The Speed of Light Reveals the Universe Must Be Stranger Than We Ever Imagined
Why doesn't anything go faster than the speed of light? Want to see the world through the eyes of a scientist? Visit brilliant.org/astrum to sample their courses for free, and the first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant's annual premium subscription.
Previous episodes: • This Model Reveals the...
Astrum merch now available!
Apparel: astrum-shop.fourthwall.com/
Metal Posters: displate.com/promo/astrum?art...
SUBSCRIBE for more videos about our other planets.
Subscribe! goo.gl/WX4iMN
Facebook! goo.gl/uaOlWW
Twitter! goo.gl/VCfejs
Astrum Spanish: bit.ly/2KmkssR
Astrum Portuguese: / @astrumbrasil
Donate!
Patreon: goo.gl/GGA5xT
Ethereum Wallet: 0x5F8cf793962ae8Df4Cba017E7A6159a104744038
Become a Patron today and support my channel! Donate link above. I can't do it without you. Thanks to those who have supported so far!
#speedoflight #theunseenuniverse #astrum
Fun perspective. In this model, C is essentially a coefficient for how curved the universe is. Neat!
Neat but wrong... If you play with Einstein Rules, then when you take the relative space/time of the photon, not only time is 0 but distance is 0 !!! If you change the relative space/time to say that the photon travelled a distance then you also have to take the time of your new relative space/time then the photon has time in your new relative space/time and speed of light is maintained :D You can't take time from a relative space/time and apply it to the distance of another relative space/time or you just try to build something unreal :D
Never mind that time is defined dimensionally but it is 1D only. Here, he tried to couple the speed of light with the speed of time. And time reversal would require decelerating mass from lightspeed time and then accelerating that same mass into a reversed lightspeed time. Nevermind performing another reversal to reenter our timeline. This reminds me of the experiments that tried to determine whether antimatter would fall "up" or "down" when freed from magnetic confinement. Their stated plan was that if antimatter falls "up" then they would further pursue research to determine whether antimatter travels backwards in time. On the other hand antimatter can be formed as a natural product of radioactive decay, which is the basis of the PET scan. So if antimatter was time-reversed then ordinary radioactive decay could produce time-reversed particles. I didn't follow up on the experiment but it doesn't seem to have generated any major headlines so that must have been a dud. I feel that either time is a dimensionless property which we granted dimensional traits for our own mathematical convenience, or time is not purely 1D but we cannot directly see it and interact with it . In the first case quantum-like properties are the universal norm and physical reality is a soap bubble arising from coincidence. This physical reality of ours could extend for hundreds of trillions of light years, persist for trillions of our years, and be literally nothing of consequence. In the latter case, any deviation of time no matter how small will be a physically separate entity. Time vectors could determine the mysterious numeric values that make our universe work, and only specific vector combinations would give rise to ordered states of energy and matter. It could also tie into things like the uncertainty principle or the way that we factor _all possible and impossible_ interactions to determine how a particle will behave. We're running into questions that are more and more difficult to test, and pretty much every theory combining GR with quantum fields has been an embarrassment to science. Maybe we get our answer soon, maybe it will be another hundred years or we'll even vanish without ever knowing.
One thing to remember about the photons point of view is that not only does time not exist for it, but length contraction is also infinite so from it's point of view, it doesn't go anywhere infinitely quick. Now you have 0/0. Does that help or hinder?
@@WalterBislin So is it more to say that from the photon's point of view it is everywhere all once, at least within the direction of it's travel?
@@cervantes01 I think that's fair to say at least from the photons point of view. I have also heard it put that a photon has no frame of reference.
is 0/0 = 1 ?
@@marcinnowogorski you just broke my brain. Anything divided by itself is 1 (one of the requirements of identity), but nothing can be divided by 0 without reaching infinity... except 0? I don't know.
Maybe you could shed some light on this question. How can a photon lose energy via redshift when from its perspective time isn't passing? I would guess, (not being a physicist) in order for something to lose(convert) energy some given amount of time would have to pass.
There is a small distinction that I think is worth making: from a photon's perspective, it doesn't travel at all: it exists simultaneously everywhere along its path without any experience of time, so it doesn't even have a concept of speed. This doesn't invalidate the idea of hyperbolic spacetime, but it does fix the problem of trying to measure the speed of light from a photon's perspective.
Wouldn't the calculation be different to an external observer not from the perspective of the photon?
@@charlesmiller8107 sure, but the video is trying to make an argument based on measuring the speed of light from the perspective of a photon.
without you even realizing maybe, you are one of the most easy to understand people that share this type of info for the curious people to gather more knowledge,the way u guys display the content is very unique i must say, keep it up because it is people like you, for at least a small groups of mini scientists that gets us hyped up to pursue more knowledge! (i learned to look at quantum physics from a little different perspective thanks to you,and it really helped me!) THANK U GUYS FOR SPREADING KNOWLEDGE
I love to learn new facts about reality in a way that is simple to understand. That is very valuable to me. This is how you get people to actually want to learn and understand
What he told is totally wrong and can't be taken as a valid theory :D
@@TheCentaurywhy
@@LazyRare why ? Simply because he takes an example of a photon inside a relative space/time to give its time value... But then he changes to another relative space/time to give the distance travelled by this photon... If you do that, you just cheat the relativist theory and your new model is totally wrong with what we can observe.
If causality didn't have a speed limit, all the interaction would have happened immediately and be long done by now. That includes us.
Not only that. Causality itself wouldn't exist. Causality means a reaction happens _after_ an action. If you replace _after_ with _at the same time as_ you no longer have causality.
It has! You haven't realized it.
That is actually not true. For example, most computer simulations don't have causality speed limit coded into it, yet they certainly have non instant interactions.
@@mbrusyda9437 that's cause they have to run on real existing hardware, which is bound by causality...
@@garycole5941 that's what probably what happened at the great expansion... all things not bound to the speed of light left the universe, like Elvis left the building.
Great video, but one point is missing: no observer will believe (perceive) himself as travelling faster than c because of the length contracion effect (which is the missing piece here). As you said Speed = Distance / Time. But as you travel close to c the perceived Distance in the travel direction is shrinked (contracted), while time will still pass at normal speed from your point of view (one second per second). Then, an observer travelling close to c will perceive that the distance to destination is almost zero (or exactly zero for the photon), so even if travel time also approaches zero you will never "believe" that you are travelling faster than c. Instead, what you will perceive is that the whole observable universe is now extremely small in your travel direction.
You misunderstand the phenomenon unfortunately still called "length contraction" (which is a rather misleading word): If you consider yourself moving and some stations A and B you are passing one after the other at rest, you don't have to consider the A-B distance "contracted" but rather _your own_ measurement sticks within the direction of your motion whereas you've to consider _your own_ clock running slow. In order to consider your clock running normal and the A-B distance "contracted", you have to consider yourself at rest and A and B forming a convoy successively passing you.
i believe this video combined with a refined redo regarding this topic is probably the correct answer. also, how does multiverse theory factor into a hyperbolic universe. as this theory basically throws the block universe idea out the window which half of the multiverse theories somewhat rely on underneath their principles. So I imagine this explosion is in space and time, is the multiverse. I'm having trouble reconciling this, but hear me out. Somewhat brought up the shining a flashlight thing at the speed of light. Well, what if that's the answer. What if light is infinite until it hits that hyperbolic boundary, and what if that boundary is literally at the edge of the entire "universe". and what if beyond that is just more and more copies of the same thing exponentially expanding, and then the light we see traveling at c, is the light from neighboring universes that already hit the hyperbolic wall , travelled around and into our universes as c light, while our light is travelling at infinity heading towards our neighbor universes where it will slow down to c after passing through the hyperbolic boundary.... would also give some explanation towards virtual particles and why they exists and pop in and out of empty space, because empty space is experiencing hyperbolic convergence from light crossing that boundary. would also mean we only have light because of the multiverse, basically netting the whole concept of light down, like a slow trap.
@@jensphiliphohmann1876 No, true that you can choose to believe either that A & B are moving or that you are moving, but you can't choose your time perception. As an observer your time perception is always 1sg per second, wether you chose to believe that you are moving or not. And ultimately the concept of "the distance from you to a specific point" is just a measurement about how much time needs light to get to that point and come back. If time is passing slower for you then light also needs less time to get to that point from your own perspective, and hence the perceived distance is shorter. In other words: note that Einstein theory is based in the assumption (axiom) that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (including the speed of light) so you can't choose to believe that light speed is different for you than for other observers, because if you remove this axiom then you are not talking about Special relativity.
@@mequavis No, the multiverse theory does not place the universes "one after the other" in a same space. They are not "neighbours". They are just multiple realities in superposition . But don't worry if you can't visualize it or understand it in any intuitive way ( different than mathematics) , neither the proponents of that theory can.
@@javiej there's definetly several different ways the multiverse could or can be in existence in.... That's only one possible theory....
A very interesting explanation! I am very curious if you could calculate the curvature of space based on this theory. I also wonder if perhaps this can explain dark energy since everything is moving forward in time that the hyperbolic space would cause new space to appear between objects.
Now that is using your noodle! How amazing it would be if reverse engineering the speed of light reveals the level of our universes curvature.
Have you published a written article on this? You really should publish this information in a journal: even as just a theory, it sounds promising. Also, this may well be the journey our souls are able to travel as ethereal spirits after corporeal death, during occasions when we are not choosing or needing to inhabit light in order to make ourselves known to others.
"Inhabit light"??
I remember when I was a kid I thought the speed of light was how long it takes my lamp to come on after I hit the switch 😂
Well you aren't that wrong
well electricity moves at the speed of light, athough I'm not sure if the mechanism in the light bulb immediately turns on as soon as electricity hits it
@@chickennuggetman2593 wouldn’t friction from the cables lower that velocity quite a bit?
@@nunohs3371 speed of light does cannot be slown down or speed up it a constant light's photons don't lose energy.
What gets me is if you are travelling the speed of light and shine a torch, the light from that torch still travels away from you at light speed, but instead of going twice the speed of light away from somebody that is stationary, that light is still only going the speed of light to them. Something isn’t quite right about light that I can not quite fathom. My head hurts.
There is no resistance in space. Light is instant
According to this video, it's because both are on the same hyperbolic path. Thus, neither can travel any faster.
No, it doesn't and that's pretty much the thought experiment you see everywhere about the speed of light, although it's usually explained with cars and car lights. If the car is travelling at c, then you won't see it coming, you can't, because the lights also travel at that exactly same absolute speed limit and do not add up.
@@anthonyman8008 Light is definitely not instant. Every bit of light we see in the night sky took years or centuries, or more, to get to us. We aren't seeing the stars as they are now. Traveling at light speed would feel instantaneous to the person traveling, but not to anyone else observing.
It is a consequence of the laws of physics being the same no matter what speed you are moving at.
Ibcredible video! Thank you for this! It was a long time since I listened to a talk or a lecture with more advanced mathematics or physics, and this really triggered my interest and my curiosity! Great talk and your theory on a hyperbolic 4D space related to light really gives an interesting perspective on time and the speed cap C. Thank you! Food for thought!
I am loving this series more than any recent box office movie. I wish I had all the money in the world to give to you so you can keep pursuing this! Keep it up
what about giving money to astrophysicists
Love this 3 part series! I wish there is another episode on this series. I love hearing your theories and hypothesis. Keep up the good work 👍
Another addendum about light is that at the speed of light (in a vacuum) not only you theoretically perceive zero time but due to infinite length contraction you perceive zero space too, meaning when moving at C is like time and space don't exist and they collapsed out of this timeless spaceless place into our universe with mass which in my opinion is the only thing that allows for the perception of both space and time, like space and time are a property of mass and can therefore be perceived only by it
Absolutely!
I'm on team Toroidal Universe where there was no big bang as such, but more a persistent continuous big flow. It fixes a whole bunch of astrophysical challenges and observations.
You'll like Colin Rourke's "Geometry of the Universe"
no it doesnt, if it did we'dbe using that as the standard model.
Thanks for making this point a little easier to understand, I will share this video with people who just don't really get what I'm trying to say about light speed and that technically from the point of view of the traveler there isn't really a speed limit and you can essentially travel at almost any speed as seen by the traveler only
Some things to consider: 1- Can you calculate how much the universe is curved in 4d based on the speed of light or vise versa on your model? 2 - How does your model interact with the principes of relativity like length contraction? 3 - Does dark energy have some relation with hyperbolic 4d space? (Maybe in the same way velocity has) 4 - Make another video explaining more stuff. 5 - If you did explain 1, 2 and 3 on your previous videos, I am sorry. I didn't re-watch them before posting this comment.
Same thought ! The point 1 is for me all what matters.
Just one little thing to consider and which break this model... If you take relative space/time of a photon to say that time has slowed down to 0... In the same relative space/time, the distance has also shrinked to 0... What he did there, he took the time from the relative space/time of a photon and applied the distance from the relative space/time somewhere on earth... But the time travelled by a photon in our relative space/time is not 0 ... And so his model is wrongly constructed by believing you can play with the distance of one relative space/time and apply it to the time of another relative space/time
Time dilation can only be defined between two inertial frames. Since a photon travels at the speed of light at all reference frames there's no inertial frame that can be defined. How far a photon has traveled depends on your frame of reference, the photon has no frame of reference because it would require the photon to be at rest in its own reference frame but a photon cannot be at rest so we end up with a little conundrum here. It simply does not make sense to talk about photons experiencing or not experiencing time, intuitively it may but not mathematically.
Yes. A photon would see the entire universe shrink to zero size in the direction of travel. So, the speed equation should be 0 miles divided by 0 seconds. My calculator gives the answer 0/0 = 42.
@@afriedrich1452 My calculator gives the answer 88 Mph.
@@etsequentia6765 You are right. 88 mph is 142 kph. My calculator must be faulty and dropped the first digit.
Ah, a 'frame of reference' requires an observer/measurement instrument. So by definition, a photon can not have a frame of reference. Referring to a photon's 'frame of reference', is like saying, 'a rock's tastes buds'.
@@afriedrich1452 Great Scott!
Most of your videos are made with basic concepts qland facts. I love these type of videos from you that takes a deeper dive into the math ans physics than your other videos!
I absolutely love this channel & the way he explains every detail so carefully, it’s fascinating to say the least
Fun fact! I only ever go with the speed of me, and the universe around me bends to compensate for it. When i walk, the spacetime visibly shifts in the opposite direction, thus preserving physics.
Perspective is amazing once you begin walking it, right?
Fun fact: This is how 3D graphics engines for computer games work. Because distances are calculated in floating point numbers, which have the highest precision at the smallest scales. Instead of moving the camera through space, the space is moved around the camera, which always stays at the origin coordinates (0/0/0).
@@NeovanGoth most games actually don't do this. If it is a large open world game where floating point precision would be an issue then yes its probably implemented in some way or another. In versions of minecraft where the farlands exist this is actually very apparent, because movement in one direction becomes very choppy.
@@NeovanGoth which games do this?
@@uku4171 Basically all that use a rasterization pipeline afaik. Rasterization is all about transforming coordinates in world space into coordinates in screen space ("Where on my screen is that point?"), which requires two transformation steps. The first (often called "camera transformation") maps all points from world space into a coordinate system with the camera at its origin. The second one (the "projection transformation") then maps those points onto a 2D plane, which results in pixel coordinates on the screen. To do this has a number ob advantages. As an example, it makes frustum culling very efficient, as one can start by simply throwing away all polygons behind the camera by filtering their points for negative z-coordinates in camera space.
I had seen another youtuber trying to explain this, but it was quite confusing. This is, by far, an explanation better suited for the rest of us. I thank you for that. Great video.
I love the question "why does our universe have a speed limit".. that isa profound question..LOVE THIS CHANNEL SOOOO MUCH.THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTENT ASTRUM
Interesting... I quickly came to your same conclusion once you started explaining the the rules of 4d space. I instantly thought of a curve. The curve wouldn't be observed by either the traveller of from the point of destination because the point of destination is also travelling on it's own curve. So if we have a max speed, couldn't we work out the shape of the curve...
This video perfectly illustrates why I studied geology and not physics 😵💫😆
2:35 The distance to Jupiter is zero if you're traveling towards it at c. To a photon the entire universe is thinner than paper in the direction it is moving.
Yes! And also backwards in time: all is "here and now" for the amazing photon.
That's really trippy. How would that look? I guess you'd have to sample this photon at a specific location in space for it to make sense.
Exactly. I wish the writers of Star Trek would internalize this fact! :)
@@TerranIV They did in Voyager when Tom Paris hit the warp 10 threshold, he subsequently devolved into an amphibian.
I've been a huge admirer of your work. But you have outdone even yourself with this series.
Maybe it would better to define c as the speed of time than that of light. Because if you move at the speed of c, no time can pass you.
c is the speed of time when at rest.
The KZhead SpaceTime video "The Speed of Light is NOT About Light" shows that c is better called the speed of causality.
@@timjohnson979 I saw that video too, but I'm getting slow these days, only when I read your comment I remembered.
When you accelerate in 3d space you are simply changing direction. Your velocity through time is being traded for more velocity through space.
That makes no sense as speed is defined as the rate of change of distance with time.
We need Sabine H in here.
Whether your theory is correct or not, it has given me a better insight to the properties of space-time. Thanks for sharing!
You are always in motion, and the length of your motion vector never changes. All you can do, is change the direction of your motion within the 4D space-time environment. Your motion vector is identical to the motion vector of a photon of light. The only difference is that your direction of travel is NOT merely across space. And so if you create a simple geometric representation of your ongoing motion within Space-Time, a geometry which is composed of your motion vector and your length scalar combined, you can use it to derive the Special Relativity mathematical equations in mere minutes.
Divided by zero is undefined not infinity. Taking the limit to 0 is another thing. But I assume you overlooked this for the sake of the video, but it makes a dent in the proposition you’re making. As it cannot be zero, only approach. And thus it falls short describing light travelling at 0 time, when the limit never reaches 0.
It gets even weirder if you delve into the philosophy and history of the number zero, and all the ways that zero is different from other numbers.
This, depends on who you ask. It is not just an infinity, however. Since you can approach it from either end. So it could be a negative or positive infinity. Why is sometime is called an undefined infinity. But a lot of leave it as just undefined. But have also seen it be explained as a complex infinity. And computers just return it as an illegal operation, in most cases with an error message. But a computer can pretty much be set up to return any value you wish. (So there are calculators that will give you infinity) One should be careful since 0/0 and 1/0 are not the same thing. 0/0 is generally treated as undefined. (Again, if we look how calculators handles this. The standard Microsoft calculator with Windows 10 (11.2210.0.0) will give 0/0 as undefined, while 1/0 as an illegal operation. Which I find rather funny.)
@@asdfdfggfd Yes, and another problem with the reasoning for infinite speed Astrum makes is that the distance is kept constant, length contraction also happens and therefore cannot be keept constant.
This is only true for mass, and light is massless. Light does not experience time. Light is generally understood to experience its entire life in an instant, ergo _it travels at infinite speed._
The model more or less agrees, in so many words. He's imagining speed as the hypotenuse h of a triangle where both x and y are strictly greater than zero. With x fixed, h approaches infinity disproportionately as y approaches infinity.
i've always been told that since we're three-dimensional beings we can only perceive three dimensions of space, but the more i look into it, we definitely do witness four dimensions of space, albeit in a way you wouldn't first consider. if you want to see the fourth dimension, all you have to do is wait. we're always moving through the fourth dimension, but everything around us is too at the exact same speed, so it isn't apparent. but then that got me thinking even further, if light travels through only space and not time, what if you were to assume the inverse? moving through no space, and through time infinitely fast? now, the closest approximation of this would be in voids, not within the influence of galaxy clusters, but would you witness the entire universe receding away from you nearly infinitely fast? throw some cold water on this if need be, but what if this combined with the time dilation experienced in areas of high mass were the cause of what we call dark energy? just spitballing here, but i've been sitting on this idea for a bit.
It is possible to travel only through time, but infinite speed through time is not possible. The speed limit through time is also C. The symbol "c" represents the Speed of Causality. Hence why we use "C" and not "L" . When an object is at rest, relative to your frame of reference, that object's speed through time is C. If that object gains speed relative to you, it's speed through time start to decrease. If that object were able to reach the speed of light, it's speed through time would be 0...just like a photon (of course, and infinite amount of energy would be required)
@@tylerdurden3722 that is a succinct way of describing general relativity as i understand it, yes. the operative word for my thinking is "nearly" infinitely fast [through time, NOT space], as stated in the next sentence.
This man just explained how the hyperbolic time chamber works. Damn.
Dude your graphics are getting better every video and because of that, Iam much able to understand the concepts much better!
I didn't understand everything, but I enjoyed every bit of it. Especially using the correct units.
The thing that boggles my mind is that zero photonic energy is lost after BILLIONS of years of travelling, to EVEN after trillions of years !!
apparently it does get lost if space expands, which it does in intergalactic space.
Also, how can it be massless? Is a photon even an entity of its own if it doesn't have mass, or is it just a wake in the electro-magnetic field and all its properties belongs to its surroundings?
@@ingvarhallstrom2306 bottom line there is no such thing as mass, only combinations of potential and kinetic energy with respect to the fundamental forces of nature. even energy itself is not a physical thing, it's a mathematical model for describing how nature works.
@@ingvarhallstrom2306 E = mc² is only half of the truth and only applies to particles with mass. The full truth is E² = m²c⁴ + p²c² where p represents the particles total momentum. To a particle that doesn't has mass the formula shortens to E = pc. To a particle with mass that is at rest the formula shortens to E = mc². To a particle with mass that is in motion the formula shortens to E = mc² + ½mv². There is a relationship between mass and momentum. You could say that mass is crystalized energy and momentum is dissolved energy. On the one hand you have particles¹ that have only mass and no momentum on the other hand you have particles² with no mass and only momentum. ¹ These are fermions. The stuff that matter is made out of. ² These are gluons. The stuff that applies forces.
I thank you for your explanations, I just can't wrap my head around it. Does not compute indeed....
> the continuation of a model Well thanks for not making it too easy on us and linking the videos in the description or anything.
I've been sitting on a theory very similar for years, great video! For those who aren't aware though, the mathematical symbol for speed is "V", not "S".
For me a way to wrap my head around that universal speed limit is imagining a stone being dropped in the center of a lake being the light source, the particles within the generated wave being photons and their movement being time. at the top of a wave all particles almost stands still, arriving at the edge of the lake without ever being moved from their perspective.
That's a fascinating analogy. The first time I've been able to visualize the duality of photons, being particles that act like waves. Thank you!
Could you explain further? I'm curious about this analogy, but don't understand what you mean that the particles on the top of the wave feel as if they've never been moved. There's also an issue because in a wave very little of the water actaully moves sideways at all. It moves up and down as the wave moves through it, but it's mostly energy moving sideways towards the shore, not water.
@@erinm9445 It took me half an hour to verbalize my thought process, but i will try to explain further ;D at the top of a water wave particles are "carried". Put something atop a wave and it will stay there (if we are not talking about crashing waves). In my analogy photons are "carried" though time. On the other hand that would mean there are photons at the "bottom" of the wave that move rapidly (photons that experience time forward/backward rapidly) or never reach their destination (stay fixed in time). i have no idea if we would actually able to measure phenomena like this. maybe if we see more doppler redshift than expected? oh and dont forget we are thinking/imagining in 5 dimensional spacetime here ;D Edit: Uuuh...could dark matter actually be photons fixed in spacetime and thats why they dont interact with anything going forward in time? I know it a bit long shot ;D
But the amplitude and wavelength changes with distance………?
@@cadfael4598 Well thats one of the many points this analogy breaks apart, since we live on a planet with an atmosphere and everything is in a thick goo compared to the interstellar medium ;)
These videos are always so interesting
Best video of yours to date IMO. Brilliant.
To be honest, the weirdest thing to me is that if a photon was a person, it'd never known the universe existed. A photon only exists to us, but we don't exist to it.
At 3:00 The photon travels on the null geodesic. It experiences no interval between the beginning and end of its path. Not only does the time of travel go to zero, but the distance too! Both x and y tend to zero. Another way to think of it is that the wave phase is static in the frame of the photon.
I love that you are not afraid to put forward a hypothesis of your own here. I feel there is way too much cowardice in the scientific community about putting forward new theories, and way too little curiosity in exploring new ideas! I think you are on the right track here, as from light's "perspective" (it being timeless it is hard to think of it really having a perspective) it definitely travels instantly wherever it goes, which would equal and infinite velocity. Of course, the most mysterious part is why does any massless particle travel at the exact same speed. James Maxwell proposed that this is simply a result of the impedance of empty space, measured to be 377 ohms for EM (light) waves, modern QFT expresses this as a series of fields that occupy empty space, which light waves travel through (with other fields for weak, strong, and gravity forces). The oddness of all of these fields reducing the speed of causality to the same constant speed is still left unexplained, but speaks to some unifying underlying theory that we have yet to figure out. I think your shape theory is a good enough explanation of why there is a constant speed, but maybe you could think one step deeper about WHY the universe would have this shape. What is inherent about the hyperbolic nature of the universe. Where does it come from? What exactly is "shaped" this way? Why are we "stuck" on this shape. I look forward to more great videos from you on this, and other, subjects! :)
You'll like my video i posted a few years ago, "the physical reason time slows at the speed of light".
s=d/t -- ... But isn't it more accurately 0/0? Because of length contraction, if you are traveling at the speed of light, there is no distance to cover. As the Lorenz factor γ(v) gets closer to infinity, the observed length gets closer and closer to zero. It is reasonable to think for something going the speed of light, there is no distance to cover. So d/t becomes 0/0: speed is undefined. I suspect that: Emission and absorption become direct causal interactions. It's like the surface of the sun is directly touching the surface of Jupiter (or wherever.)
@astrumspace, I think there are a few crucial details you're getting slightly wrong, which I'd like to try to clear up. Length contraction isn't mentioned, but it's very important here Take the example of traveling from Earth to Jupiter at the speed of light. Let's assume Earth and Jupiter are essentially at rest with respect to each other in an inertial reference frame, since their actual speeds are negligible compared to the speed of light (I believe you made this assumption as well). You're absolutely right that in your reference frame the journey takes 0 time, due to time dilation. But when you "tried to calculate your speed" (as you phrased it), you divided the distance between Earth and Jupiter as measured in the Earth-Jupiter reference frame by the time your journey takes as measured in your reference frame and concluded that "your speed" is infinite. When we talk about calculating "your speed", we can only talk about your speed in a particular reference frame. But what you calculated uses a distance in one frame and a time measurement in a different frame, which doesn't make much sense So there are two natural inertial reference frames in which we can determine what "your speed" is--the Earth-Jupiter reference frame and your reference frame. (Of course, we can pick any inertial reference frame, but let's just look at these two). Obviously, in the Earth-Jupiter reference frame, your speed is the speed of light, since that was part of the problem definition. What about your speed in your reference frame? Well, in your own inertial reference frame, you're speed is zero by definition! "Your frame of reference" is the reference frame that describes events with you positioned at the spatial origin. But you might ask then, if in your reference frame your speed is zero and the journey from Earth to Jupiter takes 0 time, how does that make any sense? The answer is length contraction, which comes hand-in-hand with time dilation. In your frame of reference, the distance between Earth and Jupiter is 0. Indeed, all the objects in the universe that are traveling at low speeds with respect to the Earth-Jupiter frame are all squished into an infinitesimally thin plane perpendicular to their velocity in your frame of reference. And the speed of Earth and Jupiter in your frame is the speed of light, by the way. Hope that makes some sense!
Something that blew my mind about the speed of light, is the fact that it's actual speed, is "kinda an average". Nobody can measure it in only one direction. It's measured from it going to a point and coming back from that point. There's a veritasium video about this.
Ya, when you measure it’s always a round trip measurement, so is it taking 0 time to travel to point b and then 2 seconds back to point a? For a 2 second round trip, or is it 1 second there and 1 second back? We literally have not devised a way to solve this issue. You can’t even build a device to do this because the measurement device always needs a round trip, a capture device at point b does not solve the problem.
@@Trigger200284 what would be wrong with an emitter and a sensor, each connected to a computer with equidistant wires connecting the whole set-up? I would think the computer gets the signals from emitter and sensor of sending or receiving the light with the same delay between both, so we can figure out what the time between send and receive is
@@Trigger200284 All you need is very accurate atomic clocks at two locations that are in sync. At a given time a laser is fired over a long distance at a detector and the time is recorded when it hits the detector. The amount of the delay can be used to calculate the speed of light.
@@my3dviews Doesn't work. You just move the uncertainty to be a function of your ability to synchronize clocks over a long distance. Something that, practically speaking, you would probably do with light (eg: fiber optics).
@@TheAroVII Also doesn't work for a similar reason to My3dviews' idea - you've just shifted the problem to be a function of your ability to measure "equidistant" which again, practically speaking would likely be done with light (laser ranging or similar).
That is very interesting. It’s really cool hearing a theory that explains time dilation happens. You do a great job breaking down complex topics into understandable terms. Thanks!
This is not how time dilation happens, it's completely wrong. There is no mystery in time-dilation, and this hyperbolic nonsense is internally inconsistent, and also has nothing to do with relativity. This is a lie.
we already had a theory for why time dilation happens its called special relativity.
1:07 Fascinating, and this theory seems to explain some aspects of relativity, or at least be consistent with it. And it begins to explain what is meant by “space-time.” Your explanation makes me wonder if the theory may also explain the observation of the red-shift of galaxies at great distances, which has been the argument for a universe that is not only expanding, but accelerating. (If this was dealt with in one of the first two videos, pardon me. I have not yet seen them, but will.) My question is, “are we observing red-shift because the universe is accelerating in its expansion, or because the universe’s space-time is curved, and the time dimension makes it look increasingly further away at greater distances in time as well as space?” I may not be explaining the idea well, but I suspect you get my point. Any comments, anyone?
@@markalbrecht6989 This "theory" is a form of fraud.
@@markalbrecht6989 Yeah, I asked myself the same question and gave myself the same answer...
At the speed of light, you can reach any part of the universe instantly.. but your destination will have aged according to the distance you travelled to get there. Theres actually no such thing as time. What youre experiencing is merely passing through the 4th dimension.
I think we only talk about 3 spatial dimensions because in 4D we move along one and the same axis and it's useful to separate that axis and think of it as a distinct "time" dimension. Then we pick 3 more vectors in 4d, that are orthogonal to each other and the "time" dimension and we have ourselves 3 "space" dimensions
I really can't get my head around anything going the speed of light arrives anywhere instantly, that's just unfathomable to me
@@SnoopyDoofie Not to an external observer, but to the light it gets there instantly due to time dilation. It has to do with the frame of reference that you measure it from.
@@SnoopyDoofie To the thing travelling at that speed it does.
@@SnoopyDoofie Another reply already stated that it does, but nice try though.
@@SnoopyDoofieIt would not appear simultaneously at every point in the universe, or for that matter at any two points at all to an outside observer. Outside observers clocks would be running normally, the time only dialates for those traveling aboard the vessel going the speed of light. In other words, for example if you, the outside observer fixed a telescope on an object one light year away and someone else traveled to that object at the speed of light, from your perspective you would not see them arrive for one year, but to them they would get there instantaneously and would not age one year as you did.
as I understand it, this is because the distance contracts to zero from the perspective of the photon.
another fun thing to think about: photons travel at the speed of light. and as this video has reminded us, time stands still when you travel at the speed of light. so a photon experiences no time. in another word, from a photon's perspective, it's annihilated the very moment it's created. so, to us, photons exist. to a photon, it doesn't.
It’s transformed. Not destroyed. Energy cannot be destroyed
@@ritaandcharlescorley5668 The important part is that the moment it becomes a photon, it ceases being a photon.
Every so often I hear a concept so simple and beautiful...... " How fast does light travel from the photons perspective? " ❤🧠🔆
The way that I understand it, the speed of light is not an upper limit, but rather an asymptote. Theoretically, the model doesn't prevent something moving faster than the speed of light. But nothing that does could slow down to lightspeed in the same way that nothing made of regular matter can reach light speed.
To be fair that is pretty fast. Light should be happy with that being it's limit
Until you realize that that it takes 4 years to get to the nearest star at that speed. Then you realize just how brutally slow the speed of light is.
@@jeremyglass4283 And 13.8 billion years to traverse the visible universe...
@@paulmichaelfreedman8334 I'm pretty sure that the bubble that we see now as the visible universe is around 90 billion light years across.
@@NiffirgkcaJ *93 billion ly **Observable universe
@@user-jn7bq8wh1e that's what I typed.
man these shows are just outta this world......and light years from reality
I don't care if you are right or wrong just that you are attempting to make sense of it congratulations. Some great videos fo sho Keep diggin to the deepest depths of the universe.
Very interesting for me was C.Rovelli ideas / calculations which led to a conclusion that time is non-existing as physical property, its rather an impression of quantum information field change, just like the temperature is an impression we get from particles movement. Its like a new doorway indicating some connection may have to be made between physics and counciousnes(information processing) in order to push science limits further. This relates a bit to some simulation theories I heard recently (i mean the ones suggesting that the fabric of reality ressembles a simulation in the realm of information / ideas, a bit like Mangelbrot fractal which can be presented by simple methematical formula, which can be 'rendered' endlessly as a picture)
Amazing video! this is part of what I've suspected all along that we are contracting at the speed of light and photons are just the trail left behind.
Another great video from Astrum! Instead of infinite velocity, this video made me think a better term is "zero wait" travel. Photons essentially teleport, according to their own "clocks."
Photos do _not_ have clocks. The very concept of a clock requires change, but massless particles do not experience change. This is why we know that neutrinos must have mass: The can change between flavors (we can measure this), hence they must experience time, hence they must have mass. For a photon however, time has no meaning.
@@NeovanGoththat’s completely untrue. Time absolutely has a meaning for photons. You can’t just take an unphysical limit of relativity equations and weave a story about photons not experiencing time.
interesting! Did you also consider the possibility that particles can actually travel faster than that limit but those that do are not observable to us anymore cause they escape from our view.. and the limit is not the max light speed limit but the limit of velocity of particles that can still be observed? Just a thought 🤔
Tht made absolutely no logical sense at all u shoukd try agin
After feeling untethered by your brilliant description of unresisted universal expansion, I feel compelled to restore balance to the Force. Here goes. At mass scales inertia is the resistance we feel to all changes in velocity and measure as "mass", but it is numerically quantifiable by arithmetical ratios and Avogadro's dimensionless particle count constant for molecular quantification. I.e., in terms of "chemistry" which is just a name for a given scalar magnitude of phenomena. From a mathematical point of view this implies that inertia is quantifiable as the expanded polynomial equation with unit coefficients encoding molecular harmonics following the frequency laws of the harmonic oscillator with valence shells as basis vectors and individual particles as integer-valued weights. "Motion" takes as much "time and energy" as the linear geometric transformation of the molecular polynomial matrix into incrementally adjacent temporospatial algebraic (quadratic hyperdimensional) bases at Planck resolution. It "takes time"; it does not take a long time or a short time, what it takes is the definition of temporal succession in terms of mass energetic transformations.The cosmos itself being the shape of the differential machine that can perform this calculation for all space time energy configurations at once. "Good God" lol.
The Light of Wisdom and Understanding is a frequency we can all align with.
i remember learning that light never accelerates to c, it simply goes from 0 to c. utterly blew my mind
It's never at 0
@@MrMischelito they’ve gotten it down into double digits I believe. Fascinating stuff.
Well why would it accelerate. It is not ramping up an energy output like an engine revving up, and it has nothing in its way to slow it down, nor any mass. It is just a singular packet of energy. Photons come from electrons. But only when an electron is forced into a high orbit, and since the electron wants to naturally fall back to its normal orbit, it does. But in doing so, it releases the excess energy as a photon. This is how all light is generated. Electrons are elementary particles like quarks, so they aren't divisible like protons and neutrons are (which are made of quarks), which means that energy has to become something, and so it becomes light. The mind blowing thing is if we were ever to figure out a way to easily manipulate electrons and protons and neutrons, we would become masters of energy and matter, able to change or create any element, and able to create anti matter just as easily. Just these 3 basic things, if we could manipulate them with the wave of a wand or like a microwave you can just place some matter in and alter it. In many ways we already do exactly that, just not at the speed and volume and ease we would like. It would be the singular greatest discovery of humanity.
@@peoplez129 I think we are in early stages of what you’re describing. Alchemy at a subatomic level. Given enough time and resources we could have almost Godlike powers over reality. At least on a local scale. Science fiction has a way of becoming reality. Humans are truly amazing.
Big but: the energy you need to achieve that speed based on E= MC^2 will put you at critical mass and you’d collapse into singularity long before you achieve light speed. Also since we’re playing what if, what if you jump to light speed instead of traveling to light speed? Universe at causality speed is like a wall that you smash into like a bug on a windshield and flatten to 0 in 2 dimensions requiring your 3rd dimension to equal infinity to conserve your mass and energy. Travel or jump, you’ll not achieve fruits of being a massless particle and if so, you lost your intent to achieve light speed when you lost your intention with the mass you had to lose to achieve light speed.
what e=mc2 really says is that if you were to somehow teavel at light speed, your mass would become energy. you would become light particles instead of mass particles
@@daltonbedore8396 Agreed. Also if we input the critical mass for becoming a Black Hole for M, the equation tells us how much energy it equals to. And no mater how big of a number, its dwarfed by the infinite energy we are prepared to spend while achieving light speed. We can speculate for fun, like is or was there a civilization in universe who caused a black hole to their own destruction attempting to achieve light speed dabbing in missing science in this science fiction
What are you talking about? Are you suggesting that you literally gain mass as you are accelerating?
@@Baerchenization “If an object ever did reach the speed of light, its mass would become infinite.” I don’t have a frame of reference in how to take that bit of general relativity figuratively. Please advise Edit, search “general relativity on mass archiving light speed.” Mind you by light speed we mean speed of causality
@@rezadaneshi OK, here is my advice :) Of course you don't know, or else you would not have said it. You picked this up somewhere, obviously. Probably somewhere on KZhead or whatever. For simplification reasons entirely, this is how it is presented to freshmen physics students, because you cannot learn everything in one day... However, it is a crutch for teaching and mass does not actually increase with speed, after all. So it means you don't really know anything about it ;)
quite intriguing ! the hyperbolic space hypothesis is very interesting as one could explain the universe expension nd time dilation simply geometrically . as you moove in space you entering naturally a geodesic which get away quicker in time than your original reference frame (time dilation) , similarly any point at rest expands in space from your frame of reference ( space dilation)
“Time is the mercy of Eternity; without Time's swiftness/ Which is the swiftest of all things: all were eternal torment.” -William Blake
This has to be one of the most enlightening videos on KZhead. Please make a follow up video! I felt like you were going too fast for me. I would love an even more detailed view of this hyperbolic nature of reality!
There is no hyperbolic nature of reality. It's his theory and it's invalid
An easy way to understand time dilation is by thinking of every interaction between particles as a tick on a clock. The fastest these particles can interact is at the speed of light, so if you are traveling near the speed of light then each particle will need to cover a greater distance in space to interact. To you, time ticks at a seemingly normal rate because the interactions that mediate your existence still happen as fast as they possibly can. From someone else's perspective you stretch out because the particles in the back must cover great distances in space to catch up to the particles in the front.
Length-contraction.
You're the first person I've seen that understands it this way... this is the way I explain it for some time now... I don't know if its accurate or conform to the whole theory though but it seems to work and to be concrete... even if the maths are necessary if you want to do actual calculations. Interresting.
@@lovecontemplation8607 Space around you contracts because the particles that make you up interact over greater distances in space, so space will seem to contract from your perspective.
@@emmanueloverrated I saw it in a PBS Spacetime video
Light from Andromeda: "OH look at that, it took me no time at all to get to you" Me: "I've been waiting for 2 and a half million years."
GREAT CONTENT / PRODUCTION & EDITING
You've done a great job showing what has already been known through special and general relativity in a beautiful visual way. I'm pretty sure modern physicists aren't surprised by the concept of the universe's time dimension featuring hyperbolic geomerty because special relativity ACTUALLY uses the Minkowski model which is a hyperbolic geometry model.
Came here to say this. I appreciate the nicely produced video but maybe these guys should spend less time making KZhead videos and more time cracking open like an intro GR textbook.
@@ErikBray - Some might say that the phrases "GR textbook" and "intro" are a contradiction in terms. Well, I jest of course, there are a dozen or more good intro books to General Relativity. In fact, at one point I spent many hours compiling a long list of GR books and trying to double-rank them in two orders: (a) best to worst in my rough estimate, and (b) order in which to read the best ones in terms of gentle/doable to tough-job-reading-it-due-to-the-math-involved. If I could only remember the file name ... If I find it, maybe I'll come back and post a select subset. That being said, I do appreciate the effort made here by all involved, including video author and various discussers. Even if the approach taken in the video turns out to be a complete fail in the end, the process of trying to read/understand everyone's take on the raised issues does make you think, and that stimulus for thinking might end up in yourself (the reader/viewer) understanding a big subset of GR concepts whose road would not have been traveled by you, had the video and commenters not been there. So thanks to all.
So basically, spacetime has a light limit.
Until we enter a black hole then it all gets weird lol
It is a very interesting theory. I always though and feel that we and our existence is just a blip of light, and now makes more sense on the 4th dimension
Yet again, as in all other explanations I've seen, there is a hidden variable introduced in the 4D concept - time. In our 3D space, any movement is possible because of something we perceive as "time" - without it, it makes no sense to talk about movement. In the 4D is described here in this video, time is described as another space dimension, and movement along this dimension is conceptualized. But then again, there has to be something as elusive as the 3D time, without which it would not be possible to talk neither about movement along the three space dimensions, nor along the "time" dimension. I believe this is an elephant in the room nobody seems too keen to be addressing.
Very interesting video. What is crazy is that the objects we observe in the universe, travels with different speeds, and thus different times. Gravity is also due to time difference close to massive objects I think.
I love the comments on your videos 😃
I wish that Astrum would put sources in the description, as I'm sure that a decent amount of research goes into these videos.
Question: is that the speed limit or the speed limit in the fourth dimension? Remember, things that were absolutely excepted yesterday, many have changed by us learning more. "You can't send a voice through space," was at one time our science. I'm using a cell phone to communicate with you today. So, what if there are exceptions to the speed of light that reach into other dimensions and we have restricted ourselves?
Astrum: Why is light this specific Speed? Light: Why is your video this specific resolution?
So a photon never gets old?
or... a photon dies at the very moment it's born.
I think this theory needs to be looked into. Very solid and logical! Really has me thinking!
It's not a law of physics, they're more of... suggestions of physics. Strong ones yes, but still just suggestions. Unwarp spacetime, warp spacetime more, ripple it. Lots of ways to do that. And then there's the ""laws"" of thermodynamics, but really they're just the suggestions of thermodynamics. Creating energy isn't allowed is not a rule, it's a challenge.
I think the slow speed of light (on the universe scale) is the reason why we are alive in our corner of universe and not already conquered by some alien race.
I think aliens that are intelligent enough to discover the same laws of nature would concur with us.
I conquer...
@@nateg08 😂
It’s certainly a possibility. But I think another good explanation is that the universe is really old and intelligent life is unusual, so civilizations aren’t just far apart in distance but also far apart in time.
@@trevorrichard4710 I accidently typed concurred instead of conquered in my original question.
Great video and a great subject. You have forgotten to mention that the speed of light you have showed is in a vacuum. It will be different depending on the media the light is traveling through
That's a really good point - so does e.g. glass or famous caesium curve space time differently? I'm sure you could do the math and find some curve for every medium. That means: we need to propose an experiment that you can proof or disproof or else it's just playing with functions
Nope, the speed of light is _always_ the same. It just _appears_ to be slower in a medium because of interference.
speed of light is the max speed, absolute zero is the min temp... it seems our world has boundaries... is the universe really infinite?
The statement that from the photon's perspective, its speed is infinite is incorrect. That would indeed be the case if, in the photon's view, it were covering any actual physical distance in zero time. However, as the photon is moving through space at exactly light speed, from its own perspective, it remains stationary. In fact, even that would be a misnomer, as "stationary" implies being immobile in the midst of a stretch of space. To the photon, however, all space along its line of travel is contracted to zero, so there is no point of departure, nor of arrival. All it ever knows is the eternal here and the eternal now (in other words, it is a "fully illumined being" ☺).
I questioned the speed limit once quantum entanglement was proven to be real. Einstein described it as “spooky action at a distance” when changing the state of one particle caused the other particle to instantly change state, bypassing the SOL limitation. Either something was passed from one to the other, or they are one particle existing in 2 places.
They are one particle existing everywhere. According to the Copenhagen interpretation at least...
Actually as of today's interpretation it is "one" particle or better put the moment they get entagled the 2 function merged and turns into one wave function that collapses upon observation. However the speed of light or speed of information isn't broken here. Sure the wave function collapses when observer A makes the observation but B will not know or won't be notified either that A did the measurement unless A tells B - and that information/notification propagates with the speed of light.
Even though QM is non-local no classical information is exchanged faster than light. The speed of light limit still holds.
Ironically (and IMHO) that can only be explained by accounting for light's "proper time" (subjective time), which is, as explained in the video, infinitely fast. A photon is simultaneously everywhere in its trajectory and that's why "spooky action at a distance" happens, even going backwards in time (DCQE experiment), for the photon there's no past or future, only eternal, instantaneous, now. Not even Einstein could understand that, so worry not, but it directly seems to derive from Einstein's Relativity that it must be, it is, thatway.
c is really just the propagation speed of quantum fields, though, (and a programming language, but thats not important right now), and quantum entanglement happens outside of this field.
reminds me of cixin liu's three body problem. the idea that the speed of information is a direct byproduct of the geometry of reality is very interesting. in TBP, our three dimensional reality is actually a much reduced version of a ten dimensional perfect universe with near instantaneous causality. each time the spatial dimensions were lowered, the speed limit of existence lowered proportionally as a result. the different constants of nature being expressions of a base geometry of reality has always been tantalising and interesting to me. i would definitely be unsurprised if some variation on this idea turned out to be true, but was itself nested within higher geometries that gave rise to even the sort of fundamentality you describe. (i don't mean strings though. i find them a very contrived and uncompelling interpretation, even if the ideas themselves are beautiful and elegant. i definitely subscribe to the idea that their attractiveness has been a trap and a brain drain)
Just as the large mass objects have a curvature,there is also a reverse curvature in the places with weak gravitational or antigravitațional forces. Is the opposite of mass curvature This acts like a wall in the exterior of our universe. The tridimensional subverse or under verse acts like an outside and the other 4 dimensional subverse acts like an inside. Is time really a dimension,a half dimension,or is something else?
So fun note, the person moving at high speeds ALSO won't calculate their speed as greater than the speed of light, because an oft overlooked facet of relativity is distance contraction- that is, the faster you go, the shorter you measure things within the vector of your velocity. Light would not perceive itself crossing infinite distance in zero seconds, but rather a very boring zero distance in zero seconds, which even I can do. It's only when we return to subrelativistic speeds that we believe we've travelled a greater distance, but also over a greater time, so in no perspective does it seem like we're breaking the speed limit
This seems to make a lot of sense to me and it's very appealing. Like infinite speed still doesn't really make sense but neither does the speed of light to me but this makes it seem very clean and makes more sense than anything else. It reminds me of a Science Asylum video I watched once explaining how mass curves spacetime just by slowing time near mass and the differential between 2 points on an object near a mass traveling at a velocity curves the object toward the mass (i.e. gravity) as an inevitable consequence of the time dilation. If the speed of light makes sense, then the photon clock thought experiment that Science Asylum also has a video on that explains Special Relativity by looking at the velocity of the clock and the photon inside with the assumption that speed of light is constant to external observer also makes that seem very clean and inevitable. It's all very strange, but I like it because it seems consistent at least and any attempt I could make myself to understand these sorts of questions would lead to worse paradoxes if anything
What would a photon experience if it travelled forever, never hitting anything? Would it travel an infinite distance, also instantly from its own perspective? If so, wouldn't that be paradoxical?
A photon wouldn't "experience" anything at all because experience implies the passage of time and that just doesn't happen for a photon.
The maths indicates the universe would be length contracted in its frame. The photon 'observes' itself at rest while everything else is moving backwards at c. It's a little paradoxical-- it'd imply massive objects moving at the speed of light. The solution would have to be that in the photon's reference frame, the universe has zero length. Nothing actually moves anywhere, including itself (!). Granted... that relies on taking the limit as 1/gamma tends to 1/(1/0). The limit isn't necessarily the same thing. I'd prefer to be cautious and say our model breaks down. (I always have this nagging feeling that something about relativity is hiding in plain sight in the maths, but we're approaching it the wrong way. Not to imply I'm a genius about to single-handedly revolutionise physics, lol.)
@@N.i.c.k.H Yeah, "experience" was meant to imply if it had any to begin with or even if something that does have experience were traveling at C, etc.
@@e.s.r5809 Well, since in reality, a photon doesn't actually travel at infinite speeds, the universe would expand in front of it and, if the photon never impacted anything, it would continue to travel an infinitely expanding distance in front of itself. Based on our current understanding of the universe, it will not contract into a big crunch and will continue expanding indefinitely. So, if the photon travels literally forever, then it will never reach any point. If the distance in front of the photon is truly infinite, length-contracting it would not bring the distance down to zero. Doing so would imply the opposite operation to dividing by zero (which I assume is what you meant by "1/(1/0)"). How many division of infinity would = zero? It would never reach zero. But, then again, from the photons own perspective, its journey is always instantaneous. So, the question is simply if the photon would parodoxically travel a literal infinite distance in zero relative time, implying that infinity has an end.
At any one point in time the universe has an end but since it stretches faster then light then there is no limit as long as your not going over the speed limit. The photon would experience time in a different way. At this speed you have to account for expansion. The photon would be stretched out over its distance. After a certain amount of stretch it becomes red shifted ... eventually fades out to its background.
"Ah, an interesting piece to watch and wind down after a long day" A few moments later "Aw, Gawd... It's... Hyperbolic..."
lol You can't see the end of it, or tell me how it formed. But your going to presume to tell me the shape of it? YEAH RIGHT! lol
Question then; If light is an oscillating electromagnetic wave, and light experiences no time. Then if it looked down at itself what does it see? oscillations require the existence of time.
Light sees nothing. From the light particle's perspective its creation and destruction happens at the same moment. 'It doesn't have time' to perceive its own wave. That doesn't mean there's no wave. The wave can only be perceived by slower than light observers.
@@doesnotcompute6078 According to relativity, if something happens it's true from all perspectives.
@@lucidmoses That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
@@doesnotcompute6078 Yes but what you wrote didn't address the question and just side stepped it.
@@lucidmoses You can't ask your question. What do you expect the photon to observe about itself if there's no time for an observation?
intriguing idea :) I wonder if one could calculate the "curvature angle/rate" of spacetime using the observed speed of light
One book I saw claimed that the curvature of space time near the Earth is about the radius of one lightyear.
It's all relative in a complex way. Variations in mass and composition (weight), effect gravity and gravity does have an effect on light (bending) . Photon release energy is only a local measurement based on our own sun. Gravity forces like black holes should also pull on light.
From the "light" perspective, the universe would be moving at the speed of light, and thus would appear to have flattened completely in the direction the light is traveling. So from light's perspective, it is traveling at the speed of light. It just has 0 distance to cover. It's also weird because from its perspective, it is destroyed as soon as it's created, regardless of how long it lives. Mass might mess with spacetime. But not having mass messes with everything.