good thing he was wearing a helmet
Maren Denison yeah
Some old timers here. Wouldn't expect many of the younger generations to get that one.
@@Lord_Volkner I love that movie, it's a classic
time dilation is one of the things space based sci-fi constantly gets so wrong. people zip around at light speed, and everywhere they go people are still the same age and little has changed.
_"...the rate of time reaches zero."_
And RIGHT THEN UA-cam throws in a COMMERCIAL.
*I 😡 UA-cam!!!!*
You hear a distinct pop when you reach the speed of light.
And you say: "I'm fast as f*** boiiiii"
I know I did.
Gonza A walked in the woods. FOUND A DEAD DOLLAR
U can go faster then light in a vacuum I wonder what the effect would be once u get beyond 186,000 mps.
This is a film reference, isn't it? But in the film it was the pop of the sonic boom from breaking the speed of sound.
The problem of being faster than light is that you can only live in darkness.
Listek22 Nope you just either stop or slow down.
Listek22 do you?
Except that light travels everywhere, if you were moving at the speed of light, you'd still be moving into the light travelling towards you.
It would only be dark directly behind you.
Not unless your heading towards other light.
if something is 60 light years away, it still takes 60 years to reach it traveling at the speed of light, hence "light years" so it makes the time trip even more interesting
Yeah but the point is that you will be unaffected by the passage of time, so people on Earth will observe your travel to take 60 years, but you from your perspective will appear at the destination instantaneously. and then discover that everyone are 60 years older.
(except to discover that you'd have to go back, so it would be at least 120 years)
Also:
If you are moving towards a galaxy at the speed of light, the spin of that galaxy will speed up.
If you are moving away then it slow down but won't be visible as less photons will reach your eye.
And also:
If you are in a space ship then the front could have faster speed of time compared to the very back. The difference would depend totally on the total distance between the nose and end point of the spaceship.
0:40 "exponential growth" is not a synonym for "fast and accelerating". The model is definitely not exponential.
looks exponential to me
@@jjt171 Exponential growth is not "graph goes up fast" and cannot be easily distinguished graphically. (but maybe approximated to some extent) from many other functions which have a positive both first and second derivatives. The mathematical expressionbetween speed and energy, shown graphically in the video, is (γ-1)mc^2, where γ is the Lorentz factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2) and c speed of light. Notice there is no exponential function used at all, but just squaring, division, subtraction and square root.
5:19 This is mind blowing to think about.
Bloody aye, it really is amazing.
I don’t really think that is true in reality. If you were to talk with someone on earth on the phone from your spaceship, then you keep talking with them for 24 hours as you drive the speed of light, you would both agree you talked for 24 hours. (lets just ignore the speed of phone signals etc for now and pretend it’s instant). After 24 hours, you got really far, but 24 hours on your clock is still 24 hours on earth’s clock. I understand that when we look into the universe we see a delay, because light takes time to travel, however I don’t see how time would affect you differently as soon as you travel that fast. Your clock would move at the same paste as it did when you were driving slow, and your clock will still be in sync with every clock on earth no matter how far and fast you drive? Am I wrong? Please help me understand, someone.
@@richardstylez1950 the speed is faster, the space and time changes (relativity), so, for the space dude, the time goes slower (don't age) and that leave the earth dudes (normal speed) aging normal (for the space dude, faster as heck). I think it's pretty much it talking not cientifically.
Matías Titanico So if the space guy and the person on earth each had a syncronized clock, at what point would these clocks go out of sync? Once you drive the speed of light? And if they stay in sync, how come they would age differently? I just don’t see how this would work in real life, but I get the concept on a theoretical basis.
@@richardstylez1950 Technically speaking, the clocks would go out of sync as soon as the person left Earth (because gravity affects the flow of time too).
Basically, if you has a video call with someone and you were moving at the speed of light, they would appear to be moving in slow motion.
People are just not getting the “speed of light”
Speed in space is not the same as airspeed in the earths atmosphere. There’s nothing in space that’s relative to yourself that isn’t moving like there is on earth. Speed is relative to another object. Speed on earth is obviously related to the earth and the air, but not in space. Right now we are all moving faster than the speed of light compared to another object that appears to be moving faster than the speed of light away from us.
Accelerating to that speed is something else.
Didn't read it but you use dots so it must be right
@jay Each observer would see the other experience slower time. The famous twins' paradox emerges when they meet back: the net difference in experienced time in the end depends on who makes the deceleration to catch up with the other's speed: speed is relative, acceleration is not.
@@onyej8941 hahaha
Wanna ask sir, can we got light friction as we approach lightspeed like we have here on earth as air friction?
Yes, speed is relative. If you were travelling near the speed of light you'd observe effects shown in the video, but someone who's also travelling at the speed of light in the same direction would appear normal to you. That's why it doesn't matter whether the entire universe is moving somewhere or not
i just traveled witht the speed of light for a couple of moments , anyone still watching this in December 2519 ?
Uhhhh, yea, let's go with that
2519, I see what you did there
2020
by then computers will travel at the speed of light (technological singularity)
11 months ago says otherwise
Always when I think about the speed of light, I realize it is always relative to something. Almost all explanations ignore the question "relative to what?".
Bingo. It's not the "speed" that causes time dilation but the acceleration of an object bc as we know, acceleration causes time dilation just like gravity does. Speed (velocity) is subjective, acceleration and gravity are not, they are objective.
The speed of light, c, is constant relative to everything: that's what's special about general relativity.
The key idea is that we always assumed space and time transformed "rigidly" between observers, so that if I move at 10 m/s on a train going at 10 m/s, I appear to you as moving 20 m/s.
So far so good. Now, if I turn a torchlight on on the train, I'll see the photons moving at the speed of light, c. Suppose the train is moving at 50% of c. Then someone on the ground will see the light moving at 150% of c.
In principle this could be true, but experiments show that light *always* travels at c. We have verified this in the 1890s. We must conclude that space and time don't work like we have always assumed, and velocities don't simply "add together".
I can't wrap my head around the fact that a second for me could be 40 years for everyone else.
Sure you can, you can imagine being at very different speeds why can't you imagine experiencing very different times. You're not locked together at the same time. Going very fast you see way more stuff, that is time.
In fact, speed is a measure of distance over time. Now instead of locking your imagination of speed to movement and distance, imagine that you are speeding but not going any distance, so that you are in fact very fast but not traveling any distances.
Actually I'm not sure that can mathematically happen, as the numerator being zero means that my speed is zero.
When you reach the speed of light you reach the speed that light travels
LOL!
Amazing!
But does light travel light?
That was...helpful.
Profound
so we can indirectly time travel by travelling closer and closer to the speed of light.
well, that's up to how you define time travel.
you can stop time, but you can achieve that also if you just freeze yourself,
going faster IS kind of like travelling to the future. but you can never go backwards, otherwise you would have to go at negative speeds(?)
and no, I don't mean walking the other direction, I mean literally to have a negative velocity, and I have trouble imagining that :D
@@0ne0fmany wow. negative velocity. makes my brain hurt.
The Hollistic Bartender Even if you did go -C you would reverse time on yourself. What would that even feel like? Would you be able to tell? What would outside observers see?
@@0ne0fmany if you travel faster than light you can go back in time
The Hollistic Bartender no you’re wrong. Freezing yourself does not make time stop for you. Negative velocity would not make you go back in time. If I run at 30m/s and then add a negative velocity of 5m/s I just run at 25m/s, still time traveling to the future, but slower. A pure -5m/s is impossible. That’s like saying Apple m/s. Running faster, does make you move into the future faster, and that’s what time travel is. In just 1 second I can file travel to the year 2050 if I run fast enough.
Imagine that in some quantum way psychedelics make the brain enter some kind of speed-of-light-state
Time is an abstract concept we use to describe relationships. It does not go faster or slower anywhere. Only the references we use to quantify it change.
It would seem perfectly normal. What would screw us up is a really slow maximum speed of CAUSALITY. Causality is the important thing. Light just happens to be able to go that fast. Causality is the speed limit, not light.
I remember downloading "Slower Speed of Light" years ago. Fun stuff.
Subtle/minor contention. From 2:45 ... "As you head into the flow of particles at speed, the more particles will hit your eye making everything ahead of you brighter. ... look behind you ... everything will get darker, because less photons are reaching you.". I believe this is not quite accurate. It is a subtle distinction. Your words could imply that the speed of photons reaching you from the forward direction is greater than that of photons coming from the rear; like the speed of raindrops hitting you from the front (versus the rear) as you run into the rain. But, the speed of light/photons is constant; they reach you at the same speed whether from front or rear.
It is true that the view forward will be brighter, for 2 reasons: (1) Since time is dilated, more photons will reach you per unit of local time, i.e. sources appear brighter. This applies forwards & rearwards. (2) Relativistic Aberration (which you refer to later on as Light Aberration & Lorentz Transformation) -- Light coming from the front will appear concentrated into a narrower cone, while light from the rear will be dispersed in a wider cone.
Nice video. Thanks.
That's interesting. I suppose the back view is still gonna be dimmer just because most photons will be shifted to infrared and radiowaves becoming invisible. Meanwhile, oncoming photons will be shifted up in frequency/energy. Thus, blue light would be shifted to UV, UV>Xrays and Xrays>Gamma rays, and with higher luminosity at that! Are we gonna get fried by high energy photons and our DNA shredded to pieces?
The light doesn't become bright instead it start shifting its frequency as you move towards the light the KINECTIC ENERGY of your and the photon gets added up only to you and this energy result in increse in the frequency of the radiation so when you move with the speed of light the frequency of radiation your body obsorbs twice the frequency of the radiation actually is so when a radio waves but you .you will be able to look at it but at the same time when visible light hits you you will blowned up the gamma frequency ....
@@hiteshv1612 why only twice the frequency? You will get the double the frequency at half the speed of light. And the frequency will keep doubling for every doubling of your speed. As you approach the speed of light, the energy of oncoming photons will be approaching infinity.
Robin Swamidasan but things behind you wouldn’t look darker they wouldn’t look like anything at all since they would be invisible (assuming that you’re ahead of the very first photon transmitting information).
@@canyadigit6274 why would that be? is that because you think we're traveling faster than light?
Remember no matter how fast you're going light is always going to catch up with you - it might get incredibly stretched by the time it reaches you, but it will reach you.
Oooh the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey
5:06 We reach objects faster is NOT because our time progresses slower (think about it: that would be a contradiction), but that distances in the direcrion of our motion (for us: opposite to their direction of motion) for us become shorter. The relevant effect is NOT time dilation, but *length contraction*.
6:04 "Lightspeed travel is impossible for everything made of matter"
*_Miguel Alcubierre wants to know your location_*
Careful with saying things are impossible--physics isn't complete yet.
Nah we're pretty sure about this one
András Fogarasi no we are not, nothing is impossible, said in the most non sarcastic way
@@andrasfogarasi5014 In order to rule out FtL, one has to rule out new physics, exotic matter, changeable constants of nature, and hardest of all: supernatural phenomena. They used to be pretty sure that stuff just appeared around rotting food...
Our physics are a total joke. We are still prehistoric
@@rafars2246 nothing can be prehistoric until it has happened
That game made me so motion sick.
Were already moving at 70,000 MPH through space and no one talks about it because we are all doing it with no effort.
The speed we travel at is 70000 miles per hour. Speed of light is 234000 miles per second. Big difference 9 year old.
"...you need to travel at the speed of light and us humans can't even fathom the concept of that kind of time because it's really, really, really, really, really, really, really, really fun to think about taking a speed of light ride." - Dr. Jimes Tooper
2001: a space odyssey was extremely accurate then
yes i filmed it with my phone and the recording apeared in the 60s. it just didnt look so good because of slow computers back then could not translate the video material properly
4:16 actually the main contributor to time changes is general relativity as the satellites are so far above the surface compared to us.
The speed of Dark leaves the speed of light, in the shade.
yes the speed of darkness is way fucking faster than speed of light
Sweet, was looking for a speed of darkness comment ^.^
@Ozymandias Heliogabal Nullifidian it seems reasonable .. since light is mass-less, it is very fast .. thus, space, which is both mass-less and also energy-less would be faster. it would however be hard to detect and quantify space, since it does not interact with anything.. although space limits the speed of light... any educated comments on this?
So then what's the speed of shade? Answer me that. LoL.
@@workhardism i assume it is instantaneous.. since it is not obstructed by neither the Higgs field nor electromagnetic ressistance ... Although there might be still other unknown variables.. i assume you mean darkness itself and not the absence of light.. because the absence of light would relate to the speed of any dissipating light? Just thinking here
It’s hard to wrap your head around the fact that an instantaneous trip for us could be 100 years on earth.
yes, but did you age or do you become a time traveler in the future?
@@RealPackCat you become a time traveller from the past
@@RealPackCat you just freeze in time. Atoms and even electrons in your body can't move faster than light and since you're already travelling at speed of light you're basically frozen. You may traveled 100 years but electrons start flowing in your brain only on arrival and the last thing you remember is your departure from Earth.
It would be pretty weird. If you were traveling at the speed of light, would you freeze so that you couldn't even move your hand forward to the control panel? Rationale: your hand is already moving at the speed of light with you, the act of moving it forward would move it faster than the speed of light. Ergo, no forward motion (blood in your body, electrons in your nervous system, etc.) is possible. Electrical signals in the ship can only move to the rear of the ship, not the front.
Moving faster than the speed of light, if you were moving away from the sun and looked back at it, you would watch it become younger as you caught up with the light that is further in transit. Looking forward, objects would age/evolve much quicker. It would become harder to anticipate objects that block your path (asteroids, etc.).
3:55 “Time dilation” is a convenient misnomer (I think, invented by journalists, or a scientist in a *pop*-sci book), and (thus) frequently misunderstood; including in this video (that is otherwise well done).
What changes for a reference frame that is moving relative to a chosen rest frame (you have to word this carefully) is NOT that time progresses slower there - there is no "rate of time"; a rate itself depends on time - but less *proper* time elapses there than in the chosen rest frame whose elapsed time we *define* as elapsed proper time.
Strangely as you approach the speed of light everything around you slows down.
Nothing slows down. You don't speed up either. It is all relative.
I would love to see a sci-fi show get this right.
But isn't this theoretical, as we can't actually know, since we can't experience such fast travel speeds?
@@cannibalbananas no, there are solid math behind it.
with today's computers you can simulate each photon, and the physics affecting them.
Probably you have heard about raytracing if you are into gaming. That's kind of what they did.
the colours (fequency at which photons hit the camera)
the time dilation,
they all can be calculated and visualized. so, it's actually pretty accurate.
Love how you explained it and showed it in a way we all can understand.
You forgot to mention how hot the traveler would get if they could approach the speed of light. Seemingly empty space isn't empty, and traveling in it produces friction; impacts are also more destructive.
_is that A Slower Speed of Light in the thumbnail i see_
Edit: yess, this game deserves more attention!
The speed of light is more like 600milion to 700mil m/s that's how you time travel.
Very interesting and worthwhile video. There would be other effects in traveling at relativistic velocities. One's view to the front would become quite different, including what might otherwise be to the side or rear.
What I learned: Don't get drunk before going into light speed or you will puke
Idk why youtube recommended your channel but im glad it did. You have a new subscriber here
So what if you flew 40Ly away from Earth instantaneously and then back again right away? Would people on earth still be able to observe you heading away from them by the time you get back?
yes it would take 80 years for them to see you again and most of them would be dead. but you would just almost instantly dissapear from their perspective. and then 80 years later you would show up all of a sudden.
whoa very very interesting, although by the end of the video I started to feel nausea.
yesss !!! the last part was really really nauseating. I had to stop the video and look away
They should make a VR version.
So everything looks like a Sound Garden video clip then?
That was a different and unique way of illustrating the concept.
Lightspeed is a ship you can't disembark from. Your time is frozen and you have no time to unfreeze it. You are essentially "stuck" in time.
This video glosses over a few things:
1) The color change it refers to will vary depending on whether you are moving toward an object or away from it. The colors of objects you are moving toward will shift toward the blue end of the spectrum, while the colors of object you are moving away from will simultaneously shift toward the red end of the spectrum. And the colors of objects you are neither moving toward nor away from will not change at all.
2) Time dilation resulting from motion works both ways. A person on Earth will see your time as having slowed down, but you will see Earth's time as having slowed down. It's only if you turn around and go back to Earth that you will both end up agreeing that you have experienced less time than the people on Earth.
3) Even if you were travelling away from Earth at 99% of the speed of light in a vacuum, you would still measure the speed of the light coming toward you as being exactly the same. Another way of putting it would be to say that if you try to catch a beam of light, it will be sort of like chasing the horizon: You will always be as far away from your goal as you were when you started.
What if you were on a ship that can warp spacetime around itself like a bubble? Would chemical engines get you going faster than 186,000 miles per second?
You rip space time and enter a new universe/galaxy
"We cant go the speed if light"
Starwars- ima stop u right there....
Traveling 40 lightyears away at the speed of light would take you 40 years, hence the name of the distance (you would not get there instantaneously)
The whole idea of relativity is that different obsevers experience time differently depending on their speed. What seemed like 40 years for an oudside stationary observer will seem less to you.
What's fascinating is that the speed of light is actually unknown it has never been measured going in one direction because no one has figured out how to measure it.
Wouldn't you need a flux capacitor and 1.21 gigawatts of power??
No, gigawatts are inadequate. You need to use Jiggawats for any serious time travel.
No, you need 21 inch rims and 4 N-wordWatts of power!
Also, thanks UA-cam for not letting me speak as I wish
And a Delorean.
what about niggawatts
This really is fascinating. Thanks for sharing this with us. :)
I had played this game back when it was released. it was fun!
Your visible range doesn't become broader. It just shifts. What is now visible light would blue-shift in front of you until it disappears into ultraviolet and beyond. Infrared, and then microwaves and radio, would become visible.
Behind you the opposite would happen. Visible would red-shift into infrared and microwave. But you'd be able to see ultraviolet, then x-rays and finally gamma rays.
Very close to the speed of light even the "soft" microwave Cosmic Background Radiation from the Big Bang would be the hardest imaginable gamma radiation. You'd fry instantly.
It’s almost like the cosmos was designed in fine detail to support life. If any detail were different, down to the smaller measurement, we wouldn’t exist.