this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
504 points (94.2% liked)

Asklemmy

47216 readers
1645 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

It can look dumb, but I always had this question as a kid, what physical principles would prevent this?

(page 4) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[โ€“] fnrir@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

https://youtu.be/6g2bHqV01es

EDIT: It's in Polish, but it's still a good video.

[โ€“] psyklax@lemmy.dbzer0.com 15 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Next, I suppose you'll want to know about the speed of dark ๐Ÿคจ

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] adaveinthelife@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 month ago

Go find a 30' stick and let us know if you can point it at the moon.

[โ€“] Gladaed@feddit.org 7 points 1 month ago

This is actually a great example for why that stick must not exist.

You can also do this with a unbreakable stick and an unbreakable shorter tube. Throw the stick at a high velocity through the tube and it contracts for the point of view of the tube. Then close it shut. Now you have a stick that's longer than the tube fully contained in it.

[โ€“] folaht@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (3 children)

If you're openminded enough to listen to those who disagree with the standard model,
take an elastic band and turn one end. Instead of the band turning, you'll have a twist in your band
and it takes time to unravel the twist if you let go on the other end.
That's what will happen to the stick and this travels at lightspeed,
because this is how light works. Light works like 'the stick' in your example.
And if you try turning it faster the 'elastic band'/stick/'atom on the other end' starts breaking.

If you need FTL communication, then use gravity..somehow.

[โ€“] Valmond@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Gravity waves doesn't go faster than light though?

[โ€“] Aurora_TheFirstLight@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Iirc from the 2 YouTube videos I watched light can theoretically bend thanks to gravity, black holes anyone?

[โ€“] Longpork3@lemmy.nz 12 points 1 month ago

Space bends due to gravity. Light continues in a straight line through the now non-linear space, thus appearing to bend.

[โ€“] Klear@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago

Gravity bends spacetime, light always goes in a straight line, bent spacetime means straight lines can be curvy. That all checks out.

But none of that helps you with FTL communication.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)

why wouldn't this work

because bullets are faster than whatever the fuck speed stickman is achieving
and even bullets are slower than light

[โ€“] Evil_Shrubbery@lemm.ee 25 points 1 month ago

always had this question as a kid

And then went, draw it out, and asked.
I applaud that (and the art), good for you.

(And the good people already provided answers.)

[โ€“] zecg@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

That's what he meant by we'll use sticks on the other side

[โ€“] mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com 95 points 1 month ago (2 children)

The problem lies in what "unstretchable" and "unbendable" means. Its always molecules and your push takes time to reach the other end. You think its instantaneous because you never held such a long stick. The push signal is slower than the light

[โ€“] rainerloeten@lemmy.world 69 points 1 month ago (3 children)

You think its instantaneous because you never held such a long stick.

Speak for yourself! ๐Ÿ˜

[โ€“] Courantdair@jlai.lu 8 points 1 month ago (3 children)

Is it instantaneous though?

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)

This wouldn't work because the moon is more than 300k km away :P

[โ€“] Ephera@lemmy.ml 31 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Perhaps also worth pointing out that the speed of light is that exact speed, because light itself hits a speed limit.

As far as we know, light has no mass, so if it is accelerated in any way, it should immediately have infinite acceleration and therefore infinite speed (this is simplifying too much by using a classical physics formula, but basically it's like this: a = f/m = f/0 = โˆž). And well, light doesn't go at infinite speed, presumably because it hits that speed limit, which is somehow inherent to the universe.

That speed limit is referred to as the "speed of causality" and we assume it to apply to everything. That's also why other massless things happen to travel at the speed of causality/light, too, like for example gravitational waves. Well, and it would definitely also apply to that pole.

Here's a video of someone going into much more depth on this: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/

[โ€“] sneezycat@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Actually, the thing that applies to the pole is the speed of sound (of the pole material), which is the speed the atoms in the pole move at. Not even close to the speed of light.

[โ€“] Tweaker@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

Correct answer is here.

load more comments (1 replies)
[โ€“] essell@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I think relativity demonstrates that light does have mass?

They might not have "rest mass" but they do have mass!

The eclipse experiment proved it, solar sails whilst hypothetical demonstrate it.

[โ€“] itslilith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 1 month ago

Relativistic mass is not helpful to our everyday understanding of mass, it's more helpful to discuss momentum, like the other commenter pointed out

[โ€“] carzian@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Photons don't have mass, but they do have momentum.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments