Make the speed of light be the speed limit of a US road and people will drive 10/15 mph more than the speed limit. There, now you have speed higher than speed of light
He is at the limits of hes knowing. Thinking outside the box is what he should do. But noone can because the human race are followers, once in a while Someone Will come to proof Them wrong. I dont blame him
@@Trillineatus do you hold the belief that everything is a barrier of sorts that it only takes a more intelligent mind to break through? Wishful thinking sounds like.
If your travelling at the speed of light, time for you travels slower. So if you were going at the speed of light, time would completely stop for you, so it would take literally no time to go to the place you were going to, but for everyone else at Earth, they would age a year for every light year you travel. So if you travelled 1million light years, in the traveller's perspective, no time has passed, but to people on Earth, 1million years has passed.
Its a joke😂 Btw it definitely won't capture movement but you are still recording a laser- if you were to take a video of a wall it would still be recording, right?
Though ultimately rather minute compared to everything else, the first thing that sprung to mind with the spinning tether thing is that if you start extending carbon nanotubes out, no matter how light they are, the whole apparatus will spin more slowly due to the conservation of angular momentum.
Yes! And you would need to keep adding more power to keep the revs up. Which would get harder and harder as the ends of the tether approached C and their inertia increased.
Everyone: "But what if..." Veritasium: "Not possible" "But dude if you think about it..." "Nope" "How about..." "Never gonna happen" "But..." "NOTHING GOES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT!"
When I was in 6th grade, I had a *science* teacher claim that it should be impossible for a stick to move faster at one end than at the other because the stick was a solid object and solid objects can't move at more than one speed. That always bothered me because I knew it had to be wrong, even then, but could never quite conceptualize why. Your "long stick across the moon" - explaining that the atoms that make up the stick have to bump into each other to move the whole - you just crystalized the answer for me. 43 years later. Thank you!💌
The entire concept of a rigid body is an approximation. By that logic, rip a paper into two pieces. Boom, a solid object whose one part moves at a different speed than its other part.
What the boy I had a crush on but found out was gay said when I offered to give him head. Actually I'm a straight male who just wanted to make a witty comment.
“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships that were powered by bad news but they didn't work particularly well and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere that there wasn't really any point in being there.” ― Douglas Adams
If you build a wall around the speed of light, surely that would stop the light from go any further and thus we can all move freely in a democratic manner faster than speed of light.
1400 years from now: "lol this idiots thought that light was the ultimate speed limit" *wooshes away at the speed of 6.23 galaxies per universal standart time unit
Still potentially possible. Any particle with mass cant possibly go faster than the speed of light, for reasons described in the video. However, assuming you had infinite energy, you could theoretically somehow bend spacetime to pull yourself along it in a way that reaches some destination in a smaller amount of time than it would take light to travel there, thus effectively travelling faster than the speed of light without actually moving at all in the traditional sense. Iirc, we'd need more energy than is available in the observable universe for this.. but maybe with more efficient batteries, who knows haha :P
Don't read me k the speed of the light particles themselves stay the same and when the light gets turned off the materials around it absorb all the light. By running in circles you are simply making yourself look like a fool. The light doesn't slow down it just becomes more difficult to see due to the decrease in photons.
No, actually. Nothing in the machine is moving faster than the speed of light relative to closest thing it has to interact with. Therefore the machine would hold together if we assume the material it's made of has infinite tensile strength.
I'm afraid the video's EM binding explanation is incorrect. The atoms are bound by photon-exchange at the tip where the _local_ value of c in that reference frame remains the same. I'm frankly astonished that someone with a doctorate in educational physics has missed a fundamental tenet of Einstein's: c is a constant in all reference-frames. There is a slight complication in that the motion is non-linear and therefore requires a slight GR tweak, but the instantaneous velocity may be taken as 'linear' at such a long distance. The spinning wire paradox is resolved by the ordinary fact that not enough energy can be imparted to the tip for its velocity to equal c. The question, 'what would happen then?' isn't answered. The wire would simply start to wrap around the rotor until it was fully wrapped around. Conservation of angular momentum would then dictate the whole thing would spin up at a ridiculous rpm.
That's because the speed force comes from a originated from another dimension. When expressed is this dimension faster than light travel is possible but only relatively.
You might want to look into a whip, because the tip tries to move at infinite speed. It doesn’t obviously, because of the granularity of the material and the limits of the material’s strength, and if it ever got close for the reasons you discuss in this video. But a gentle arm motion can easily make the tip break the speed of sound.
Einstein said we will not understand the true nature of light for a thousand years. For example, if you were able to travel at the speed of light - time would stop - we know why mathematically (Special Relativity) but in a physical sense way - why is time linked to the speed of light - why does energy equal mass times the speed of light squared? We know why mathematically but we really do not understand the nature of these relationships.
what if you build a car that can go 99% the speed if light and then add stripes which will add 2% to the speed it will then be going faster then the speed of light
Taking relativity space and time dilation into account, 99% + 2% = 99.0390% Space and time dilation always results in velocity less than c no matter what numbers you apply.
+ian kirwan The only valuable thing this is that speed of light is CONSTANT. Which means no matter how fast you're moving, speed of light relative to any system will be c.
Question: remember the episode where you made the car wind sail that would go faster than the speed of the wind? Well can’t we just do that with light?
That wouldn't work, because there is a fundamental difference: -light has no mass- photons have no rest mass. An object with a mass would need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, meaning the speed of light itself isn't attainable for matter. However, a similar system with a solar sail theoretically permits to approach very close to the speed of light. It would take an incredibly long time, given the explanation of Daniel Lupton below.
@@raycharlz4937 Well light has energy and therefore mass. A photon has no rest mass, but they all have energy and momentum. A solar sail takes advantage of that momentum. The real problem is that at relativistic speeds, any light hitting the back of the sail would be red-shifted to the point where it has no energy from the perspective of the vehicle. If you did reach or exceed the speed of light, there wouldn't be any photons that could catch up to "push" the car.
@@daniel.watching I agree, light has energy, therefore mass. And the fact that it would have almost no energy to give because of the red shift is correct too. But the core part of my explanation still stands, an object with mass can't ever reach the speed of light, it can only approach it because it would need an infinite amount of energy. Then the solar sail can't go faster than light even if we found a way to continue to supply it with energy. I updated my other comment to take yours into account.
Well wind particles are air... Air has mass even if a little it adds up. Light however has no mass. That's why photons only travel at light speed. The energy is dividing by zero and reaching infinity which is the amount of energy required to reach light speed
@@yinyang1217 hyperdrives are just space warping so they could get from point A to point B faster than light but they aren't really traveling faster than light, just taking a shortcut
Thanks for the materials science point of view of WHY there's no bleeping way to make anything go FTL. The explanation of the atoms bonding to create materials and the bond interaction provides a tombstone for every imaginary experiment.
I've always hated the use of faster than light travel in movies because the fundamental particles that make up matter cannot travel faster than light so why would a giant cluster of them be able to. I don't mind when they talk about travelling through wormholes to cut corners (like in thor ragnarok when they travel through the einstein-rosen bridge) but ftl travel is nonsense and I hate seeing it in movies nearly as much as I hate when movies include time travel
If negative mass was a possibility then with super dense negative mass near slightly less dense positive mass you would theoretically be able to bend space time on a way to allow speeds faster than light, because the speed of light only applies to flat space time, not warped.
The speed of light doesn't "only apply to flat spacetime". General relativity is essentially all about curved spacetime and holds c in the same regard as special relativity. I think what you're suggesting is the Alcubierre drive which theoretically works by manipulating the space around it. There's good reason to believe it's not possible to construct such a device.
2:09 as the rod move out of the center the angular velocity will decrease... in order to maintain angular momentum... at some point the engine will not be able to sustain acceleration... (not to count any relativistic effect, which would make this effect stronger, as the rods ends will "increase" its mass)
I think that the fact that mass (or inertia as you mention) approaches infinity as the speed goes approaches the speed of light IS the ultimate blocker to anything moving at the speed of light but the propagation speed of the movement down that long rod is a good point too..
@@thomasdahl3083 - meh, it's not an AI. It's a database of information your IP clicked on. Then sort it and recommend stuff that is related and upvoted. It's quite simple actually and i work with several of these databases all the time. You also get web commercials based on your previous clicks and likes.
I would like to ask a question. Why are we assuming that there is a cap on the potential speed of protons or of anything else? Just because that's the speed we've been able to measure them move at, does not determine the ability for them to move faster. It's only what we've been able to measure. This is why I believe the ability to move faster could still be there.
I haven't studied relativity, and hardly any Newtonian physics, so take this with a grain of salt. But here's my understanding: The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly the same for all frames of reference. A car driving at a hundred million mph sees light move at the same speed as a stationary observer does: the speed of light. The light doesn't move at the expected "speed of light plus 100 million mph" because of time dilation. Time dilates such that anything that *would* be moving faster than the speed of light (were reference frames composed using simple sums) moves less than or equal to the speed of light. Now, all this assumes that Einstein's equations for relativity are accurate, and so far we haven't found any disproofs for that. (I might be completely wrong here, but it's something along those lines: the speed of light shows up in the equations of relativity in such a way that moving faster than that speed is impossible)
@@berylliosis5250 Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I think I'm more suited for theoretical physics more than anything 😆 because that's just how I think but it doesn't always work with established physics.
moving faster than the speed of light changes time right and would be impossible to see, what if things are moving at the speed of light but we just dont see them. Like how you see more of a cars design if its going 60mph rarther than 200 mph
The closer a physical object gets to the speed of light, the more time would appear to slow down for that object from the perspective of an outside observer. So theoretically, an object moving the speed of light would appear to be motionless.
+xboxless: If we measure something to leave A and arrive at B in less time than it would take light to make the same trip, it's moving FTL. We'd be able to see it because it's not the object itself that we see, it's the light bouncing off it. (Think of light shining on a superluminal rock from the side, for example. There's no reason we couldn't observe it.) +Eric: Photons are moving the speed of light, yet do not appear motionless.
This is also true of objects moving slower than light. We see the light bounding of it, not the object itself. We see all objects in the past. How far in the past depends on how far away it is, not how fast it's moving.
It truly is unbelievably fast. Even if somehow you were able to approach these speeds, the universe around you would crumble and disorient from your perspective. Time would basically stop.
But that explains the Fermi paradox. We never found aliens because they just live too far away from Earth. The universe is so big that even at the speed of light you need several years just to reach the next star. So everybody is kind of stuck in their solar system.
Kids are dumb. Let me share a story with you. I was 13 or 14 and the history teacher came to the class and she said "you guys are becoming old enough to get informed about politics. You should read about it, talk about it with other people, exchange ideas and form your opinion on things and so on". A kid responded "yeah, but i don't want to. I'm not even old enough to be able to vote in an election, why should I care?" I couldn't hold myself (and i disliked that kid) then I raised my hand and said on spot "well, you are also not old enough to have a driver's license, yet you spend the whole time here at school talking about cars and so on. Forming a political opinion matters to everyone, the earlier the better" I felt embarrassed, the whole class looked at me in the same second. The teacher raised her eyebrows and chenged the subject of the conversation. The kid didn't argue with me later on, but i don't remember having lots of conversations with him since that day
So how would you propose interstellar or greater travel? If we can't exceed the speed of light, what sci-fi method would you bet on to be the best interstellar method out there? Besides, people who want to move that fast forget what happens to a commercial airliner when it hits a bird.
"Don't move the ship, move everything else around the ship" have a thruster that that moves space through the engine, the same as am airplane moves air through the turbines, I am amazed how no one has thought of this, the closest thing to this idea is the "warp-drive" where you "expand" space behind you and "deplete" space in front of you... though, with that idea, would you not have launched all of space behind you? And if someone did the same thing facing the other direction, you would not move... but if you move space through a thruster, then you are creating a wave of space to move upon... do you think this would work?
Sulli11 "Old Man's War" comes pretty close to this idea. It's not to say that it isn't impossible, rather that we have to talk about how to 'grab space.' We're still a little far from detecting all the particles of the universe that would be necessary to create such a possibility. That likely won't happen in our lifetime.
It could happen in our lifetime, all we really need is to place a physical force on a vacuum. So, wind in a vacuum, it is possible, just not in the way you think, I refer to the myth busters experiment with the american flag in a vacuum, the flag moves, but this is because something propelled it. So a vacuum propellant that can work, or we could forget all this and go for solar sails from "Treasure Planet" things that can take sunlight as two power sources. Though, from all the weird "UFO" videos that appear on you-tube, apparently "*Spinning*" works very well against gravity, and space. Same as a bullet does to become more accurate. We as a race have a lot of physics at our disposal, wonder why we are not really using it...
The solar sails have promise, but still work under the premise of moving at incredible speeds, which is very dangerous. Again, everything you're talking about assumes that we can avoid debris. And the flag moving in the vacuum could very easily be electric fields or magnetic fields, not 'pushing' on the vacuum of space.
There are numerous theoretical creative ways to go "faster than light." Someday a machine/ship might be able to warp space around itself to appear to move faster than light. It might perhaps create different types of alternate dimensions with different or shortened lengths of space. There may be a way to influence or create a space where the laws of physics are different. It's virtually a sure bet, that there are particles and physics that we are not aware of yet. Most current math does make it look impossible, but the thing about math, is that it makes many things look impossible until someone proves they actually can be done! The historical record of this happening is extensive! Who knows, it may be possible some day, given enough time. I'm not saying it is possible, I'm just saying we can't say for certain.
The thing that makes us breaking the speed of light limit unlikely in my eyes is just the fact that traveling faster than light breaks causality, causes paradoxes and would result in whatever is traveling faster than light to move backwards in time rather than forwards, meaning they would arrive at a destination before they even departed. I don't see how it would ever be possible to develop FTL travel and overcome the issue of breaking causality and causing paradoxes.
@@StreakyBaconMan What you are saying of course sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps though by warping space a thing might go from point a to point b in less time , if point a and b are positioned closer together via warped space. It wouldn't create any causality or math issues per say. It does appear that space can be warped by large objects. Perhaps some day it will be no big deal for us to do it. I have no clear idea how it might be done though. I have my doubts about the negative mass and energy ideas. Recently Dr. Sony White from NASA, claimed to have found micro warp bubbles. Again I don't really know much about it though. I do have ion thrusters on my channel that lift their power supplies against Earth's gravity, and might go really fast in space with ultra small propellant tanks, or very high voltages, that I do know something about.
@@StreakyBaconMan Warping space behind the spaceship and actually moving through space are different so it possible. And while it does break causality, it doesn't always do it. As long as you don't mess with what you shouldn't mess with, nothing will break.
The One Actually no one says you have to use antimatter in Alcubierre's warp drive (that's the warp drive I assume the parent comment is refering to), what it uses is negative energy, and in great amounts (although this requirement is decreased in every refinement done). We know negative energy does exist (search for Casimir's effect), but the real big problem in Alcubierres drive is it mixes quantum mechanics with relativity, and we do not have a quantum "relativity" (or a quantum gravity theory as it would be called), so possibly all the math behind the model is wrong (but I hope is not the case).
Just building on the replies above me... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem This is a bit more concise than putting in a lengthy bit on why quantum teleportation does not mean FTL communication. The reasons are a bit subtle. Warp drives are tricky because the physics behind them is a bit speculative. Aside from some dire practical issues with all models I've seen, we still don't quite understand how QM and relativity work together and it appears that aspects of both are necessary for such a drive to work. However, technically no object traverses local space faster than c.
You can change the velocity of photons but not this way. And you can only slow them (so-called slow light), you can't make them go faster than in vacuum.
What if your on a spaceship going 99.999999 (etc)% the speed of light, and then started running forward. Wouldn’t you be traveling faster than the speed of light?
Sadly, no, but it's a really cool reason. From your perspective, you are sitting inside a spaceship that is going near the speed of light. Awesome! send me the schematics. You start running forward. You would make it from one end of the space ship to the other in what you perceive to be a normal amount of time, and you think that you're traveling faster than the speed of light. Eventually, you're journey ends, and you get off of the space ship to collect your nobel prize, only to find that hundreds of years have passed in what you thought was only a few minutes. See, the really weird thing about Einstein's theory of relativity is something called Time Dilation. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower you move through time. So, from an outside perspective, the spaceship is moving at 99.9999999999% (10 decimal places) the speed of light, and you are moving at 99.99999999999% (11 decimal places) the speed of light inside it. You are still moving faster than it, but only by an infinitesimal amount. This phenomenon has actually been experimentally observed in satellites with hyper-accurate atomic clocks. As the satellite goes faster and faster, the clock starts ticking slower and slower. So, from the satellite's perspective, it is following newton's standard F = ma. But from the perspective of us mere earthlings, it follows the relativistic form of the equation.
@@caseygravelle7672 That’s one of the most well structured and engaging RUclips comments I’ve ever read. Thanks for the insight, I always wanted to know that!
In reference to what? If two people are going half the speed of light in opposite directions, one is going at speed of light for another. But that doesn't count
Theoretically a warp drive does work, we don't know how to do it, but it works. the thing about warp drives is that you're not actually moving. rather, you are expanding space behind you so that the space in front of you contacts. It's a really hard concept to think about, but it does work in our current laws of physics. we just have no idea how to actually do it.
When a spaceship is in warp it doesn't actually move through space faster then the speed of light. It's either moving through subspace (what ever that is) that acts as a shortcut or it is bending the space around it not actually moving at all (much like the distant galaxies).
***** Yes, they would appear to. but its just space expanding faster than light, which is completely within the laws of physics. Its the exact same as the thing described in the video with the galaxies moving away from us.
***** Yes, it is possible to move faster than the speed of light relative to another object but you're not actually moving at a higher SPEED than light. Einstein's laws doesn't say that you cannot move from one point to another faster than light, only that you cannot travel at a speed higher than light in any one moment. I believe Scishow has a video that explains Warp Drives in a nice and understandable way so go look there, just search for "warp drive scishow" on youtube and you'll find it.
If you have a laser than multiple timers set up on its path, you set the timers to wait to start counting until all timers have received the signal without needing to talk to each other by syncing with the already perceived time of the speed of light, then have the laser go along the line and the timers stop as soon as the laser hits the timer repeat in different directions if you are getting different results than the direction has an effect on the speed of light if the results are to the point exactly the same than you have light travelling at one speed in all directions
Step 1: Get a turtle Step 2: Name it "The Speed of Light" Step 3: Put it on the ground and run past it Congratulations you have just run faster than the speed of light
hey, what about that carbon nanotube sticking out of his nose during the last third of the video? How fast would that thing travel in a vacuum? Seriously, I couldn't pay attention to anything else after I noticed it.
+Vignesh Thirumurthi Why would you think so? If a planet sized object moving FTL were to hit the Earth, do you really think life would go on as if nothing happened? Speed is simply how long it takes to get form point A to point B. There's no "we can only detect things moving the speed of light or slower" law of physics.
+Harsh Colby Our eyes works with the principle of light.. I mean the light has to hit our eyes then only we can see objects, if we are travelling with the speed of light there is no time for light to reflect back from any objects before us to our eyes. So we could not see anything or else it would be like photo at which you seen before a trillionth of second before you travel with the speed of light
+Vignesh Thirumurthi A couple of teensy problems with that. I'm not sure whether you're talking about you moving at the speed of light (relative to what, I might ask), or if you're talking about something moving past you at the speed of light, so I'll answer it both ways. If you are traveling at the speed of light: I'll assume relative to Earth. Your view of the entire universe will all be directly in front of you. If you hit the earth traveling this fast, you will be vaporized. Let's say it was possible to travel just a bit over the speed of light. Then you'd still be vaporized when you hit the Earth. Coming up on the Earth FTL does not make it suddenly go away or be undetectable. Assuming you could survive the impact, you'd certainly notice it. And you'd certainly see it coming. If something could travel FTL relative to you: We don't see things directly. We see the light which reflects off things. It doesn't matter how fast that thing is moving, light can still bounce off it, and we can therefore still see it. Keep in mind light need not come from you: light from the side may reflect off an object and be reflected toward you, so you'd see it just fine. In either of these cases, light from your perspective will _always_ travel at c. Therefore, regardless of how fast you're moving, there's always time for light to reflect off objects. Whether we choose a reference point "stationary" relative to us (like the Earth), or we choose a reference point moving at light speed (relative to galaxies far far away, for example) we can observe ourselves in the mirror just fine. Michelson and Morely demonstrated this exquisitely. Motion has no effect whatsoever on the speed of light.
Vignesh Thirumurthi Relative to galaxies 15 billion light years away, you are traveling at the speed of light. Yet you can see your reflection in the mirror, right? In the Michelson-Morley experiment they found, to everyone's surprise, that the speed of light is always c, independent of your velocity. That's not what you'd expect, but that is what every experiment actually shows. This is why you can see yourself in the mirror, even though you're not moving relative to Earth, moving at 67000 mph relative to the sun, and 490000 mph relative to the Milky Way center. It's Relativity!
I was hoping this video would be about manipulating space-time or leaving it entirely, because if the speed of light can effectively be exceeded ("effectively" being the key word there), those seem to be the only options we've got. Far-fetched? Yeah, but maybe not flatly impossible.
What if we don't move, but the space in front of us contract, while the space behind us expands? Yes we won't be moving at all, but we still will travel a distance faster than light could.
In general 2 points in space can 'move' apart faster than light moves. But we are talking about moving through space here. Not spacetime itself warping.
just use quantum entanglement and superposition and putting things back into superposition and by using the collapse of the wavefunction to transfer 1-bit while still being able to send more bits to send more bits and so on. eventually, you could transfer any arbitrarily large set of data across.
Make the speed of light be the speed limit of a US road and people will drive 10/15 mph more than the speed limit. There, now you have speed higher than speed of light
Idea
Use a material with no rest mass.
Ahem people from where I am (Florida) already to that
Ok
Lol
*blink blink*
ok but what if i took a baseball and threw it like *really* fast
+Leaf dogparkmayor i dare someone to tell me this wouldnt work because its undeniable
Well my hand is actually strong enough to throw a ball and make it fly at 10x the speed of light so Einstein was wrong and I'm a bad ass
+PUSSYCAT EATER guys he isnt lying i saw him do it
RedNike Boy223 wtf dude i'm not lying i actually have the ability to do that
RedNike Boy223 my hand is
I love how his voice raises near the end of the video, shows how much he was invested in the topic
He is at the limits of hes knowing. Thinking outside the box is what he should do. But noone can because the human race are followers, once in a while Someone Will come to proof Them wrong. I dont blame him
@@Trillineatus do you hold the belief that everything is a barrier of sorts that it only takes a more intelligent mind to break through? Wishful thinking sounds like.
It's not that deep fam
@@Trillineatusdamn bro tell me how much you know....
4:54 the man is crying by now😂😂
His names Derek bro
What if we used a Nokia 3310 instead of Carbon Nanotubes?
XD
IT WILL WORK SOMEDAY
You won this time!!!
it would break our universe. dont play with nokia if you dont want the world to end.
+Lanu I want to press a like button for that comment
Honestly sad, even if we moved at the speed of light, exploring the universe is pretty much impossible. Due to the distance between those objects.
Its only bad for the people left behind as the closer you get to the speed of light the less time that passes for you relative to the universe
If your travelling at the speed of light, time for you travels slower. So if you were going at the speed of light, time would completely stop for you, so it would take literally no time to go to the place you were going to, but for everyone else at Earth, they would age a year for every light year you travel. So if you travelled 1million light years, in the traveller's perspective, no time has passed, but to people on Earth, 1million years has passed.
@@pxolqopt3597 if you travel at light spees you would get there instantly since light doesnt feel time
Memento morí my friend, we are running out of time
@@abel3557 that is what he literally said
Record a laser
Then play that laser in fast forward
BOOM faster than light...
😂😂
How would you record a laser lol😂
Just take a video of the laser. Like just take a video of a turned on laser pointer.
-COOKIEZILA - but it won’t capture movement, as no camera shutter travels fast enough
Its a joke😂
Btw it definitely won't capture movement but you are still recording a laser- if you were to take a video of a wall it would still be recording, right?
Something faster than the speed is rule 34 artists when a new character releases
Sam 😳
@@zer0synd1cate YEP
😂
When a new person is born*
first time i didnt read the word „rule“, sounded like a pretty normal sentence
until i reread it…
My friend claims his 1999 Honda Civic with Vtec can go 99% the speed of light if he found a long enough road
😂
+CanadianBoardCrew Your friend is just your standard Honda Civic owner. I would advise finding a new friend.
+CanadianBoardCrew the speed of light kicked in yo
ur friend sounds like a ricer
Where we're going, we don't need roads
Though ultimately rather minute compared to everything else, the first thing that sprung to mind with the spinning tether thing is that if you start extending carbon nanotubes out, no matter how light they are, the whole apparatus will spin more slowly due to the conservation of angular momentum.
Yes! And you would need to keep adding more power to keep the revs up. Which would get harder and harder as the ends of the tether approached C and their inertia increased.
same, first thing i thought about..i feel smart now it's confirmed to be true
@wetawilley ០០០
Everyone: "But what if..."
Veritasium: "Not possible"
"But dude if you think about it..."
"Nope"
"How about..."
"Never gonna happen"
"But..."
"NOTHING GOES FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT!"
Veritasium: Are you really in charge here?
It reminds me christianity
Not gonna happen
Alcubierre drive
Accurate.
“The only thing that travels faster than light, is bad news.” - British Author Douglas Adams.
Gossip is faster.
he answered this in the video with the laser. the only thing faster than the speed of light is a concept or a thought.
That nose hair is travellin at the speed of light
when he's breathing you mean? didn't notice, awesome!
i found this comment way too hard :)))) love these videos but damn that hair was outstanding
What if you enable sv_cheats 1?
noclip speed 288 000 000 000
ERROR: Failed physics_1 check: core laws not found. Critical existence failure. Press any key to reboot universe.
xD
Kill server
lol
My paycheck is disappearing faster than the speed of light.
My dad disappeared faster than the speed of light
@@kubadzejkob332 r/wooooosh
Lemme guess, trying to get insulin in America?
You must shop at Whole Foods.
ok
When I was in 6th grade, I had a *science* teacher claim that it should be impossible for a stick to move faster at one end than at the other because the stick was a solid object and solid objects can't move at more than one speed. That always bothered me because I knew it had to be wrong, even then, but could never quite conceptualize why.
Your "long stick across the moon" - explaining that the atoms that make up the stick have to bump into each other to move the whole - you just crystalized the answer for me.
43 years later.
Thank you!💌
The entire concept of a rigid body is an approximation. By that logic, rip a paper into two pieces. Boom, a solid object whose one part moves at a different speed than its other part.
your 58?
That one nose hair tho...
i thinkd its not haïr xD
Now I can't unsee it
it's a booger
+Justin Morton i know its just funny to watch the booger
Never knew nose hair was white
"You'd be lucky if the tip even moved at all"
What the boy I had a crush on but found out was gay said when I offered to give him head.
Actually I'm a straight male who just wanted to make a witty comment.
@@yawgmoth6568 you sound 12
What if you record light from the sun travelling to the earth and watch the video at 2x speed :p
lmao
Piyus Gurung HAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Piyus Gurung man that's deep
a video is just pixels so again so it would just be points lighting up
Piyus Gurung a video is just a series of frames. containing pixels.
“Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the possible exception of bad news, which obeys its own special laws. The Hingefreel people of Arkintoofle Minor did try to build spaceships that were powered by bad news but they didn't work particularly well and were so extremely unwelcome whenever they arrived anywhere that there wasn't really any point in being there.”
― Douglas Adams
And then came bistromathics.
@@rgderen88, no the infinite improbability drive came first, then bistromathics
If you build a wall around the speed of light, surely that would stop the light from go any further and thus we can all move freely in a democratic manner faster than speed of light.
Or better yet, force the light to go faster!
„The speed of light is the ultimate speed limit“
German autobahn: hold my beer
@ You're lame
@@Zalamandar Same
@@EthanBoBethan Same
@@namr1174 Same
Na ah its "hold my frankfurt"
you cant reach light speed by whirling a ball on a string?!
i have wasted about two weeks of my life trying to do that : (
Benjamin Chance can't*
My man just recorded a whole video with a booger coming out of his nose
At least don't mention it I love this guy
@@m.muslimmuzammil5881 it bugged me so badly-------
R/woosh.
I didn't see
The booger came out faster than the speed of light so he couldn't see it. Boom, theory proven.
1400 years from now: "lol this idiots thought that light was the ultimate speed limit" *wooshes away at the speed of 6.23 galaxies per universal standart time unit
Lmao
Still potentially possible. Any particle with mass cant possibly go faster than the speed of light, for reasons described in the video. However, assuming you had infinite energy, you could theoretically somehow bend spacetime to pull yourself along it in a way that reaches some destination in a smaller amount of time than it would take light to travel there, thus effectively travelling faster than the speed of light without actually moving at all in the traditional sense.
Iirc, we'd need more energy than is available in the observable universe for this.. but maybe with more efficient batteries, who knows haha :P
@10.000 subs yes vidz eeh sure, why not :P
Thx btw
Police 1400 years from now: you have committed the ultimate crime
@@Yamyatos what's your describing is star trek Warp Engine. The original Enterprise has max Warp factor of 9.975.
It is only me or all of you realised that there was something inside his nose hole?
that was the only thing i payed attention to
Really?! Hehe
+Michael Wibowo Say Once I noticed it I couldn't stop looking
+Michael Wibowo Say Yeah, it's called snot, everyone has it.
+Michael Wibowo Say i did
Summary of the video:
no
Also,
The Flash doesn't exist
So true
Except for Tachyons
We have no proof that tachyons actually exist. They are hypothetical particles, and there are some indications that they can't exist.
Alain Martel you vs University professor
I love how he was almost yelling in the end, and that's what good teachers do.
More like priests.
move faster than light:
go in a windowless enclosed room with a tight door. next, turn off the lights and run in circles
wrong person..
😂
Don't read me k the speed of the light particles themselves stay the same and when the light gets turned off the materials around it absorb all the light. By running in circles you are simply making yourself look like a fool. The light doesn't slow down it just becomes more difficult to see due to the decrease in photons.
ScienceIsCool what if nobody else is in the room, then he is not making himself look like a fool ( doesn't mean he is not)
did I do it right?
put your semi truck in reverse and that should do it.
Backup a jet while it's on the ground over a can of Red Bull.
You're winner!
But there is always “Faster than the Speed of Love” by Brian Griffin....
Electromagnetism is a force that’s carried by photons! My jaw dropped! I wish school taught that
Exactly
What about electrons then?
It's not carried by electrifield?
5:00 So the moment you almost exceed the speed of light, the entire thing will...just dissolve into its individual particles.
Rata Touille Yes, assuming of course that you have infinte energy and time to accelerate it to that speed.
No, actually. Nothing in the machine is moving faster than the speed of light relative to closest thing it has to interact with. Therefore the machine would hold together if we assume the material it's made of has infinite tensile strength.
I'm afraid the video's EM binding explanation is incorrect. The atoms are bound by photon-exchange at the tip where the _local_ value of c in that reference frame remains the same. I'm frankly astonished that someone with a doctorate in educational physics has missed a fundamental tenet of Einstein's: c is a constant in all reference-frames. There is a slight complication in that the motion is non-linear and therefore requires a slight GR tweak, but the instantaneous velocity may be taken as 'linear' at such a long distance.
The spinning wire paradox is resolved by the ordinary fact that not enough energy can be imparted to the tip for its velocity to equal c.
The question, 'what would happen then?' isn't answered. The wire would simply start to wrap around the rotor until it was fully wrapped around. Conservation of angular momentum would then dictate the whole thing would spin up at a ridiculous rpm.
The Flash disliked this video
ur flash is too much slow thn speed of light.. 😂😂
Raged Flash...
badhan ali The flash runs FASTER than the speed of light buddy.
That's because the speed force comes from a originated from another dimension. When expressed is this dimension faster than light travel is possible but only relatively.
Johan Jacobs you realize this was a joke, right?
You might want to look into a whip, because the tip tries to move at infinite speed. It doesn’t obviously, because of the granularity of the material and the limits of the material’s strength, and if it ever got close for the reasons you discuss in this video. But a gentle arm motion can easily make the tip break the speed of sound.
I love that people try to break the limit and that Derek replies to that in detail.
4:50 the moment where your mind just blows.
Einstein said we will not understand the true nature of light for a thousand years. For example, if you were able to travel at the speed of light - time would stop - we know why mathematically (Special Relativity) but in a physical sense way - why is time linked to the speed of light - why does energy equal mass times the speed of light squared? We know why mathematically but we really do not understand the nature of these relationships.
what if you build a car that can go 99% the speed if light and then add stripes which will add 2% to the speed it will then be going faster then the speed of light
Taking relativity space and time dilation into account, 99% + 2% = 99.0390%
Space and time dilation always results in velocity less than c no matter what numbers you apply.
What if you keep adding stripes witch will keep on increasing the speed, and eventually it will be 101%.
ian kirwan You get closer and closer to c, but never reach it.
99%c+99%c = 99.9949%c
99%c+99%c+99%c = 99.99997437%c
what if you turned the lights off and you could sneak past light when its not looking...and then add stripes.
+ian kirwan The only valuable thing this is that speed of light is CONSTANT.
Which means no matter how fast you're moving, speed of light relative to any system will be c.
Man I pity the man who gave that innocent idea to Derek it was just a naive idea but Derek meant it as a professional one
"There is only one thing that can travel faster than lightspeed without going to warp, that is, a rumor"
- Zogg from Betelgeuse
Fascinating. Cheers Derek!
Booger In his nose
had to search way too hard for this!
haahahhah
@3:17
i saw it tooo hahahaha XDD
MrMommysbaby i was looking for this XD
Question: remember the episode where you made the car wind sail that would go faster than the speed of the wind? Well can’t we just do that with light?
That wouldn't work, because there is a fundamental difference: -light has no mass- photons have no rest mass. An object with a mass would need an infinite amount of energy to reach the speed of light, meaning the speed of light itself isn't attainable for matter. However, a similar system with a solar sail theoretically permits to approach very close to the speed of light. It would take an incredibly long time, given the explanation of Daniel Lupton below.
@@raycharlz4937 Well light has energy and therefore mass. A photon has no rest mass, but they all have energy and momentum. A solar sail takes advantage of that momentum.
The real problem is that at relativistic speeds, any light hitting the back of the sail would be red-shifted to the point where it has no energy from the perspective of the vehicle. If you did reach or exceed the speed of light, there wouldn't be any photons that could catch up to "push" the car.
@@daniel.watching I agree, light has energy, therefore mass. And the fact that it would have almost no energy to give because of the red shift is correct too. But the core part of my explanation still stands, an object with mass can't ever reach the speed of light, it can only approach it because it would need an infinite amount of energy. Then the solar sail can't go faster than light even if we found a way to continue to supply it with energy.
I updated my other comment to take yours into account.
the major problem with reaching the speed of light is *Mass*.
Well wind particles are air... Air has mass even if a little it adds up. Light however has no mass. That's why photons only travel at light speed. The energy is dividing by zero and reaching infinity which is the amount of energy required to reach light speed
Veritasium: nothing can go faster than light
Speed force: hold my beer
Flash*
hyperdrives*
@@yinyang1217 hyperdrives are just space warping so they could get from point A to point B faster than light but they aren't really traveling faster than light, just taking a shortcut
ChickenLegs Epic your not wrong as the speed force allows travel to the past which needs speeds >light
i once goes faster than speed of light and god charge me a ticket
God doesn't exist
but tickets does!
Next time follow the speed limit of 6.706e+8 miles per hour.
No, GOD charged you for your grammar mate.
The only reason you got a ticket from god was because you came faster than the speed of light
Nose bugger at 4:20
Thanks for the materials science point of view of WHY there's no bleeping way to make anything go FTL.
The explanation of the atoms bonding to create materials and the bond interaction provides a tombstone for every imaginary experiment.
I've always hated the use of faster than light travel in movies because the fundamental particles that make up matter cannot travel faster than light so why would a giant cluster of them be able to. I don't mind when they talk about travelling through wormholes to cut corners (like in thor ragnarok when they travel through the einstein-rosen bridge) but ftl travel is nonsense and I hate seeing it in movies nearly as much as I hate when movies include time travel
The speed of light squared..boom there you go
you cannot square a lim, illogical dude
Leon Weber r/whoooooosh
So m²/s²? You just created accelerating area :-D
Ik it’s a joke but what if
😂This sounds stupid af
Can we get like- 5 more episodes on this exact topic?
It's fun hearing you debunk faster than light theories.
6:28. A Reference to Dark Energy. That alone deserves a video.
3:06 Humm... so you're telling me there's a chance... got it
Booger!!!!
***** Lololol!!!!!!!
+David Gardner I was gonna type the exact same thing.
My Ocd is literarily killing me.
+Solvai KT sooo true bro, so true
+Stevephone Hocking wow click on your maximize screen button!
4:09 I feel like my teacher/dad is yelling at me for thinking something so stupid
The nose hair.... I mean, I love your videos dude... But, the nose hair.....
If negative mass was a possibility then with super dense negative mass near slightly less dense positive mass you would theoretically be able to bend space time on a way to allow speeds faster than light, because the speed of light only applies to flat space time, not warped.
Ah the Warp Drive
The speed of light doesn't "only apply to flat spacetime". General relativity is essentially all about curved spacetime and holds c in the same regard as special relativity. I think what you're suggesting is the Alcubierre drive which theoretically works by manipulating the space around it. There's good reason to believe it's not possible to construct such a device.
2:09 as the rod move out of the center the angular velocity will decrease... in order to maintain angular momentum... at some point the engine will not be able to sustain acceleration... (not to count any relativistic effect, which would make this effect stronger, as the rods ends will "increase" its mass)
You shold sit down with Brian Cox and.. just talk about stuff.
I'd love to see that!!
When I start talking about bionicle lore my girlfriend leaves me faster than light
I think that the fact that mass (or inertia as you mention) approaches infinity as the speed goes approaches the speed of light IS the ultimate blocker to anything moving at the speed of light but the propagation speed of the movement down that long rod is a good point too..
I wanted to write something scientific but.. that bogey at 3:40 is driving me nuts
Didn't have to scroll far for the Booger comment
Booger or first grey hair, it is distracting as hell
RUclips recommended me this in 2019 !! RUclips knows what I love better than anyone.💚💚
Artificial Intelligence knows what you love.
Today it recommended me too.
@@thomasdahl3083 - meh, it's not an AI. It's a database of information your IP clicked on. Then sort it and recommend stuff that is related and upvoted. It's quite simple actually and i work with several of these databases all the time. You also get web commercials based on your previous clicks and likes.
Aryan Mishra
Fair. Alright, isn’t it also maybe just a little creepy though???
Same dude XD
3:42... I couldn't concentrate on anything else past that booger in his right nostril LOOOOOOOOL
I paused it and came to the comments section knowing for sure that I would find this one... :P
I didn't even see it. Now I can't unsee it, thanks.
I would like to ask a question. Why are we assuming that there is a cap on the potential speed of protons or of anything else? Just because that's the speed we've been able to measure them move at, does not determine the ability for them to move faster. It's only what we've been able to measure. This is why I believe the ability to move faster could still be there.
I haven't studied relativity, and hardly any Newtonian physics, so take this with a grain of salt. But here's my understanding:
The speed of light in a vacuum is exactly the same for all frames of reference. A car driving at a hundred million mph sees light move at the same speed as a stationary observer does: the speed of light. The light doesn't move at the expected "speed of light plus 100 million mph" because of time dilation. Time dilates such that anything that *would* be moving faster than the speed of light (were reference frames composed using simple sums) moves less than or equal to the speed of light.
Now, all this assumes that Einstein's equations for relativity are accurate, and so far we haven't found any disproofs for that.
(I might be completely wrong here, but it's something along those lines: the speed of light shows up in the equations of relativity in such a way that moving faster than that speed is impossible)
@@berylliosis5250 Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me. I think I'm more suited for theoretical physics more than anything 😆 because that's just how I think but it doesn't always work with established physics.
1:34 I’m guessing this line has been spoken by a lot of ED doctors.
Sorry i cant help but stare at the white thing comming out of his right nostril... how distracting. What is this video about again?
that bugger though ...
Troll steps to get something faster than light-
1- Record a video of a flashlight turned on.
2- Play the recording in 2x speed.
moving faster than the speed of light changes time right and would be impossible to see, what if things are moving at the speed of light but we just dont see them. Like how you see more of a cars design if its going 60mph rarther than 200 mph
The closer a physical object gets to the speed of light, the more time would appear to slow down for that object from the perspective of an outside observer. So theoretically, an object moving the speed of light would appear to be motionless.
+Eric Reed But if the object if traveling above the speed of light, it would be un observable as it is static and does not move to humans
+xboxless: If we measure something to leave A and arrive at B in less time than it would take light to make the same trip, it's moving FTL. We'd be able to see it because it's not the object itself that we see, it's the light bouncing off it. (Think of light shining on a superluminal rock from the side, for example. There's no reason we couldn't observe it.)
+Eric: Photons are moving the speed of light, yet do not appear motionless.
HarshColby We wouldnt see the object itsself surely as we only see the light that has bounced off it in the past
This is also true of objects moving slower than light. We see the light bounding of it, not the object itself. We see all objects in the past. How far in the past depends on how far away it is, not how fast it's moving.
what if i started running like, every day...
Find out and get back to us.
"The speed of light really is the ultimate speed limit in the universe"
That really is heartbreaking, you know
it's not, don't worry.
@@CountingStars333 Really? 😃
It truly is unbelievably fast. Even if somehow you were able to approach these speeds, the universe around you would crumble and disorient from your perspective. Time would basically stop.
@@uncomfortableshirt 🤔
But that explains the Fermi paradox. We never found aliens because they just live too far away from Earth. The universe is so big that even at the speed of light you need several years just to reach the next star. So everybody is kind of stuck in their solar system.
I remember coming up with the stick thing on my own in middle school, feeling like a genius with the whole class laughing at me
I think they were laughing at the "stick" metaphor
I did the same but with a giant shadow being casted on the moon lol
Kids are dumb. Let me share a story with you. I was 13 or 14 and the history teacher came to the class and she said "you guys are becoming old enough to get informed about politics. You should read about it, talk about it with other people, exchange ideas and form your opinion on things and so on". A kid responded "yeah, but i don't want to. I'm not even old enough to be able to vote in an election, why should I care?"
I couldn't hold myself (and i disliked that kid) then I raised my hand and said on spot "well, you are also not old enough to have a driver's license, yet you spend the whole time here at school talking about cars and so on. Forming a political opinion matters to everyone, the earlier the better"
I felt embarrassed, the whole class looked at me in the same second. The teacher raised her eyebrows and chenged the subject of the conversation.
The kid didn't argue with me later on, but i don't remember having lots of conversations with him since that day
So... just make a tether the size of the observable universe. Duh!
oh it was that simple
ok give me 3.06^306 years to build it
So how would you propose interstellar or greater travel? If we can't exceed the speed of light, what sci-fi method would you bet on to be the best interstellar method out there?
Besides, people who want to move that fast forget what happens to a commercial airliner when it hits a bird.
futurama
"Don't move the ship, move everything else around the ship" have a thruster that that moves space through the engine, the same as am airplane moves air through the turbines, I am amazed how no one has thought of this, the closest thing to this idea is the "warp-drive" where you "expand" space behind you and "deplete" space in front of you... though, with that idea, would you not have launched all of space behind you? And if someone did the same thing facing the other direction, you would not move... but if you move space through a thruster, then you are creating a wave of space to move upon... do you think this would work?
Sulli11 "Old Man's War" comes pretty close to this idea. It's not to say that it isn't impossible, rather that we have to talk about how to 'grab space.' We're still a little far from detecting all the particles of the universe that would be necessary to create such a possibility. That likely won't happen in our lifetime.
It could happen in our lifetime, all we really need is to place a physical force on a vacuum. So, wind in a vacuum, it is possible, just not in the way you think, I refer to the myth busters experiment with the american flag in a vacuum, the flag moves, but this is because something propelled it. So a vacuum propellant that can work, or we could forget all this and go for solar sails from "Treasure Planet" things that can take sunlight as two power sources. Though, from all the weird "UFO" videos that appear on you-tube, apparently "*Spinning*" works very well against gravity, and space. Same as a bullet does to become more accurate. We as a race have a lot of physics at our disposal, wonder why we are not really using it...
The solar sails have promise, but still work under the premise of moving at incredible speeds, which is very dangerous. Again, everything you're talking about assumes that we can avoid debris. And the flag moving in the vacuum could very easily be electric fields or magnetic fields, not 'pushing' on the vacuum of space.
I come here each time to get my Mind blown.... and I lost it somewhere before the end of the video.
There are numerous theoretical creative ways to go "faster than light." Someday a machine/ship might be able to warp space around itself to appear to move faster than light. It might perhaps create different types of alternate dimensions with different or shortened lengths of space. There may be a way to influence or create a space where the laws of physics are different. It's virtually a sure bet, that there are particles and physics that we are not aware of yet. Most current math does make it look impossible, but the thing about math, is that it makes many things look impossible until someone proves they actually can be done! The historical record of this happening is extensive! Who knows, it may be possible some day, given enough time. I'm not saying it is possible, I'm just saying we can't say for certain.
The thing that makes us breaking the speed of light limit unlikely in my eyes is just the fact that traveling faster than light breaks causality, causes paradoxes and would result in whatever is traveling faster than light to move backwards in time rather than forwards, meaning they would arrive at a destination before they even departed. I don't see how it would ever be possible to develop FTL travel and overcome the issue of breaking causality and causing paradoxes.
@@StreakyBaconMan What you are saying of course sounds reasonable to me. Perhaps though by warping space a thing might go from point a to point b in less time , if point a and b are positioned closer together via warped space. It wouldn't create any causality or math issues per say. It does appear that space can be warped by large objects. Perhaps some day it will be no big deal for us to do it. I have no clear idea how it might be done though. I have my doubts about the negative mass and energy ideas. Recently Dr. Sony White from NASA, claimed to have found micro warp bubbles. Again I don't really know much about it though.
I do have ion thrusters on my channel that lift their power supplies against Earth's gravity, and might go really fast in space with ultra small propellant tanks, or very high voltages, that I do know something about.
@@StreakyBaconMan Warping space behind the spaceship and actually moving through space are different so it possible. And while it does break causality, it doesn't always do it. As long as you don't mess with what you shouldn't mess with, nothing will break.
You've got a cliffhanger inside your right nostril and I'm sure there are others aware of it too. Just thought I'd mention it.
i couldnt even listen to him it was so distracting
3:33 i cant stop staring at that thing in his nose
Could you do a video on quantum entanglement? I'm very interested in that subject.
2:10 also just like a bailerina by extending its arms it would spin slower.
But what's with quantum teleportation? And does a warp drive work?
The One
Actually no one says you have to use antimatter in Alcubierre's warp drive (that's the warp drive I assume the parent comment is refering to), what it uses is negative energy, and in great amounts (although this requirement is decreased in every refinement done). We know negative energy does exist (search for Casimir's effect), but the real big problem in Alcubierres drive is it mixes quantum mechanics with relativity, and we do not have a quantum "relativity" (or a quantum gravity theory as it would be called), so possibly all the math behind the model is wrong (but I hope is not the case).
Just building on the replies above me...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-communication_theorem
This is a bit more concise than putting in a lengthy bit on why quantum teleportation does not mean FTL communication. The reasons are a bit subtle.
Warp drives are tricky because the physics behind them is a bit speculative. Aside from some dire practical issues with all models I've seen, we still don't quite understand how QM and relativity work together and it appears that aspects of both are necessary for such a drive to work. However, technically no object traverses local space faster than c.
The One It's not negative gravity, it's negative energy.
What if you take a photon and then flick it? ( I know you can't actually flick a photon, but I think you know what I mean).
It would increase in frequency (energy), but stay at the same velocity.
Yep, Photons cant EVER change velocity.
You can change the velocity of photons but not this way. And you can only slow them (so-called slow light), you can't make them go faster than in vacuum.
@@stensoft The velocity of the photons never changes, the path length in denser environments changes.
how SLOW can a photon go???
That boog dangling from his nose is bothering me.
I bet his boogie can travel faster than the speed of light.
Billy Nitro *****
What if your on a spaceship going 99.999999 (etc)% the speed of light, and then started running forward. Wouldn’t you be traveling faster than the speed of light?
Sadly, no, but it's a really cool reason.
From your perspective, you are sitting inside a spaceship that is going near the speed of light. Awesome! send me the schematics. You start running forward. You would make it from one end of the space ship to the other in what you perceive to be a normal amount of time, and you think that you're traveling faster than the speed of light. Eventually, you're journey ends, and you get off of the space ship to collect your nobel prize, only to find that hundreds of years have passed in what you thought was only a few minutes.
See, the really weird thing about Einstein's theory of relativity is something called Time Dilation. The closer you get to the speed of light, the slower you move through time. So, from an outside perspective, the spaceship is moving at 99.9999999999% (10 decimal places) the speed of light, and you are moving at 99.99999999999% (11 decimal places) the speed of light inside it. You are still moving faster than it, but only by an infinitesimal amount.
This phenomenon has actually been experimentally observed in satellites with hyper-accurate atomic clocks. As the satellite goes faster and faster, the clock starts ticking slower and slower. So, from the satellite's perspective, it is following newton's standard F = ma. But from the perspective of us mere earthlings, it follows the relativistic form of the equation.
No, the faster you go, the slower time goes for you
@@caseygravelle7672 That’s one of the most well structured and engaging RUclips comments I’ve ever read. Thanks for the insight, I always wanted to know that!
@@caseygravelle7672 So you lose your ability to run fast, got it.
In reference to what? If two people are going half the speed of light in opposite directions, one is going at speed of light for another. But that doesn't count
what if we could speed up light? Would it be faster than the speed of light? or would it redefine the speed of light?
We should freeze the clock so it runs slow and ah! Light that travels faster than C!
Assuming that's possible, I'd say: the latter.
where are the billions of views this guy deserves?
Agreed
What about warp drive?
Theoretically a warp drive does work, we don't know how to do it, but it works. the thing about warp drives is that you're not actually moving. rather, you are expanding space behind you so that the space in front of you contacts. It's a really hard concept to think about, but it does work in our current laws of physics. we just have no idea how to actually do it.
max siege So by that logic, things would only move faster than the speed of light, relative to us... right?
When a spaceship is in warp it doesn't actually move through space faster then the speed of light. It's either moving through subspace (what ever that is) that acts as a shortcut or it is bending the space around it not actually moving at all (much like the distant galaxies).
***** Yes, they would appear to. but its just space expanding faster than light, which is completely within the laws of physics. Its the exact same as the thing described in the video with the galaxies moving away from us.
*****
Yes, it is possible to move faster than the speed of light relative to another object but you're not actually moving at a higher SPEED than light. Einstein's laws doesn't say that you cannot move from one point to another faster than light, only that you cannot travel at a speed higher than light in any one moment.
I believe Scishow has a video that explains Warp Drives in a nice and understandable way so go look there, just search for "warp drive scishow" on youtube and you'll find it.
If you have a laser than multiple timers set up on its path, you set the timers to wait to start counting until all timers have received the signal without needing to talk to each other by syncing with the already perceived time of the speed of light, then have the laser go along the line and the timers stop as soon as the laser hits the timer repeat in different directions if you are getting different results than the direction has an effect on the speed of light if the results are to the point exactly the same than you have light travelling at one speed in all directions
Step 1: Get a turtle
Step 2: Name it "The Speed of Light"
Step 3: Put it on the ground and run past it
Congratulations you have just run faster than the speed of light
hey, what about that carbon nanotube sticking out of his nose during the last third of the video? How fast would that thing travel in a vacuum? Seriously, I couldn't pay attention to anything else after I noticed it.
However we will be blind or the things will be invisible travelling with the speed of light..........
+Vignesh Thirumurthi Why would you think so? If a planet sized object moving FTL were to hit the Earth, do you really think life would go on as if nothing happened? Speed is simply how long it takes to get form point A to point B. There's no "we can only detect things moving the speed of light or slower" law of physics.
+Harsh Colby Our eyes works with the principle of light.. I mean the light has to hit our eyes then only we can see objects, if we are travelling with the speed of light there is no time for light to reflect back from any objects before us to our eyes. So we could not see anything or else it would be like photo at which you seen before a trillionth of second before you travel with the speed of light
+Vignesh Thirumurthi A couple of teensy problems with that. I'm not sure whether you're talking about you moving at the speed of light (relative to what, I might ask), or if you're talking about something moving past you at the speed of light, so I'll answer it both ways.
If you are traveling at the speed of light: I'll assume relative to Earth. Your view of the entire universe will all be directly in front of you. If you hit the earth traveling this fast, you will be vaporized. Let's say it was possible to travel just a bit over the speed of light. Then you'd still be vaporized when you hit the Earth. Coming up on the Earth FTL does not make it suddenly go away or be undetectable. Assuming you could survive the impact, you'd certainly notice it. And you'd certainly see it coming.
If something could travel FTL relative to you: We don't see things directly. We see the light which reflects off things. It doesn't matter how fast that thing is moving, light can still bounce off it, and we can therefore still see it. Keep in mind light need not come from you: light from the side may reflect off an object and be reflected toward you, so you'd see it just fine.
In either of these cases, light from your perspective will _always_ travel at c. Therefore, regardless of how fast you're moving, there's always time for light to reflect off objects. Whether we choose a reference point "stationary" relative to us (like the Earth), or we choose a reference point moving at light speed (relative to galaxies far far away, for example) we can observe ourselves in the mirror just fine. Michelson and Morely demonstrated this exquisitely. Motion has no effect whatsoever on the speed of light.
+Harsh Colby I am talking about we are travelling at the speed of light.. How are you telling that we can see our reflection in the mirror?????????
Vignesh Thirumurthi
Relative to galaxies 15 billion light years away, you are traveling at the speed of light. Yet you can see your reflection in the mirror, right?
In the Michelson-Morley experiment they found, to everyone's surprise, that the speed of light is always c, independent of your velocity. That's not what you'd expect, but that is what every experiment actually shows. This is why you can see yourself in the mirror, even though you're not moving relative to Earth, moving at 67000 mph relative to the sun, and 490000 mph relative to the Milky Way center. It's Relativity!
2:38 his editing is always unpredictable and is like jumpscares
What is the speed of dark?
SPEED KING PILOT ACE vsause :)
for sure faster then speed of light we cant even see it .
the speed of light because it is the "without light"
ruclips.net/video/JTvcpdfGUtQ/видео.html
Hey Vsause, Michael here.
now talk about warping space
soonTM, nothing physicly about making space smaller hehehe
When he's on the grass with the trees behind him, did the camera guy not notice the "something" hanging out of his right nostril?
Why mention that! Now I really wanna rip that thing off or it's gonna kill me
The last point is far and away the most elegant explanation of why something we build can't go faster than light.
this comment section is the funniest thing i have ever seen xD
Ibby VK you should get out more.
Try watching the video called using feminine products as fire starters. Now that was the funniest comment section I've see6
Seriously watch it it's fucken HILARIOUS
I was hoping this video would be about manipulating space-time or leaving it entirely, because if the speed of light can effectively be exceeded ("effectively" being the key word there), those seem to be the only options we've got. Far-fetched? Yeah, but maybe not flatly impossible.
What if we don't move, but the space in front of us contract, while the space behind us expands? Yes we won't be moving at all, but we still will travel a distance faster than light could.
That's the idea behind warp drive, not moving faster than the speed of light.
I came to the comments for this, I really want to know
Yeah I want to know too. It's called an Alcubierre drive.
In general 2 points in space can 'move' apart faster than light moves. But we are talking about moving through space here. Not spacetime itself warping.
how would the space expand? i know it would contract by gravity like the sun but how would it expand?
just use quantum entanglement and superposition and putting things back into superposition and by using the collapse of the wavefunction to transfer 1-bit while still being able to send more bits to send more bits and so on. eventually, you could transfer any arbitrarily large set of data across.