The suggestion that you could get to any part of the universe in one lifetime ignores the fact that space itself is expanding, in some areas faster than the speed of light
That's not actually correct. What we measure as velocity in galaxies is not actually the galaxies moving, it’s the space in between them getting larger. There’s nothing actually traveling faster than light, hence Einstein’s theory of relativity - which tells us nothing can move faster than light - is not being violated.
General relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light between two points in the universe but that doesn't stop the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light.
not only could you travel to any part of the universe by going at light speed, since expansion and movement of space is what is causing movement faster than light, but it would feel instantaneous to the traveler. And not only that, but movement, contraction and dilation of space is the basis behind warp travel, allowing a ship to effectively travel faster than light.
As an object moves faster, its inertial mass increases and therefore as it gets faster, a greater amount of energy is needed for each additional 1m/s increase in speed. There isn’t enough energy in the Universe to get even a single electron to the speed of light.
Star trek invented warp engines to brake theoretical light-speed limit by bending space. To bend space you need huge mass, for example like a planet mass.
In Star Trek they where not traveling using conventional means. The warp drive created a warp bubble that bypassed the space / time problem. However this is not been proven possible and would also require a massive amount of energy. Like the building blocks of the universe kind of energy.
Very true! Just because it has not been proven possible does not mean it isn't. The Romans did not believe it was possible to travel to the moon. Did not make it impossible, it just was not proven to be possible at the time. That is what a lot of people making "it's impossible" claims need to understand.
I would like to hear more about the shadow puppet and how it goes faster than light. I am not convinced this is true, think about it in a slower setting, like if you are watering the moon with a giant watering can and put fingers under the stream to make water “shadow” puppets, the drops will not fall where your hand is, moving it around will let drops fall, but these drops would have to travel from the giant can to the surface - taking time. Now think of the water drops as being darkness in the shadow puppet example, how can darkness travel faster than light?
Darkness doesn't travel faster than light because darkness is nothing. You can do some more research about things like virtual particles that possibly exist in that "darkness" you talk about with is really interesting.
3:50 faster than light wouldn't be going back in time tho? Wouldn't you just SEE things in reverse? Doesn't mean they're going back in time it just appears to be to our perspective
@@ericgolightly8450 no u shouldn't see things BEFORE the happen, you would catch up to light from the past. So everything would appear to go in reverse. But nothing ACTUALLY changing. It's just your POV perspective
So what if you could cancel out mass? If a flashlight had zero mass, and you turned it on and let it go. It would fly off at the speed of light. Being propelled by the photons.
@@marksimpson2321 bruh... Read my comment. I just said if a flashlight has ZERO MASS. Then it would fly off at the speed of light using light as a form of propulsion. The problem of speed of light travel is solved by lowering the mass of the craft. Not building a huge engine.
these are reasons, but the basic reason is that every object is in constant motion in space-time at a single constant speed which is the speed of light. all motion you perceive in 3d space is relative motion and pretty much imaginary
Technically moving at the speed of light is one aspect. We have bending time and space to decrease distance. We have matter transportation which is another.
That kind of irrelevant because the higgs field won't allow it. Everything is moving at the speed of light the higgs field gives everything mass slowing things down, if you go faster then light you would lose mass and fly apart. The closer you get to the speed of light the closer you become to breaking the effects of the higgs field holding your molecular structure together, the higgs field has to work twice as hard to slow you down requiring infinite energy thefore you would disintegrate. The only way you can go faster then light is if space is moving faster then light.
when you travel faster than light the object becomes invisible as the object stop reflecting light at that speed. the so called equal to sonic boom would be a light trail that just stops as the object become invisible.
the shadow over the moon thing is wrong. the change in theleading and trailing edge position of the shadow propogates to the moon at the speed of light
In star trek, they don't actually travel faster than light. They use warp travel, so the light speed limit doesn't mean that star trek warp travel cannot happen
I doubt it tbh. We will probably reach close to it maybe about 65/70% at a stretch, in the very far future. But to reach the speed of light or even 90% of it, its near enough impossible
@@rzk3190 + there is already a camera built to capture light as it is moving to study it's speed. If humans can create a camera to accomplish that, they can do the same with a spaceship.
we wont reach 10% speed of light, 2 nuetron stars collided into each other and still realised 65% the speed of light, imagine the power you have to get to have mass go at speed of light
Facts, now we got plains and rockets, this guy makes no sense, stupid guy talk about radiation when evolution is still going on, and we can use the energy of the sun
@@fazegarlic1233 Lol, radiation as in energy being emitted from your spaceship as you lose tons of energy and if you accept the light postulate (and relativity principle, which also holds true for classical mechanics as far as we know) it follows from the mathematics that you cannot go from less than speed of light to speed of light or more by accelerating normally then there's this star trek thing about warping spacetime but that's just a fun idea at the moment
Light is not fast our eyes sees faster than anything. Light is old according to distance in comparison to your eyes. Light is billions years late when compared to stars distance. 8:20 minutes late when compare with our eyes seeing capacity.
but if you had a bow that spreads thousands of light years from one side to the other....and a super massive human to use it....wouldn't the arrow go as fast as light maybe even faster????
True and the hypothesis of Einstein is not a theory it was based on a thought experiment and so far scientists are still trying to prove whether it is true but that doesn't mean that his speed relativity isn't true which is accounted for in GPS systems.
First that's not true and many things had been known even in ancient times to go faster than sound. And secondly the speed of sound and the speed of light are not at all the same thing. The speed of sound in air is an arbitrary speed. The speed of light has nothing to do with light at all, it's the speed of causality and which all things with 0 mass and positive energy move. The equations in physics show that if C wasn't C and speed had no upper limit, it would become impossible for mass, space, or time to even exist.
@@Eric-zs6rd First of all, that isn't even true. Causality is instantaneous. It's the EFFECT that travels at the speed of sound or light or whatever. The speed of light is c because of the amount of vacuum energy available in which to propagate the EM wave. In the early universe, when energy was much more denser, the EM wave propagated throughout space at a much faster speed - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. As stars and black holes formed, the energy density decreased resulting in a slower speed of light.
@@arianz1791 You need a loophole in physics. An example is warping space-time around an object so that space just carries it without it needing to move. People like Alcubierre, Natario, Harold White, and Broeck have worked on warp drives.
@@shukitheconscious3150 i rolled my eyes so hard i almost saw brain matter. The solar system itself have enough stuff inside we could spend a lot of our time studying it. And do you really have to go ftl to explore the rest of the Galaxy? Slower-than-light in my opinion is more plausible last time i checked. No need to either hope or gloom at reality.
Saying what we cannot do in science is the opposite of a explorative scientific mind. Saying we cannot go faster then light right now in this time is true, but saying it is impossible is closed minded. Who are you to say what we can and cannot do in thousand or a million years.
Dude, seriously, why do you want to? There’s no where else to go, and if humans are any indication of how brutal existence is, you’re not going to survive any “alien” encounter.
It does not exist. You are confused. Electro magnetic levitation exists. With electromagnetic levitation one can speed a ship, or anything else, over obstacles at what might appear to be something nearly instantaneous, so called ‘light speeds’.
I wouldn't say never. There's theories that unknown subatomic particles from dark matter could have physical attributes to make something of the sort possible. Only 5% of 'ordinary/normal' matter exists, the rest is mostly dark matter and dark energy, which we barely understand the laws of physics behind.
If something travelling faster than the speed of light needs an infinite amount of energy to slow it down, but produces massive levels of nuclear radiation, then you could harness that energy to take something up to the speed of light, as you would have an infinite nuclear power source. So give me a few minutes whilst I build a tachyon displacement device that will in turn create multiple supernovas in a controlled graviton chamber to produce the energy required to power my warp core propulsion system that will in turn help me reach the speed of light. I just need someone to build the space ship for me, I’m no good with a welder.
It's disapointting that bbc release this kind of video like they know it all and got whole got universe figured out. I think 1000 years ago if you tell me human are going to explore the mars and moon they will say the same thing it's impossible.
Totally wrong. The reason why you can't go faster than light is very simple i.e. the speed of light in vacuo or "c" (~670,000,000 mph) is the speed at which the universe is refreshed, linearized.
If I were a scientist, I would rather get out of the community that aimed to achieve the speed of light, and tell them until now we were are pretty much did not understand 80% our body, and don't focus on achieving it because it will diminish our potential to discover a new possible way. If we can move a space craft from earth to pluto(the sad disowned planet to a piece of debris claimed by human) by just 1 month, that already a feat of engineering. I just wonder if every nation that invest in space industry or pioneer it just use billion to argue at each other.
If we could reach the speed of light, we would not be travelling at 300k km per second from our point of view. We would be travelling at INFINITE speed, from our point of view.
If there is no friction in space and its almost a total vacuum then if you give any spaceship an initial velocity then it should maintain that velocity without any additional thrust. Then the fuel tank is only used for acceleration which should make it possible to travel at the speed of light.
Nope, because your mass or inertia increases as you approach the speed of light until you have an infinite amount of it requiring infinite physical work to keep going over an infinite amount of time, naturally this is impossible.
Oh brother... Infinite energy still has to work over the course of time. At the speed of light all time is stopped so if you understand the formula for velocity and T equals 0. You begin to see the problem.
You forgot to add the property of consciousness. All scientists know that if YOU are travelling close to the speed of light, for "you" (consciousness) time appears normal and doesn't slow down, your mass is still the same, and you do seem to shrink in size (relative to the direction you are travelling) . BONUS: if you turn your headlights on, light will travel at light speed away from you. BONUS#2: we do not know our true speed in the universe, because everything is moving, how fast, we'll never know.
I don't know why you said that if you could go close to the speed of light say .99c then you could go anywhere in the universe in one humans lifetime. I understand the time dilation, but that doesn't account for the fact that the observable universe is 10's of billions of light years across. Even if you approached light speed, even .99c, you still would only be able to travel to places that are within a humans lifetime in relation to their light year distance from you. Not to mention the fact that you would Never be able to go beyond our own local group because anything past that is being pushed away from us by dark energy faster than the speed of light. So that statement was highly inaccurate.
Based on the information provided here, it appears to me that Anti-Gravitons could be used to decrease Mass to zero. At that point, very little Energy would be needed to reach the the Speed of Light, and even go faster than the Speed of Light.
We can extract the energy from the sun, that energy will be more than every energy ever created by humans, and that will help us travel wich a lot of energy
It cannot. The speed of light can approach ever closer to 'c' but it cannot actually reach it. Sounds strange but...When you measure the velocity of light you are really measuring the velocity, frequency and wavelength of a light-wave traveling through space. The frequency (or time period) of a wave is inversely proportionate to time. So, the higher the frequency (velocity) of the wave the slower time becomes in proportion. At 'c' time becomes zero so light-waves cannot reach 'c' before they run out of time. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no light. You could say that time itself is a product of light (energy). That is why the speed- of-light is always appears to be limited to 'c' for all observers. If the frequency and wave-length of light changes velocity so does relative-time in proportion. Faster light=slower time in proportion and the light appears at a constant speed limit .
@@carly6037 Sorry. Think of light as simply a wave of pure energy (which it is). You cannot catch pure energy by using energy as fuel because they travel at the same speed 'c'.
I think : Mechanics( quantum) of light : The light is the limit(the border,of things,the edge of the matter) Over the limit are no more things,( there is no matter anymore ) If you want to pass( break) the limit, you should use : not matter anymore, ( not particles anymore) (Light speed ) It can't be reached with mechanical movement( mechanical particles movement). Mechanical movement( motion) is for things under the light's limit,( things with mass, volume etc... For matter,)light is the "wall"( limit) between matter and " No matter " . Don't waste time to break the light's limit with particles ( like neutrino, tachyon etc..) In this state( situation) you don't have to do with particles , because you want to go over( beyond ) the light ( over the particles) therefore is wasting of time . Another parallel thought : The possible outcome : C= constant means : The light doesn't move,( doesn't travel ) The photons doesn't move, therefore ( speed of) light is constant, because they don't move , is just as to turn the page, light just display it( unveils it) , but doesn't move ( doesn't travel) The book 91:3 This is a new point of view So you should make another math system, another physical system ( over{ beyond} the matter) , should find new sources . If you will approach to the limit( to the border), the limit doesn't have sense anymore, if you pass the limit, the things will change, the system doesn't work anymore, a new system will be applied( will be working) , for example : if you want to become smaller and smaller and smaller , until you become a string, that is the edge, there is nothing beyond it, if you want to go beyond it, you should leave the entire system, and take a new( different) system . It is like to travel with a car, you can travel with the car until in front of you there is the sea, now you should leave the car and take a new vehicle ( a ship) , because the car doesn't work beyond the edge ( beyond the limit ,the land ), there is different environment beyond the land, the car doesn't work there, same is your system, you want to go there but your system doesn't work there, need a new system, new variables, "new tools "... 🦩
Light can travel the speed of light because it;smass doesn't expand. Solve that, another substance that mass doesn't expand you should be able to go as fast as Speed of Light. That should be main point and most significant past of Star Trek not most criticized. Amazing how Roddenberry got so much right and continues to...holodeck.
WHY LIGHT??? Will someone answer that? How did we decide that 3*10^8m/s is it, and can't be exceeded? I've seen tons of videos and read thousands of blogs, but noone answers that... help!!!!
But Star Trek uses a warp drive! That bends space, and there's no limits on how fast space itself can move. Granted, even though it is mathematically possible, it may be way too impractical to do. We'll see what Sonny White at Eagleworks comes up with; I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
Speed of light limit still exists, because of limit of information transfer. You theoretically can go faster than light if you don't bring any information from one point to another. Like two distant galaxies saparating faster than light. Or star collapsing into black hole.
@@TheCaptainSplatter lmao I thought that to be like anti matter guess its like that one guy who said that negative relativistic matter like tachyons in a vacuum maybe? Because someone said in the comment section that positive relativistic matter must be slower than light...
I am so disappointed in this, mostly because of how wrong they get stuff. If it was just a commentary on relativity and the speed of light it would be really educational. But it's not. It decided to bring star trek into things, and that's where things go badly sideways. Ships in the Star Trek universe don't actually go faster than the speed of light. They use warp drives. A warp drive does not currently exist, but the science behind it is (theoretically) sound. A warp drive allows you to EFFECTIVELY travel FTL (faster than light) without ACTUALLY travelling FTL. It does this by "punching a hole" through space-time and travelling through the "hole". Imagine the universe as a balloon. Now, identify two points on opposite sides of the balloon. Warp the balloon (squeeze it) until the two points are as close together as you can get them. Now imagine travelling from the one point to the other. Looking at the surface of the balloon, you will appear to have travelled the (long) distance from one side to the other, when in reality you travelled the much smaller distance between the two points you warped together. If the balloon was large enough, you will have travelled a distance so large in a time so small that your average speed will appear to be faster than the speed of light, but in reality you only travelled the much smaller warped distance at sublight speeds. Another area where this video gets things wrong is talking about sending signals or messages FTL. Lets forget, for a second, Star Trek using warp relay stations to accomplish this, because there is something even better - Quantum entanglement. We know that quantum entanglement exists, and very simply (VERY simply) what it does is create two particles that are 'linked' to each other in such a way that one particle mirrors the other - what happens to one particle happens to the other, even when they are separated by vast distances (as I said, this is VERY simplified, but it worjs to illustrate a point). Theoretically, if you have a quantum entangled pair, you can send messages (signals) across the pair by finding a way to encode information into the movement of the pair. This does not yet exist, and is purely theoretical, but the science behind it is well understood and pretty sound (for a theory).
We cant travel faster than light because our universe is already expanding faster than light.Imagine a train traveling 100 km per hour and you are running behind the train at 100 km per hour you will never catch the train.
Nice try and you're right. But the universe isn't actually expanding, reports by non-scientists (the relativity ignorant) to the contrary. All galaxies exhibit a red-shift, except for the Andromeda galaxy which exhibits a blue-shift, but no conclusions can be drawn by this fact alone. The red shift means either A. acceleration* or B. curvature* with no objective way of determining which. For example: if you were on the surface of a semi-rigid transparent sphere with a gravitational center your weight would cause a concavity and anything close enough to you to be affected would exhibit a blue shift due to the recurvature you've caused while everything else would exhibit a red shift due to the inherent convexity or decurvature of a sphere. However, since the term universe means "everything" the universe cannot logically be expanding, so B is the only logical answer. Therefore, the galaxies are in a Static Curved Relationship (SCR) viz. there is zero expansion or contraction of the universe, but only a relative positioning caused by the Milky Way's gravity. In addition, if you total the apparent expansion of all the red-shifted galaxies with the total contraction of all the local blue-shifted galaxies, (it's obvious that other galaxies exhibit blue-shifts relative to their nearest neighbours) they will be in complete equilibrium viz. remote expansion and local contraction are in balance resulting in a net zero change. Now if the Andromeda galaxy were exhibiting a red-shift like all the other galaxies then the "universe" would have a real net expansion and wouldn't, in consequence, logically be the "universe". In conclusion, the universe is in a "Dynamic Equilibrium" with the speed of light (in vacuo) fixed due to the fixed absolute size of the universe itself... You're right because the update speed or refresh rate of the universe viz. the Plank Second linearized ("c") cannot be "caught up to" or exceeded by any N.B. visible object. * Note: Acceleration and curvature are inherently synonymous. However, if there is no net, absolute, or only a relative motion, acceleration is more accurately/specifically described as curvature.
Thanks for a nice video and educative view on how we percieve things nowadays. However, I don't believe: 1) Newton / Mayer / Einstein were right within more than the confines of your known universe (whatever that is...). 2) In impossible. Because in this case it means "by means known so far" e.g. propulsion. Think about doing weird sci-fi things like warping, teleportation, other dimension entering etc. 3) In being limited to thinking about speed. Some modern theories suggest that time and space folding is possible, that the teleportation is possible (I think this one has been actually even proved), and so on. So, for example, think about getting to a place not being faster than the speed of light, but using means that would make you appear at that place quicker than it would take you to get there by travelling the speed of light. No-travelling travelling. Hehe. And listen to this also: There can be (logically-wise) no beginning of "things" nor any true "ending" of space. Just try to ask "what was before, and before that, and before that that... or what is beyond the universe, and beyond that, and beyond that that, and...." you will easily come to understand that conclusion. Therefore the universum (not just "our" universe mind you, but the whole-whole of existence) is infinite and also has never begun in the true meaning of the word! It also arguably suggests that something came out of nothing. Thus, things like laws of energy conservation, enthropy etc are simply not valid in the broader sense of things (much much broader though :D ) These are maybe just some kind of engrafting into our local universe, or who knows. One day we will breach these enigmas, and what is deemed impossible today will be normal in the future. As it always has been in science after all.
We most certainly will travel faster than light some day, given enough scientific research in that area. After all, it was once said that mankind would never be able to fly, and that it was impossible to build a boat that would travel underwater. The bottom line.......THERE ARE TOO MANY NAYSAYERS IN OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!
Wtf no it doesnt. One of the main things einstein wanted to prove was that light travels the same for everyone, even if time has to change in order for this to happen. The speed of light is not relative
@@luismorelos1334 ur wrong, we just need the energy to do so, like today we use solar panels and they help us extract energy from the sun light ,In the near future we will be advance and build more advanced techniques to extract the energy of our star
Remember, people once thought that the earth was the center of our solar system. It is the same with lightspeed, in the far future humans will laugh at videos like this.
"If you could send signals going faster than the speed of light, then you could send information back in time." That seems like a jump in logic. I don't see how one follows from the other.
You should look at a space-time diagram when someone goes faster than light. Because of time dilation, the traveler would see things in a different order, and message someone stationary about the future before it happens.
Wrong again BBC! We can infact go faster than the speed of light. Scientists hsve already created a camera capable of capturing the phenomenon. If the flash of a camera can go fast enough to capture light moving, then so can we!
@@TaverrVance + Unless your talking about a slow motion camera setting, I don't follow your logic. Slowing down the speed of light is scientifically impossible. You can't change the speed light travels anymore than sound. You can only capture it as it is and hope you have the equipment strong enough to monitor it. As scientists have done.
Наука
The suggestion that you could get to any part of the universe in one lifetime ignores the fact that space itself is expanding, in some areas faster than the speed of light
That's not actually correct. What we measure as velocity in galaxies is not actually the galaxies moving, it’s the space in between them getting larger. There’s nothing actually traveling faster than light, hence Einstein’s theory of relativity - which tells us nothing can move faster than light - is not being violated.
General relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light between two points in the universe but that doesn't stop the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light.
not only could you travel to any part of the universe by going at light speed, since expansion and movement of space is what is causing movement faster than light, but it would feel instantaneous to the traveler. And not only that, but movement, contraction and dilation of space is the basis behind warp travel, allowing a ship to effectively travel faster than light.
As an object moves faster, its inertial mass increases and therefore as it gets faster, a greater amount of energy is needed for each additional 1m/s increase in speed. There isn’t enough energy in the Universe to get even a single electron to the speed of light.
I thought this was great how I wish my oldl days at school explained things in such a practical way.....
“Nothing moves faster than light”
Quantum Entanglement enters the chat
They are just making claims without substantiating any real science. This video is about 40% accurate, basically the buzz feed of physics
Explain how?
whats a better option?
There are a plethora of better videos on the subject
Yeah the part about the shadow going faster than light is not true
Bababa
Star trek invented warp engines to brake theoretical light-speed limit by bending space. To bend space you need huge mass, for example like a planet mass.
Ya but it doesn't have to be at that size. A black hole generator would give you that planet size mass at only the size of a fingernail.
Yeah except at the same time they nonchalantly could monitor other vessels that we in warp or NOT IN WARP. Oops.
actually NO.
you need negative mass and something to control a matter-antimatter reaction safely.
In Star Trek they where not traveling using conventional means. The warp drive created a warp bubble that bypassed the space / time problem. However this is not been proven possible and would also require a massive amount of energy. Like the building blocks of the universe kind of energy.
Very true! Just because it has not been proven possible does not mean it isn't. The Romans did not believe it was possible to travel to the moon. Did not make it impossible, it just was not proven to be possible at the time. That is what a lot of people making "it's impossible" claims need to understand.
Energy = warp core ( it was radioactive)
I would like to hear more about the shadow puppet and how it goes faster than light. I am not convinced this is true, think about it in a slower setting, like if you are watering the moon with a giant watering can and put fingers under the stream to make water “shadow” puppets, the drops will not fall where your hand is, moving it around will let drops fall, but these drops would have to travel from the giant can to the surface - taking time. Now think of the water drops as being darkness in the shadow puppet example, how can darkness travel faster than light?
Darkness doesn't travel faster than light because darkness is nothing. You can do some more research about things like virtual particles that possibly exist in that "darkness" you talk about with is really interesting.
So that's why I can't hit the bed before the light goes out
Why's everyone swaying like they're pissed
Cuz he makes no sense
@@fazegarlic1233 He made sense to me...
The moon shadow puppets idea broke my brain.
3:50 faster than light wouldn't be going back in time tho? Wouldn't you just SEE things in reverse? Doesn't mean they're going back in time it just appears to be to our perspective
You would see things before they happen, and message someone about it.
@@ericgolightly8450 no u shouldn't see things BEFORE the happen, you would catch up to light from the past. So everything would appear to go in reverse. But nothing ACTUALLY changing. It's just your POV perspective
So what if you could cancel out mass? If a flashlight had zero mass, and you turned it on and let it go. It would fly off at the speed of light. Being propelled by the photons.
Thelight the flashlight produces travels at the soeed of light in a vacuum. The flashlight itself has mass so it can't.
@@marksimpson2321 bruh... Read my comment. I just said if a flashlight has ZERO MASS. Then it would fly off at the speed of light using light as a form of propulsion. The problem of speed of light travel is solved by lowering the mass of the craft. Not building a huge engine.
@@elisampley7598cant cancel out mass, would require negative mass or smth then u could just use that instead
what about the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole?
Well then this is the real reason why we have not been visited by aliens 🤣
In Star Trek they had solved the time problem, the same amount of time passed on the ship as on planets no matter the speed
The ship does not move when in warp. Space-time is warped around it to carry it.
these are reasons, but the basic reason is that every object is in constant motion in space-time at a single constant speed which is the speed of light. all motion you perceive in 3d space is relative motion and pretty much imaginary
Technically moving at the speed of light is one aspect. We have bending time and space to decrease distance.
We have matter transportation which is another.
That kind of irrelevant because the higgs field won't allow it.
Everything is moving at the speed of light the higgs field gives everything mass slowing things down, if you go faster then light you would lose mass and fly apart.
The closer you get to the speed of light the closer you become to breaking the effects of the higgs field holding your molecular structure together, the higgs field has to work twice as hard to slow you down requiring infinite energy thefore you would disintegrate.
The only way you can go faster then light is if space is moving faster then light.
I wonder if Isaac Asimov’s jump ships would’ve any more possible than warp drive
when you travel faster than light the object becomes invisible as the object stop reflecting light at that speed. the so called equal to sonic boom would be a light trail that just stops as the object become invisible.
the shadow over the moon thing is wrong. the change in theleading and trailing edge position of the shadow propogates to the moon at the speed of light
In star trek, they don't actually travel faster than light. They use warp travel, so the light speed limit doesn't mean that star trek warp travel cannot happen
I kinda regret wondering about this, I’ll just accept you can’t because it’s complicated….
Pure conjecture...thx for sharing ✌
The universe expands faster then light!
We can't go faster than light!
Well not the universe
But space time
It's the base on which the universe is on
No material object (anything with mass) can do at the speed of light
@@gunjchowwiwat8357 yes we can, years ago people didn’t believe in a lot of things, today we are doing all the impossible
Can we still go the same speed as light
Yes. It's called light speed travel. We just don't have the tech to do it yet. Wait until the end of the century. Pretty sure we will have it by then.
No. The comment above is wrong
I doubt it tbh. We will probably reach close to it maybe about 65/70% at a stretch, in the very far future. But to reach the speed of light or even 90% of it, its near enough impossible
@@rzk3190 + there is already a camera built to capture light as it is moving to study it's speed.
If humans can create a camera to accomplish that, they can do the same with a spaceship.
we wont reach 10% speed of light, 2 nuetron stars collided into each other and still realised 65% the speed of light, imagine the power you have to get to have mass go at speed of light
1000 years ago
Iron can't fly
who said that
Facts, now we got plains and rockets, this guy makes no sense, stupid guy talk about radiation when evolution is still going on, and we can use the energy of the sun
@@fazegarlic1233 Lol, radiation as in energy being emitted from your spaceship as you lose tons of energy and if you accept the light postulate (and relativity principle, which also holds true for classical mechanics as far as we know) it follows from the mathematics that you cannot go from less than speed of light to speed of light or more by accelerating normally
then there's this star trek thing about warping spacetime but that's just a fun idea at the moment
I thought this was cool. I liked the voices.
Light is not fast our eyes sees faster than anything.
Light is old according to distance in comparison to your eyes.
Light is billions years late when compared to stars distance.
8:20 minutes late when compare with our eyes seeing capacity.
What I hear is that object that will not move is the planet you can't see in your path.
What about progressively reducing our mass as we approach speed of light?
mass increases infinitely as you approach c
SIMPLE SCIENCE ANY ACTION REQUIRES A MOVEMENT THAT INCLUDES SLOWING DOWN
"You did it! You bastards!" Charlton Heston in the iconic scene with the statue of liberty ruins on the beach.
but if you had a bow that spreads thousands of light years from one side to the other....and a super massive human to use it....wouldn't the arrow go as fast as light maybe even faster????
No, the arrow would quickly accelerate to nearly the speed of light, but it wouldn't surpass it.
Is this the guy from gameranx
Where does space get the energy to expand faster than light?
I think this sounds like the guy from Khans academy. Isnt he?
Before we broke past the speed of sound, scientists said you couldn’t and you’d hit a wall of air.
Is this not history repeating itself?
True and the hypothesis of Einstein is not a theory it was based on a thought experiment and so far scientists are still trying to prove whether it is true but that doesn't mean that his speed relativity isn't true which is accounted for in GPS systems.
First that's not true and many things had been known even in ancient times to go faster than sound. And secondly the speed of sound and the speed of light are not at all the same thing. The speed of sound in air is an arbitrary speed. The speed of light has nothing to do with light at all, it's the speed of causality and which all things with 0 mass and positive energy move. The equations in physics show that if C wasn't C and speed had no upper limit, it would become impossible for mass, space, or time to even exist.
@@Eric-zs6rd First of all, that isn't even true. Causality is instantaneous. It's the EFFECT that travels at the speed of sound or light or whatever. The speed of light is c because of the amount of vacuum energy available in which to propagate the EM wave. In the early universe, when energy was much more denser, the EM wave propagated throughout space at a much faster speed - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. As stars and black holes formed, the energy density decreased resulting in a slower speed of light.
@@stewiesaidthat Proof?
I'm pretty sure back then they thought sea and air travel were impossible until they achieved it. It's possible, we just don't know how yet.
Did you not just listen?
@@arianz1791 You need a loophole in physics. An example is warping space-time around an object so that space just carries it without it needing to move. People like Alcubierre, Natario, Harold White, and Broeck have worked on warp drives.
wishful thinking
@@edmarespaniola4241 better to hope for the impossible than gloom at the inevitable
@@shukitheconscious3150 i rolled my eyes so hard i almost saw brain matter. The solar system itself have enough stuff inside we could spend a lot of our time studying it. And do you really have to go ftl to explore the rest of the Galaxy? Slower-than-light in my opinion is more plausible last time i checked. No need to either hope or gloom at reality.
What if you made light tangible and rode it ?
Saying what we cannot do in science is the opposite of a explorative scientific mind. Saying we cannot go faster then light right now in this time is true, but saying it is impossible is closed minded. Who are you to say what we can and cannot do in thousand or a million years.
Wow, we’re obviously stuck in time.
Well, maybe not really STUCK, but surely in the time equivalent of molasses.
you need a fusion reactor to get infinit energy
Nothing has infinite energy.
Prince Andrew's reputation travels faster than light.
Dude, seriously, why do you want to? There’s no where else to go, and if humans are any indication of how brutal existence is, you’re not going to survive any “alien” encounter.
It does not exist. You are confused. Electro magnetic levitation exists. With electromagnetic levitation one can speed a ship, or anything else, over obstacles at what might appear to be something nearly instantaneous, so called ‘light speeds’.
I think its possible if they use negative energy.
I wouldn't say never. There's theories that unknown subatomic particles from dark matter could have physical attributes to make something of the sort possible. Only 5% of 'ordinary/normal' matter exists, the rest is mostly dark matter and dark energy, which we barely understand the laws of physics behind.
If something travelling faster than the speed of light needs an infinite amount of energy to slow it down, but produces massive levels of nuclear radiation, then you could harness that energy to take something up to the speed of light, as you would have an infinite nuclear power source.
So give me a few minutes whilst I build a tachyon displacement device that will in turn create multiple supernovas in a controlled graviton chamber to produce the energy required to power my warp core propulsion system that will in turn help me reach the speed of light. I just need someone to build the space ship for me, I’m no good with a welder.
I think you just described the wrap core/ field thing
we can, outside space-time.
Would this mean that people that exercise LITERALLY have more time???
It's disapointting that bbc release this kind of video like they know it all and got whole got universe figured out. I think 1000 years ago if you tell me human are going to explore the mars and moon they will say the same thing it's impossible.
then how does the flash do it
WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE TRAVEL THE SPEED OF LIGHT
What about if you became the light?
We know. ❤. Jacobs Ladder. Is. ❤. Belt. ❤. Plankton. ❤.
Totally wrong. The reason why you can't go faster than light is very simple i.e. the speed of light in vacuo or "c" (~670,000,000 mph) is the speed at which the universe is refreshed, linearized.
If I were a scientist, I would rather get out of the community that aimed to achieve the speed of light, and tell them until now we were are pretty much did not understand 80% our body, and don't focus on achieving it because it will diminish our potential to discover a new possible way.
If we can move a space craft from earth to pluto(the sad disowned planet to a piece of debris claimed by human) by just 1 month, that already a feat of engineering.
I just wonder if every nation that invest in space industry or pioneer it just use billion to argue at each other.
What's Sonic Boom? Is it what I see Superman do in Man of Steel and BVS?!
A sonic boom is caused by shockwaves when an object breaks the sound barrier. It travels faster than the speed of sound
The more you dig in, The more you get lost in uncertainty
If we could reach the speed of light, we would not be travelling at 300k km per second from our point of view. We would be travelling at INFINITE speed, from our point of view.
If there is no friction in space and its almost a total vacuum then if you give any spaceship an initial velocity then it should maintain that velocity without any additional thrust. Then the fuel tank is only used for acceleration which should make it possible to travel at the speed of light.
Nope, because your mass or inertia increases as you approach the speed of light until you have an infinite amount of it requiring infinite physical work to keep going over an infinite amount of time, naturally this is impossible.
Oh brother... Infinite energy still has to work over the course of time. At the speed of light all time is stopped so if you understand the formula for velocity and T equals 0. You begin to see the problem.
We can extract the energy of the sun and use it, but that will happen in the future of human exploration, this guy in the video makes no sense
You forgot to add the property of consciousness. All scientists know that if YOU are travelling close to the speed of light, for "you" (consciousness) time appears normal and doesn't slow down, your mass is still the same, and you do seem to shrink in size (relative to the direction you are travelling) . BONUS: if you turn your headlights on, light will travel at light speed away from you. BONUS#2: we do not know our true speed in the universe, because everything is moving, how fast, we'll never know.
Do make sense
I don't know why you said that if you could go close to the speed of light say .99c then you could go anywhere in the universe in one humans lifetime. I understand the time dilation, but that doesn't account for the fact that the observable universe is 10's of billions of light years across. Even if you approached light speed, even .99c, you still would only be able to travel to places that are within a humans lifetime in relation to their light year distance from you. Not to mention the fact that you would Never be able to go beyond our own local group because anything past that is being pushed away from us by dark energy faster than the speed of light. So that statement was highly inaccurate.
Based on the information provided here, it appears to me that Anti-Gravitons could be used to decrease Mass to zero. At that point, very little Energy would be needed to reach the the Speed of Light, and even go faster than the Speed of Light.
Dust has no business traveling that fast...?
@@zp8qu Search up "why gravity isn't real", great video by V-sauce. Also spacetime is mathematically proven to exist.
I agre :)
No! We cannot go faster than light because we cannot see where we’re going once we are beyond light 💡
That's true thats like we're stopping time as well
Wow Star Trek really got it wrong.
Yet...
They didn't really explain why you can't. I would like them to explain the math. How do you get the "infinite energy" result.
We can extract the energy from the sun, that energy will be more than every energy ever created by humans, and that will help us travel wich a lot of energy
you can get into a rabbit hole on wikipedia or read up on it in a textbook about special relativity
but yes extra maths would have been nice :c
too much giggling by a couple of amateurs.......
?
What?
why can light reach that speed if it needs infinite energy?
It cannot. The speed of light can approach ever closer to 'c' but it cannot actually reach it. Sounds strange but...When you measure the velocity of light you are really measuring the velocity, frequency and wavelength of a light-wave traveling through space. The frequency (or time period) of a wave is inversely proportionate to time. So, the higher the frequency (velocity) of the wave the slower time becomes in proportion. At 'c' time becomes zero so light-waves cannot reach 'c' before they run out of time. If the speed of light was infinite there would be no light. You could say that time itself is a product of light (energy). That is why the speed- of-light is always appears to be limited to 'c' for all observers. If the frequency and wave-length of light changes velocity so does relative-time in proportion. Faster light=slower time in proportion and the light appears at a constant speed limit
.
@@pigofapilot1 this is too scientific for me haha but thanks
@@carly6037 Sorry. Think of light as simply a wave of pure energy (which it is). You cannot catch pure energy by using energy as fuel because they travel at the same speed 'c'.
Light is energy. You would need to travel faster than energy which is impossible.
bc light has no mass
Lowest mass object in the universe
I think : Mechanics( quantum) of light :
The light is the limit(the border,of things,the edge of the matter)
Over the limit are no more things,( there is no matter anymore )
If you want to pass( break) the limit, you should use : not matter anymore, ( not particles anymore)
(Light speed ) It can't be reached with mechanical movement( mechanical particles movement). Mechanical movement( motion) is for things under the light's limit,( things with mass, volume etc... For matter,)light is the "wall"( limit) between matter and " No matter " . Don't waste time to break the light's limit with particles ( like neutrino, tachyon etc..) In this state( situation) you don't have to do with particles , because you want to go over( beyond ) the light ( over the particles) therefore is wasting of time
.
Another parallel thought :
The possible outcome :
C= constant means :
The light doesn't move,( doesn't travel )
The photons doesn't move, therefore ( speed of) light is constant, because they don't move , is just as to turn the page, light just display it( unveils it) , but doesn't move ( doesn't travel)
The book 91:3
This is a new point of view
So you should make another math system, another physical system ( over{ beyond} the matter) , should find new sources .
If you will approach to the limit( to the border), the limit doesn't have sense anymore, if you pass the limit, the things will change, the system doesn't work anymore, a new system will be applied( will be working) , for example : if you want to become smaller and smaller and smaller , until you become a string, that is the edge, there is nothing beyond it, if you want to go beyond it, you should leave the entire system, and take a new( different) system .
It is like to travel with a car, you can travel with the car until in front of you there is the sea, now you should leave the car and take a new vehicle ( a ship) , because the car doesn't work beyond the edge ( beyond the limit ,the land ), there is different environment beyond the land, the car doesn't work there, same is your system, you want to go there but your system doesn't work there, need a new system, new variables, "new tools "... 🦩
Light can travel the speed of light because it;smass doesn't expand. Solve that, another substance that mass doesn't expand you should be able to go as fast as Speed of Light. That should be main point and most significant past of Star Trek not most criticized. Amazing how Roddenberry got so much right and continues to...holodeck.
WHY LIGHT??? Will someone answer that?
How did we decide that 3*10^8m/s is it, and can't be exceeded?
I've seen tons of videos and read thousands of blogs, but noone answers that... help!!!!
👽
But Star Trek uses a warp drive! That bends space, and there's no limits on how fast space itself can move.
Granted, even though it is mathematically possible, it may be way too impractical to do. We'll see what Sonny White at Eagleworks comes up with; I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
@noobenstein There actually isn't as the measurement of Warp will change if new speeds are faster than the older ones as it happened in TNG
Speed of light limit still exists, because of limit of information transfer. You theoretically can go faster than light if you don't bring any information from one point to another. Like two distant galaxies saparating faster than light. Or star collapsing into black hole.
We need to find negative mass first.
@@TheCaptainSplatter lmao I thought that to be like anti matter guess its like that one guy who said that negative relativistic matter like tachyons in a vacuum maybe? Because someone said in the comment section that positive relativistic matter must be slower than light...
No
I am so disappointed in this, mostly because of how wrong they get stuff. If it was just a commentary on relativity and the speed of light it would be really educational. But it's not. It decided to bring star trek into things, and that's where things go badly sideways.
Ships in the Star Trek universe don't actually go faster than the speed of light. They use warp drives. A warp drive does not currently exist, but the science behind it is (theoretically) sound. A warp drive allows you to EFFECTIVELY travel FTL (faster than light) without ACTUALLY travelling FTL. It does this by "punching a hole" through space-time and travelling through the "hole".
Imagine the universe as a balloon. Now, identify two points on opposite sides of the balloon. Warp the balloon (squeeze it) until the two points are as close together as you can get them. Now imagine travelling from the one point to the other. Looking at the surface of the balloon, you will appear to have travelled the (long) distance from one side to the other, when in reality you travelled the much smaller distance between the two points you warped together. If the balloon was large enough, you will have travelled a distance so large in a time so small that your average speed will appear to be faster than the speed of light, but in reality you only travelled the much smaller warped distance at sublight speeds.
Another area where this video gets things wrong is talking about sending signals or messages FTL. Lets forget, for a second, Star Trek using warp relay stations to accomplish this, because there is something even better - Quantum entanglement. We know that quantum entanglement exists, and very simply (VERY simply) what it does is create two particles that are 'linked' to each other in such a way that one particle mirrors the other - what happens to one particle happens to the other, even when they are separated by vast distances (as I said, this is VERY simplified, but it worjs to illustrate a point). Theoretically, if you have a quantum entangled pair, you can send messages (signals) across the pair by finding a way to encode information into the movement of the pair. This does not yet exist, and is purely theoretical, but the science behind it is well understood and pretty sound (for a theory).
I can't believe you didn't get more thumbs up for this comment. A very good correction!
We cant travel faster than light because our universe is already expanding faster than light.Imagine a train traveling 100 km per hour and you are running behind the train at 100 km per hour you will never catch the train.
Nice try and you're right. But the universe isn't actually expanding, reports by non-scientists (the relativity ignorant) to the contrary. All galaxies exhibit a red-shift, except for the Andromeda galaxy which exhibits a blue-shift, but no conclusions can be drawn by this fact alone. The red shift means either A. acceleration* or B. curvature* with no objective way of determining which. For example: if you were on the surface of a semi-rigid transparent sphere with a gravitational center your weight would cause a concavity and anything close enough to you to be affected would exhibit a blue shift due to the recurvature you've caused while everything else would exhibit a red shift due to the inherent convexity or decurvature of a sphere. However, since the term universe means "everything" the universe cannot logically be expanding, so B is the only logical answer. Therefore, the galaxies are in a Static Curved Relationship (SCR) viz. there is zero expansion or contraction of the universe, but only a relative positioning caused by the Milky Way's gravity. In addition, if you total the apparent expansion of all the red-shifted galaxies with the total contraction of all the local blue-shifted galaxies, (it's obvious that other galaxies exhibit blue-shifts relative to their nearest neighbours) they will be in complete equilibrium viz. remote expansion and local contraction are in balance resulting in a net zero change. Now if the Andromeda galaxy were exhibiting a red-shift like all the other galaxies then the "universe" would have a real net expansion and wouldn't, in consequence, logically be the "universe". In conclusion, the universe is in a "Dynamic Equilibrium" with the speed of light (in vacuo) fixed due to the fixed absolute size of the universe itself... You're right because the update speed or refresh rate of the universe viz. the Plank Second linearized ("c") cannot be "caught up to" or exceeded by any N.B. visible object.
* Note: Acceleration and curvature are inherently synonymous. However, if there is no net, absolute, or only a relative motion, acceleration is more accurately/specifically described as curvature.
@@barabbasrosebud9282 make a video on it
Thanks for a nice video and educative view on how we percieve things nowadays. However, I don't believe:
1) Newton / Mayer / Einstein were right within more than the confines of your known universe (whatever that is...).
2) In impossible. Because in this case it means "by means known so far" e.g. propulsion. Think about doing weird sci-fi things like warping, teleportation, other dimension entering etc.
3) In being limited to thinking about speed. Some modern theories suggest that time and space folding is possible, that the teleportation is possible (I think this one has been actually even proved), and so on. So, for example, think about getting to a place not being faster than the speed of light, but using means that would make you appear at that place quicker than it would take you to get there by travelling the speed of light. No-travelling travelling. Hehe.
And listen to this also: There can be (logically-wise) no beginning of "things" nor any true "ending" of space. Just try to ask "what was before, and before that, and before that that... or what is beyond the universe, and beyond that, and beyond that that, and...." you will easily come to understand that conclusion. Therefore the universum (not just "our" universe mind you, but the whole-whole of existence) is infinite and also has never begun in the true meaning of the word! It also arguably suggests that something came out of nothing. Thus, things like laws of energy conservation, enthropy etc are simply not valid in the broader sense of things (much much broader though :D ) These are maybe just some kind of engrafting into our local universe, or who knows.
One day we will breach these enigmas, and what is deemed impossible today will be normal in the future. As it always has been in science after all.
bet there would've been a video just like this before we broke the speed of sound :)
Ya but since space can you just warp the space itself. Honestly I'd say quantum entanglement for instant communication is more difficult.
Fun fact : actually time travels faster than light.. light got second rank. Lol
Space is going FTLS …🎉 …🏴😎
We most certainly will travel faster than light some day, given enough scientific research in that area. After all, it was once said that mankind would never be able to fly, and that it was impossible to build a boat that would travel underwater. The bottom line.......THERE ARE TOO MANY NAYSAYERS IN OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!
Get to the answer nt your childhood
it means light itself is still a baby because goes thru time dilation
Yes, yes we can. Just depends how you measure the "speed of light". Light moves at different speeds through different mediums.
You're right, but given references to Space Travel and Star Trek, it's pretty clear they mean inside a vaccum.
Wtf no it doesnt. One of the main things einstein wanted to prove was that light travels the same for everyone, even if time has to change in order for this to happen. The speed of light is not relative
Bread flovored bread Well, I guess he didn't fully understand how optics work.
@@luismorelos1334 ur wrong, we just need the energy to do so, like today we use solar panels and they help us extract energy from the sun light ,In the near future we will be advance and build more advanced techniques to extract the energy of our star
@@fazegarlic1233 and how does that change the speed of light exactly?
Remember, people once thought that the earth was the center of our solar system. It is the same with lightspeed, in the far future humans will laugh at videos like this.
Don't bump into anything either cap'n
See. It's this type of rhetoric that limits us. Instead of it's impossible say "it would be possible if"
Enterprise with exhaust plumes?? Really??? And you want to explain FTL travel??
"If you could send signals going faster than the speed of light, then you could send information back in time." That seems like a jump in logic. I don't see how one follows from the other.
You should look at a space-time diagram when someone goes faster than light. Because of time dilation, the traveler would see things in a different order, and message someone stationary about the future before it happens.
All I have to do is become light
This is why i bought a 120hz screen:
The speed of light isn’t a constant quarks break the rules.
That happens in the subatomic world
But the macro laws are governed relativity and here speed of light is a constant
Wrong again BBC! We can infact go faster than the speed of light. Scientists hsve already created a camera capable of capturing the phenomenon. If the flash of a camera can go fast enough to capture light moving, then so can we!
It works by decreasing the speed of light and not by being faster than light in operation.
@@TaverrVance + Unless your talking about a slow motion camera setting, I don't follow your logic. Slowing down the speed of light is scientifically impossible. You can't change the speed light travels anymore than sound. You can only capture it as it is and hope you have the equipment strong enough to monitor it.
As scientists have done.
Deutsche Hierarchie I hope no one reads this comment. It's just plain wrong and clearly you know nothing about physics.
@@cohnjena2246 + I clearly know plenty as I have just described in detail how they work.
Deutsche Hierarchie haha okay, no point in arguing with you