How Faster than Light Speed Breaks CAUSALITY and creates Paradoxes
Signup for your FREE trial to Wondrium here: ow.ly/f5Jw30rNLaD - Highly recommended!
Explanation of light cones: • 4D Spacetime and Relat...
0:00 - FTL is possible!
2:43 - Why is there a speed limit?
4:37 - Einstein's postulates
6:22 - What if speed of light was infinite?
8:29 - What if we could send instantaneous subspace signals?
13:22 - No warp drives?
14:12 - Special offer from Wondrium
Further reading:
Faster than light, special relativity, causality: t.ly/6XUe
Why FTL implies time travel: t.ly/Yhzj
How instantaneous communication violates causality: t.ly/sx9E
How can two moving observers both experience time dilation: t.ly/k9T4
Summary:
If you point a powerful laser at the moon, and spin it 100 times per second, the dot on the moon will move 3X the speed of light. This is ok. The maximum speed limit is not a limit with which things can move, but is a limit on the speed of causality. A cause cannot have an effect anywhere in the universe faster than the speed of light.
What are the implications of having a speed limit on causality? Why is there a limit in the first place? And how would causality be broken if information could travel faster than light.
Only a force can cause something. The speed of information is the speed of a force field. You can’t send information faster than the force field can change. This sets an upper limit on its speed. Light in a vacuum travels at c, the maximum speed because photons are massless. Without mass there is no restriction on its velocity.
Einstein’s theory of special relativity is based on two postulates. Neither of the postulates state that FTL is impossible. Postulate 1: The laws of physics are the same in every reference frame. Postulate 2: The speed of light in a vacuum is constant, and independent of the motion of the source of that light.
But what if this maximum speed was infinite, implying that the speed of light is infinite? For one thing using the equation E=MC^2, it would require an infinite amount of energy to accumulate any mass in the universe. So no massive particles could form.
The other problem is that we would not have light at all. In Maxwell’s equations. c equals one over the square root of the permittivity and permeability of free space. Permittivity is the resistance of free space to the formation of electric fields, and permeability is the formation of a magnetic field by an electric current. But if you set c equal to infinity, it would mean that these interactions of electricity and magnetism would not happen. There would be no waves, and thus, no light.
#fasterthanlight
#causality
What if we kept special relativity, but we allowed faster than light communication, for example like instant subspace communication like in Star Trek? The problem is that in special relativity, it is not clear what instantaneous means. What’s happening “right now” depends on how fast, and in which direction you’re moving. There is no absolute now. The now depends on the reference frame.
For example, imagine Alice on earth, and Bob in a rocket traveling 0.87c towards Proxima Centauri, our nearest neighboring star.
The world line for Alice will be straight up, because she will not be moving in her frame of reference, but she will be moving forward in time. Her clock on her world line will tick normally for her. Bob's clock will be moving at half the rate of Alice's due to Bob's speed relative to Alice
But from Bob’s perspective, he is not moving, and the earth is moving away from him at 0.87c. So from Bob's perspective his clock is running normally. And it is Alice’s clock that is running at ½ the speed of Bob’s clock.
Here's how this would break causality: Alice sends a message to Bob using an instantaneous signal to Bob at her 4 seconds. It would arrive to Bob when his clock reads 2 seconds. But from Bob’s perspective, Bob receives the signal at 2 seconds, when Alice’s clock was at 4 seconds. But her clock is running slower than Bob’s from Bob’s perspective. This means that the signal from Alice would have to travel back in time to reach Bob.
Because Bob receives the signal at 2 seconds, he could read the signal and reply at his 4 seconds using the same instantaneous "subspace" signal. That means Alice would receive the reply at her 2 seconds. She would receive the reply BEFORE she sent the message at 4 seconds.
If this was permissible, Alice could use Bob to send messages to herself in the past. She could send a message to herself at 2 seconds, to not the send the message to BOB at 4 seconds. In that case, how did she receive a reply to a message that she never sent?
Anything that allows information to travel to the past causes paradoxes like this and the grandfather paradox, among others. So such a thing is not permissible, and does not happen according to physics as we understand it. There is no absolute time. And there is no absolute now.
I used instant communication to ask you a question but you gave me the answer before I asked so no need to ask. Thanks Arvin!
You still have to ask otherwise he never knew lol
@@spotifyvibes319 😂😂😂
@@spotifyvibes319 2 is 2 for a a while 22 the 2 22 is 222 and the 22 is a protocol 2 22 222322 and 2 2 2 is 222 22 738 and eee22eee2eeeeeeeee2ee2ee2 2 e2e2 is is eeee3e e22eeeeeee3ee2eee3eeeeeeeee ee 8e2 8e2 3e2ee38eee3e ee33ee8eeeee222eeeeeee e2 ee3e3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee3e eeeeeeeee3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eee3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee is eeeeee3eeeee2eeeeeeee3eeee2eeeeee3e3ee32eeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeee3eeee2eeeeeeee2eeeeee2eeeeeee2eee3eeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeee3eeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeee3e2eeeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeee3eeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeee3 e2eeeeeee eeeee3e e8e3e3eee 8e2 eeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeee2eeeeeeee eeeee eeeeeeee3eveeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeee33eeeeee3eeeeeeee22eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2e2eee3eeeee2eeeeeeee3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee222eeeee2eeeeee2ee3eeeeeee3eeee3ee3eeeeeeieeeee3ee23eeee2eeeeeeeee2eeeeeee2e2e8eeeee3eee23ee2eeee38eeeeeeeeee2eeeeeuee23ee82ee2ee2ee is ee e2e2 33 and e2e2eee2eeeeeeeee eeee2eeee2eeeeeieeee2eeeeee3eee2eeeeeeeee2eee2eeeee2e3eee2e3eeeeeeee2eeee2eeeeeieeee2eeeeee3eee2eeeeeeeee2eee2eeeee2e3eee2e and eeeeeeeeeere2eeeee2ee2eeee2feeeeeeeeeee2eeeee is a eeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeee2eeeeee2eeeeeeeeee3eeeeeeeieee of e2eeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eee e2e2ee eeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeee22e2eeeee2ee2eeeeee3eeeeeeee2eeeee2eeeee2eeee22eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2 8eee8eeeee8 eeee3eeeee2eeeeeeeeeeee2eee8eee223 fee3e23eeeee is eeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2e a e pa sad eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee22ee2eeeee2eeeeeeeee2eeeeeee28eee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee22ee2eeeee2eeeeeeeee2eeeeeee28eee2eeee that is eeeeeeeeeeeefe3eeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeee2ee2eee2eeeeeeeeeeeee2ee2eeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2e2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2ee2eeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee2e2eeeeee eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeebee22ee2eeeeeeee3eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee82eeeeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eee2e and 2eeeeeeeeee3eeeeeeeeeeeee2eeee eeeeeeeeeeeee 2eee32eeeeee eeee3eeeeeeeee2eeeeevee8eee2ee eeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eeeeeee2eeeeeeeeeeeeee is a protocol evee2eeeeeeeeeeeeeee2eeee2eeeee2eeeeeeeeee22eee2eeeee2eeeeeeeeeee2eeeee2eeeeeeeeeee2ee2 22 2 eeeeeeee22eeee23 eeeeee is ee2ee2ee ee2ee2ee eegood good goothe the you eeffe 2eare are are are but but but but 2eeef2e2fe2 2eeef2e2fe2 is a e22ee and the of of material material the most most most most most most most most most Schopfheim Schopfheim e e sad 2 is that that can can ee e the the th2 2 the the the material in in e-mail e-mail strictly strictly and and not not good thing thing thing thing thing one one one onI the the the the the the protocol protocol 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 you ignoring ignoring ignoring if2fc2 8 8 8 8 vfc that you you want want 2 2 and and be a a of of life life e2ve2ffffeff e2ve2ffffeff I I I I our our to to not c and and would would to update update living living living liaccount account accou2fffefcc2 2fffefcc2 2fffefcc22effe2account great great 2eeef2e2ee2fe2ee2fefee2 2eeef2e2ee2fe2ee2fefee2 great great great great the the the the the the same same you can can can can evf2ffthe the the the the the ffcfe2ec ffcfe2ec of 2 2 2 2 sad see ethis this2 2 2 2 buis is not ev to to a a a the very ecf of the material in this 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 protocol protocol protocprotocol protocol protocol protocol protocol protocan can can can can can can can can can 8ei2fr8ccce2vfffff8vcfn8c2efeoccan can can eecf3fffcn2eeff28feecfcfe22v22ee2eef2cfe2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol so so so so so c2e3f22cicefeveceef82ce2ece2cefceffee2v22feff2efe2.2e82eocol 2e2e82eocol 2e82e2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol need neprotocol protocol protocol protocol protocol protocol 3eprotocol protocol protocol protocol protocol protocol protocol eis is iweiidjiiwiinwwjdiwijwiwbiiiiwbibjwinniiebjwiwbiwiwbijwiiwiibiijieniiwibbjbiieiwinnenniiwbiwjwniiiebwjwjnnviwinwiwncieijiwbbiinbiwwiwniiwiwiiwwiibjwwijwdwiiwinwicwiiejicddwiiwbciiwnji1iiwiwiniwviwiwbjiidcwjciwciwcwiiwce82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2c2eeeeee2eefeeee2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol 2e82eocol cfecfvfffef3ffe
If the glove doesn't fit then this is all just water under the bridge.
but its not instant
The matter of why FTL breaks casuality in special relativity was never explained better than in this video! Kudos!
I noticed two flaws in this explanations. Arvin uses the explanation of light as he just freely chooses at his convenience to explain the speed of light and its limit. Once he says that light is an electromagnetic wave and once that it is photons. When Arvin explains the fields that are the root of forces he actually uses two electrons nagatively charged. And sure enough in such situation the two containing mass and charge objects will cause forces to act. Any mass object can be made to exert a force. But suddenly Arvin switches to light being an electomagnetic wave and then again to photons as he pleases. So, if Arvin chooses light to be photons and he further explains that photons are massless then, how can something massless exert any force? Photons have no charge either. So, again, how can photons create a force? But Arvin in a snide way swithes to waves. Arvin! Make up your mind! You can't have massless and chargeless photons exert a force. Another point is special relativity; there is one big difference in Alice and Bob situations. Bob flying away with the 0.87c experiences ACCELERATION whereas Alice does not. So, by twisting the time axle is wrong for Alice because she did not experience acceleration. I do not agree with Arvin; Alice or Bob can never receive a message before it was sent. It is just the manipulations with the graph which does work one way when Bob is accelerating but does not work for Alice because she is at stand still relative to Bob. Arvin uses a bit of sophistry here and a slight trick in mathematics. More on it here in a related correspondent: It is all fine and dandy. As it was stated here: light carries energy. Well, not so fast. If light is a wave then we can consider that as energy. But if we consider light as photons then we have a problem. Photons are massless. Therefore, how can a massless photon knock a free electron from a metal? I think this rather now has something to do with the observer who ''controls'' if he/she wants the light to be a particle or a wave. And therefore, also we come up to the paradox of Schrodinger's cat. Something massless cannot exert force and therfore cannot have energy and cannot do work. Massless photons cannot exert force either. How do they create photoelectric effect? That just does not make sense. Unless we have an active observer/experiment conducting person which leads us to the duality of light and the delayed choice experiment in Alain Aspect method. E=hf only pertains to frequency of light and the Einstein's KE for electrons is dealing with, well, electrons which have mass. So, the Einstein's equations using electrons with mass cannot be applied to kinetic energy of photons which have no mass. Something that has no mass cannot have kinetic nor potential energies.
Thats the most unscientist explaination i can imagine. And more then totaly wrong. That are FAKENEWS!!!! And also stupid bullshit. Each photon of that LASER still moves with the speed of light. Light is not a beam. Dont spread such lies. Dont speak when you do not know what you tell. Liar who put there lies in public should get punished for making mankind into idiots who do not even care to give criminals control about nuklearweapons. Sry, but dont thank someone who just fools you.
@@ericephemetherson3964 What's about electromagnetic energy?
@@boudewijnj.m.kegels5198 What is about electromagnetic energy? This energy is very peculiar. Please, state your question more precisely.
@@ericephemetherson3964 Why should photon not carry pure energy without being a mass-body? I'd say a foton IS energy and nothing else, else it wouldn't travel with the speed of light. E=mc² says in which relation mass can be converted into energy and the other way round. So lots of energy are needed to create mass: 2,176 x 10^59 times.
This is the clearest explanation of how FTL communication can cause causality problems that I have ever seen. No arbitrary line is drawn that the narrator just states is FTL. Every line of the "subspace" message is explained. Good job, sir! Thank you, sir. BTW, in Star Trek TOS episode "The Enterprise Incident," Tal says, "The subspace message will take three weeks to reach Starfleet." I don't know where the instantaneous bit comes from. Maybe from one of the later series. No matter. Your explanation is superb! Thanks again. -- Recall that what's instantaneous for Alice is not, in general, instantaneous for Bob, and vice versa. And that's part of the answer.
The problem here lies in time dilation. If the message is sent at 2 seconds and gets to the target at 2 seconds, that's true instantaneous.Same if the response is sent at 3 seconds and gets back at 3 seconds. Causality and paradoxes occur because what's described here is a message traveling back in time itself in the first place. But that's an issue of perspective with time dilation taken into account. If the message travels instantaneously between two points that are not experiencing time dilation, then there is no paradox. So the answer to this paradox is that even though the transmission to bob was instantaneous and bob appears to have received it in the past according to his clock (but only his clock) the response still comes back instantaneously at 4 seconds and is received at 4 seconds by Alice. Remember, we're not talking about actual time travel, just perceived time. The universe itself isn't changing, only the way the people involved experience it.
Yeah, Alice is sending the message when the ship has traveled 4 sec at 0.87C. Thus Bob cannot receive the message before the ship he is on has actually traveled the distance from Alice perspective. Bobs perspective of Alice might say one thing, but for actual physics? Bob is on a ship that accelerated to 0.87C. No idea if this view on it actually holds water or not, but the explanation in the video is lacking.
in short, from the perspective of the information they are both at 4s.
@@alichi101 I also don't understand why would this be a message sent back in time. We (but also Bob and Alice) know who accelerated and whose time is slower. Why is it a problem for the universe to know this? :) What if Bob slows down to normal speed for a microsecond (after he travelled 2 sec his time), will he be able to correctly observe that his time was the slower one? Will he see that 2 seconds passed for him and 4 for Alice? I assume yes and in this case I don't see the paradox.
@@csmcs2 My understanding is that theres is no such thing as knowing which person "really" accelerated. As mentioned, the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe, and both of the two of them would perceive their physical reality to be the true one.
You keep using the word instantaneous as though two events could be instantaneous in different reference frames. The reality is that instantaneity itself is relative even after accounting for time dilation. Two events that occur at different points in space cannot be said to have happened at the same time for all references frames. Instead, different observers traveling at different velocities will disagree as to how much time has elapsed between the two events. And if there is at least one reference frame in which both events happened at the same time then different observers will disagree as to which event happened first. Your understanding of the problem wrongly assumes that you can simply give a timestamp as “2 seconds” without specifying the reference frame.
Man, I would say the typical "I wish I had teachers like Arvin when I was in school", but nah - I'm glad Arvin's precisely where he is right now. He reaches way more people this way, and his miraculous ability to put complex topics into plain English as well as these mad useful graphics couldn't exist so completely in any other medium. The fact that anyone can access it, for free, at any time, from any place, and pause/fast-forward/rewind or watch at 2x speed or 1/2 speed - this - everything right here - it's just perfect. If you're reading this, thank you Arvin (:
Thanks for the kind words. Much appreciated my friend.
I never intuitively understood what light was or how it propagated until I saw this. I've known logically for ages, but never really 'got' it. For some reason this description really clicked with me, thank you so much for this video.
Arvin, there is an objection: Alcubierre metrics allows FTL (Faster Than Light) travel of mass and information. And this is compatible with relativity, since it only applies within the same frame of reference aka spacetime. Whenever a piece of spacetime is cut out from another (including all quantum field layers), there is no longer a speed limit, since relativity vanishes and there is no longer any interaction between these two pieces of spacetime. In other words: When Bob went with 10c to Alpha Centauri during the time of travel, he could not exchange information with Alice. Upon arrival, his clock showed the same time as that of Alice. When he returns with the same vehicle, the same happende agains - and nothing has changed. This has far more implications, one might think, since, we have already such a situation, where the visible edge of the universe expands faster than the speed of light. Therefore less and less objects will be visible in the future. Therefore stretching spacetime with FTL-speed seems to break down relativity too.
This still doesn't answer what happens with the instant communication scenario.
@@saucevc8353 There is no such thing like «instant communication». Information can only travel faster than light, when either i) you bend spacetime - as you can pull a long stiff wire without any delay - but gravity itself travels with c. This is a very important property of spacetime, otherwise two celestial bodies, that orbit each other would experience a torque due to lag of gravitation field update. ii) Whenever Alcubierre metric is engaged. In this case, there is no longer any connection between the spacetime of the universe and the cut-out-portion of spacetime, used for FTL-travel. This is an important prerequisite to avoid all sorts of relativistic paradoxons. Nobody can violate physical laws, but circumvent it by suitable technology.
@@debrainwasher But you can just launch an alcubierre drive from the time dilated non ftl spaceship containing a message. Boom, ftl communication. Which creates a paradox. Is the time it takes for the drive to arrive at it's destination determined by the viewpoint of the launcher, or the viewpoint of the recipient?
If Alice on earth were considered moving away from Bob at the same rate Bob is moving from earth, there would be no dilation. Time dilation is due to Bob's velocity. Without a difference in velocity, there is no dilation. That is why an object in orbit experiences slower time even though it remains stationary over the same spot on earth. It is experiencing greater velocity. If there is no difference in velocity, then instantaneous communication does not break causality. If one is moving faster than the other, instantaneous communication still has not broken causality because both are still aging forward in time, but at different rates. If Alice communicates from earth's 4 to Bob's 2, it is because Bob has aged slower. It is NOT because Bob is further back in time. If he slows down in relation to Alice, then he shares the same frame as Alice, but he remains to have aged slower because he accelerated for a time. Instantaneous communication is EXACTLY THE SAME as if Bob stopped accelerating in that instant. So this explanation of instantaneous communication breaking causality is flat out wrong. If Bob is moving so that he is experiencing time at half the rate of Alice, then Alice's instantaneous communication will appear to be going 2x speed as he is talking to her, while Bob's instantaneous communication would appear to half the dilation as she observes it. They would be experiencing time dilation in real time from their vantage point. There would be no time travel, no breaking of causality, whatsoever. So the first diagram is correct because it represents Bob's acceleration, but the second diagram is wrong because it represents a backwards timeframe, which is NOT what is happening. the second diagram inverts their position while maintaining their time differences. This is an asymmetric inversion of the table, therefore it is wrong. This would represent if the first person were to move into the future though stationary, then they would certainly break causality if they communicated with the person backward in time. This is a time flow diagram, not an velocity difference diagram. Instantaneous communication is therefore possible without breaking causality because both people have moved forward to the same point in time, just with different experiences of time. Imagine if one person literally experienced time at half the rate as everyone else. It would not break causality for them to communicate with everyone around them. That person is not stuck in the past. He is just not as quick as everyone else. Is a fly 1 day in the future because it experiences time faster than us? Also, physicists always complicate the matter by directly relating two observers to each other. But it is not their relationship to each other that causes dilation, but it is due only to their differences in velocity, that is, their frame of reference in time. Slowing back down to their starting speed, or returning to their staring position, does not erase the loss of time because time only ever moves forward, NEVER backward. But slowing down below the speed of those in the starting frame does allow their frame to return to be potentially equal with the one who left. For instance, if a person orbits the sun in the earth's path of transit at twice the velocity that the earth orbits the sun, then all that person needs to do is remain in place at the original starting point and move in a circle equal to the diameter of the earth's surface as at the same latitude for a year, or at least move out and back to match the same distance and velocity until the earth reaches that point again to undo the time variance. But this requires no moving backward in time. It is merely the tortoise and the hare switching places.
I'd add that the 'easy' way to see that the images are flat-out wrong, is that they cause a paradox when Bob comes back to earth.
Keep in mind there is no time dilation. Alice nor bob experience time dilation. That’s relativity. At no time is “time” Moving faster or slower for either party and this is the trick of relativity. We are moving at bear half the speed of light right now here on earth…do you experience time dilation? No.
@@aaronesaxton Excuse me for that comment. I just started studying the issue then. I understand it better now. It is due to velocity, not acceleration, nor distance. But the diagram issues remain. I have now replaced "acceleration" in the comment with velocity terms. As to dilation, dilation is real and it does affect clocks for someone that has achieved a higher velocity. It is not an illusion. Dilation is not something that is experienced, but rather is observed. They have to adjust the clocks of satelites because even if, and because of being in a higher orbit, and therefore faster velocity, their clocks run slower than on earth, so a calculation is done to distinguish the difference. When astronauts leave earth and come back, their clocks are always offset from when they left. If time dilation was not an observable phenomenon, that would not happen. Time dilation is very real, but can only be measured, not experienced.
I’ve heard of the back in time paradox before, but not this well explained, thanks!
Yeah I think Dr Ash explained that time-backwards signal travel exeptionally well!
lol don't tell this dude that you can send text to different time zones... like so what if it back in time it is all relative... it could still work..
like who cares the time stamp on the message.
@@patrickgronemeyer3375 kzhead.info/sun/fqt7fcpljF-rd2g/bejne.html - Will We Ever Build Warp Drives? (feat Dr. Miguel Alcubierre!)
@@whatitis4872 kzhead.info/sun/fqt7fcpljF-rd2g/bejne.html - Will We Ever Build Warp Drives? (feat Dr. Miguel Alcubierre!)
I saw cool world's YT video on this topic and it was a great video, but I had hard time understanding the causality breakage. Your video almost made me understood the issue of causality breakage. Right on man, keep it up.
11:40 I don't understand why the case isn't: Alice sends a signal at 2 seconds, from Bob's perspective it arrives at 2 seconds but it _appears_ as though Alice doesn't send it until 4 seconds relative to Bob, and when Bob sends a reply at 4 seconds, from Alice's perspective it arrives at 4 seconds but it _appears_ as though Bob doesn't send it until 8 seconds relative to Alice.
This channel is probably one of my most favorite. A gem in a sea of garbage. Never stop making these.
A sea of garbage is actually a thing. Plastic in the Pacific.
i agree there are many garbage explanations & Arvin Ash is a gem among with a few others such as ScienceClic, DrPhysicsA, DrBecky, DoS. Parth G etc & this episode is 1 of Arvin's best IMO but still I have to read a very good book: Engineering Mathematics by KA Stroud & only then will I really be able to start to learn quantum mechanics & I don't even know what to read to start to learn general relativity. Maybe eigenchris
Muck like the cosmological speed limit so to the grammatical one. You can not travel faster than, "favorite". Therefore there can be no , "most" favorite. Not even in Star Trek.
Firstly I would like to take refrence from an older video, Delayed choice quantam eraser. In the simplified experiment shown, I am taking at face value that the beam splitter were placed in such a way that there is absolutely 50% chance of the photon going downward or through the splitter(since I ain't a pro on the topic or the way actual experiment is conducted). Maybe there are some unknown variables/decoherence which is causing the photon to go through a certain path. And its just the past/present causing the future which is perceived vice versa. Now about this video, firstly I would like to say that the timeline graph example was one of the best to understand the concept as shown in graph form. But, assuming from this video if there is an AbsoluteTime which is represented in vertical axis, the whole process needs to be done from one reference point. ( I am talking about absolute time coz Earth is also moving, so is the solar system and the galaxy and so forth the universe is also expanding hence all are having some speed hence we may perceive time differently than the absolute time.) The reference point should not be changed mid process. It could be either the absolute time, Alice's time or BOB's time. So the graph shouldn't move after Bob receives message from Alice. If taken from absolute time reference, say Alice sent message at X seconds which is 4 seconds for Alice and 2 seconds for Bob, who even if replies instantaneously the absolute time would still be X which is 2 seconds for Bob and 4 seconds for Alice so how does the message travel back in time? I hope I am not mixed up in the term 'Special relativity'. But still assuming that somehow the message/information traveled back in time, doesn't it support the Idea of Determinism. The future effecting the past, A loop created which is caused by itself. I don't know if I am thinking in the right direction but still I loved the video cause it made me think all this. Thanks for the ignition of the thought process and would love to be enlightened/steered more. P.S. what I actually wrote is so different than what I thought I was going to write when I started. It is the thought process of writing which eventually made this so lengthy and the way it is. I don't know if that too is determinism. :-)
"From Alice's perspective, she will see that Bob's clock is moving more slowly than her's." Ok makes sense "From Bob's perspective, his clock is running normally, and it is Alice's clock that is running at 1/2 the speed of Bob's clock." (brain error)
seriously though can someone explain this
I want someone to explain what happens when they meet up again. Traveling away from something slower than light means you have to go back slower than light and check each other's notes. So they both slowdown and reverse direction and meet up, whatever happens then should make sense right?
@@George-zj9rr Logically, yes. Otherwise we've just discovered something that could very well break our whole understanding of Physics.
The way I see is: time is absolute, it's only perceived as relative. If bob were to turn 180°, they would perceive each other as faster than themselves, like time was "catching up" the previous slow time. But once again it's only data/light. As they meet again, all is normal and the clocks times are equal.
Fantastic explanation, but now I'm more confused about time dilation. In your example about Bob and Alice and how each of them has a "normal" clock according to their own reference frame, and perceive time to be slower for the other - well then, how will their ages have changed when Bob finishes the trip? Isn't he supposed to age slower since he's traveling so fast?
Just what I've got really confused about from this video :(
This is one of your best video, Arvin. Talking about breaking causality, what if: one entered a region of the universe where the entropy casually started decreasing time ago when there was already intelligent life formed, then has remained almost isolated from the rest of the universe, while entropy is casually still decreasing, its inhabitants are becoming younger and are losing memory from our perspective, like if time was reversed in that region. From their perspective instead WE are getting younger, since our past is their future, and this is perceived "until" ("since" from our perspective) the moment of entropy reversion. So how would it be communicating with each other? I know this is impossible because of statistics (second law of thermodynamics), but since spontaneous entropy reversion is at least theoretically possible, it must have sense and not evolve in paradoxes, and this would be interesting to analyze.
You would dig Dan Winter's work on Negentropy, if you haven't already. ✌🌐
I noticed two flaws in this explanations. Arvin uses the explanation of light as he just freely chooses at his convenience to explain the speed of light and its limit. Once he says that light is an electromagnetic wave and once that it is photons. When Arvin explains the fields that are the root of forces he actually uses two electrons nagatively charged. And sure enough in such situation the two containing mass and charge objects will cause forces to act. Any mass object can be made to exert a force. But suddenly Arvin switches to light being an electomagnetic wave and then again to photons as he pleases. So, if Arvin chooses light to be photons and he further explains that photons are massless then, how can something massless exert any force? Photons have no charge either. So, again, how can photons create a force? But Arvin in a snide way swithes to waves. Arvin! Make up your mind! You can't have massless and chargeless photons exert a force. Another point is special relativity; there is one big difference in Alice and Bob situations. Bob flying away with the 0.87c experiences ACCELERATION whereas Alice does not. So, by twisting the time axle is wrong for Alice because she did not experience acceleration. I do not agree with Arvin; Alice or Bob can never receive a message before it was sent. It is just the manipulations with the graph which does work one way when Bob is accelerating but does not work for Alice because she is at stand still relative to Bob. Arvin uses a bit of sophistry here and a slight trick in mathematics. More on it here in a related correspondent: It is all fine and dandy. As it was stated here: light carries energy. Well, not so fast. If light is a wave then we can consider that as energy. But if we consider light as photons then we have a problem. Photons are massless. Therefore, how can a massless photon knock a free electron from a metal? I think this rather now has something to do with the observer who ''controls'' if he/she wants the light to be a particle or a wave. And therefore, also we come up to the paradox of Schrodinger's cat. Something massless cannot exert force and therfore cannot have energy and cannot do work. Massless photons cannot exert force either. How do they create photoelectric effect? That just does not make sense. Unless we have an active observer/experiment conducting person which leads us to the duality of light and the delayed choice experiment in Alain Aspect method. E=hf only pertains to frequency of light and the Einstein's KE for electrons is dealing with, well, electrons which have mass. So, the Einstein's equations using electrons with mass cannot be applied to kinetic energy of photons which have no mass. Something that has no mass cannot have kinetic nor potential energies.
This was really well done and explained with great clarity. I had not found this channel before but im sure to keep watching
I've now seen this example a dozen times. There seems to be a flaw in the initial condition. For that STL ship to get up to speed it has to accelerate and that acceleration forces the clock to be slower so the paradox does seem to go away. It's the same as the twin paradox when they come back together one is definitely younger. In fact the only way this example works is if the spaceship popped into existence at that speed which cannot happen.
Yes. That was what I was thinking. Wouldn’t bob see earth’s time moving faster. Unless I am missing something.
@@Need_better_handle Both perspectives see the other moving away from each other, so the outcome is always the same.
Doesn’t work like that at all. Simply accelerating does not stop the paradoxes
You are excellent at delving into very deep topics and explaining them in ways that people can understand. Always great content as usual
E=mc2 has stood correct for over a century. He’s just using big words like “delicatessen”
Moving lazer across the moon from earth does not break the speed of light. It's like when you move a garden hose too fast and the stream breaks into chunks of streams and no longer stays a constant stream. Same is true for shadows.
Here is a "realistic" thought experiment along the lines of the moving laser dot on the moon. Since we should be seeing the summer triangle in the sky these days, I will use the star Vega, just about 26 light years distant, and easy to see with the naked eye. Now, watch it move across the sky. If you keep track of it all night, all the next day, and all the next evening until you see it in the same spot of the night sky, you realize something. With a radius of 26 light years, it has traveled a total distance (from within your reference frame) of pi x 52 light years or just about 163.3 light years in 24 hours, which works out to a speed of about 456 million miles per hour, which is just about 6.8 times the speed of light. Anyone can see Vega moving across the night sky and easily calculate this, so it's really not a thought experiment at all. So is Vega really moving that fast around the Earth ... ? lol
Thinking Vega is moving that distance in 24 hrs and it's not the earth spinning that makes it look that way is definitely a interesting take.
In your scenario Vega isn't moving (apart from its proper motion which we can ignore for the moment) its the earth that's rotating causing the observers field of view to move
@@paulhunter7002 kzhead.info/sun/aNWYqpx6oZuPoZ8/bejne.html - Starship Congress 2017: Dr. Miguel Alcubierre, "Faster Than The Speed Of Light"
so technically speaking if pistol star at 26090 light years moves within your frame of reference it would move 59.84 million times the speed of light. lmao. so its obvious, if the distance increase the speed of light in our reference frame also increases. but you should remember that since Vega is 26 light years away you are seeing the planet how it was 26 years ago and a day later you would see how the planet would look 26 years + 1 day ago so for subtract the first frame from the second frame, we are living 26 years ahead of when light left so (26 + 26 + 1) - (26 + 1) light years distance ( 1day later) - light years at present so 26 + 26 -26 + 1 - 1 = 26 light years paradox
Reminds me of the scene from an old Dr. Who is asked how the Tardis can be bigger on the inside than on the outside. He demonstrates how an object he's holding close to her looks bigger than one he put a ways away though they're the same size. The questioner said "well that's stupid" to which Dr. Who responded indignantly "that's the basis of all Timelord physics!"
Arvin Ash is the most underrated youtube channel in existence. Keep up the beautifully simple explanations to the equally beautiful complex ideas
The problem with the example of Bob and Alice is that in special relativity Bob's perception of time is irrelevant to the way Alice is aware of her relative time space
is it? if bob has instant communication by definition if he pinged Alice's ship he would see a live response the moment he communicated with Alice. So Alice pings Bob's ship at her second 4 and his second 2. It is precisely because Bob's perception of time has Alice moving at .87c and therefor form his perspective time is slowing down for her (and not him) then that means that if he sends an instantaneous communication back even after waiting two seconds it will go from his second 4 to her second 2 (because from his perception she is the one moving more slowly through time). Since Bob's response to Alice has arrived at her second 2, it has arrived before she sent her ping originally. If bob's frame of reference being that she is the one moving at relativistic speeds is precisely what causes the paradox in this example.
@@connorjensen9699 the problem is that it's only a perception of time, but if u look it like u are an observer in the middle of both alice and bob u will see both moving one to the left at half the speed and one to the right at half the speed, it's like the middle point from the 2 objects is moving away from alice at half the speed following bob at half the speed of bob, if bob go 1,00 the middle point is going at 0,5 in the same direction of bob, and alice is going at 0,5 in the opposite direction from our middle point of view, so there is no paradox, we can see the clock of alice and bob are still sincronized, if alice sent to bob an instant message at 4 on her clock bob will see the message at 4 second on him clock too, the crucial point is the speed of light change what my eyes can see of the information coming from alice, so bob see with him eyes alice clock tick slower but it's only an illusion caused by perspective, and the communication is istantanuosly, so bob should hear and reply to alice at 4 seconds for both, the only differences between the clocks ticks can occure cause time dilation due to mass, but if we assume they only moving in space at a certain speed with or without acceleration, there isn't a paradox cause they can only see delayed time apparently but their clock still sincronized so when alice is 4 and see bob is 2 it's cause light need to travel to alice eyes, but bob already traveled 4 seconds too in him point of view and when bob is 4 he can see alice is only 2, but it isn't only 2.... already happened for alice to reach 4 seconds and send the message but bob cannot see the information that is traveling through space meanwhile alice comunicate with him istantanously so the information of the communication start at the same time alice clock light start to travel to bob so bob can hear istantly alice but only see the light from the past of alice, so it's not a paradox but only an illusion caused by the light have maximum speed, the clocks do not tick differently it's only an illusion. would be different if bob travel near black holes and other things that make him clock really slowing down, but without mass time is the same everywhere independently by speed or acceleretion. alice can also ask bob how many seconds passed on him clock and bob should tell her that him clock is at 4 seconds, not 2... and viceversa bob can ask alice her time and she should tell him 4, but from him point of view cause light need to travel the information to him eyes alice is at 2 seconds..... so the paradox is not a paradox cause is only an illusion that clocks slow down for alice and bob in this scenario
@@connorjensen9699 It's just the image of her slowing down though she's not actually slowing down. It would look like her 2nd second but really it would be still received at her 4th second when he sent it. If light hits an object going .87c at 1.0., then light will leave at .13c. Meaning the light will reach you at a slower pace, which will look like slow-mo but its just an after image of the real thing. And yes light can travel at different speeds its been proven and the laws of conservation of energy also prove this.
This is mind blowing! Thank you Arvin, I love your videos and I find your channel to be digestible when it comes to understanding the info. I hope to have an understanding like you one day.
Thumbs up for the Zefram Cochrane reference.
In 42 years, we’ll see what happens…
🖖🖖🖖
And God said "let there be a speed limit to information transmission, that there may be light" and there WAS light.
Maybe a god had something to do with it after all. He/she/they/it edited a line of code in an algorithm to make sure none of the values in the denominator were zero.
@@ModMINI what about black hole?
@@saifali7080 it's struggling to process so much information that it slows everything down, or might not responding right at the center. 1 planck length = 1 core/thread. That's how you get relativity (of cores)
@@varthshenon so we livin in matrix right?
This reality wouldn’t be consistent without a max resolution. C = max resolution of this virtual reality as a function of consciousness. Now you have an idea for what „god“ metaphorically stood for. PS there is no speed limit for thoughts. As we,ergo our players, are nonlocal consciousness ( part of the system formerly known metaphorically as „son of god“) there is no objective distance between us. And the distance to every point of of this virtual cosmos = 0 for consciousness. Thats why thoughts are transmitted instantaneously if two players are aware of their abilities. Thoughts don’t travel through virtual spacetime. Our players are not bounded to the physical ruleset of this VR. Just our virtual avatar is.
There is another factor to consider here... a ship within an Alcubierre style field exists in normal spacetime, and is in fact relatively stationary. There would be no time dilation between the inside of the bubble and the outside observer. The contraction and expansion of space is what moves the field at relativistic speeds, but information in and out of that field would still be constrained by C. If person A sends a message to person B who is moving at high warp speeds, then person B will either outrun the message or intercept it head on, but no matter the relative direction of travel, the message would always be received after person A sends it, because there is no time dilation involved. You could even send a message in one direction, warp past it, and then receive it yourself. This still doesn't break causality, because you cannot reply to the message before you send it, because, again, at no point is time dilated.
Any travel faster than light will break causality. Take the example given of Alice and Bob. If an Alcubierre style travel method exists, then a third person C could travel between Alice and Bob faster than light and send messages between them. You then run into the same grandfather paradox situation
@@nirmalasokan1687 Even if you travel instantly, you still cannot intercept a message before it is sent. You can tell Bob that Alice sent a message, even its contents, and you can tell Alice of Bob's reply before he receives Alice's message, but this is no different than comparing physical mail to email. You can't instantly email someone to tell them not to send a letter after they've already posted it.
@@DanGovier Any faster than light travel will appear to go back in time from a different inertial observer's point of view This video explains it better than I can kzhead.info/sun/lNJpfZGvmnqtaHk/bejne.html
Time dilation is caused by Light moving the same speeds in all reference frames. If there's no dilation, wouldn't light then move far beyond C within the Alcubierre field? And In the video He talks about the issues with infinite speed of light
I have seen the paradox described in other videos, but never as good as it was described here! Great video!
Many aspects of physics that are usually very vague and full of gaps have been pointed out with good,visualizable and understandable explanations in this video,making it an extremely important one for physics.Thanks.
The moment you say "coming up right now", is the moment to destroy the like button, in every video.
I was about to say a similar thing. I dunno why but the way he says that gets me really excited. 😂
It's just a ripoff of the introduction to PBS nova which does the same thing dude. I thought it was super corny myself.
@@NR-fg2qc me too
@@medexamtoolsdotcom Except PBS Nova is boring as fuck. This guy knows how to present.
But if it's destroyed then how do you use it again?
This is probably my favorite youtube channel. I love how Arvin explains things
Bravo! This is the best video of its kind I have seen. The only one I've seen that has ever addressed the nature of a particle correctly
The sub space analogy had the famous "who's on first" come to mind. For those younger look it up by, Abbot and Costello. Back to the subject. It's interesting but the interaction between the two units are not within one time frame, but a third party observation. There are actually three separate frames of time. Causality intact.
Here's a classic from Spaceballs: kzhead.info/sun/obaAc76gbHNuh2w/bejne.html
There are always an infinite number of reference frames that could be observing this experiment. Adding more does not change the fact that the person on earth can send a message to the ship and get the answer before they sent the question.
I feel a great disturbance in the Force as though thousands of Trekkie heads exploded at once.
@John Smith Much facts. Many logic.
@John Smith You have authentic research paper linked?
@John Smith The video, troll.
They exploded when you mixed Star Wars and Star Trek together. Like having Hobbits and a Zombie Apocalypse in the same movie.
@@theophrastus3.056 Can Orcs digest zombies, or vice versa?
Awesome video!! You explain concepts with lots of clarity. Thank you.
One must use the time frames of the person who may have a violation of causality. At 11:31, If that is Bob, he receives the instant signal at 8 seconds, and sends it back to Alice, thinking she will get it at 8:01; no violation of causality. If Alice is the one who will have the paradox, she sends the signal to bob at 4 seconds, whom she thinks gets it at 2 (but really gets it at 8), and Bob sends it back along Alice's timeline, for her to get it at 4:01. No paradox if you use the timelines of where you think the paradox will occur.
This is the clearest explanation of causality paradoxes I've yet seen. Great job!
I would like to see the 2 second delay between me moving the laser pointer and me seeing, how the dot moved. A true real-life lag.
If you like these kind of things, try with a garden hose.
‘
it's 200 ms or a 5th of a second.
The reality is a little different, although not much different from the thought model. As Florian advises you, buy a garden hose and water the lawn. If you move sharply to the right or left, the water flow will bend, which in a small way also happens with a laser beam, so you have to include this laser pig, which is delayed, in addition to the speed of the light sent and reflected by the reflection.
The universe does have lag though. Since information, even forces including gravity, have to travel at c. If you were to summon a second moon from nothingness, it would take at least a second for it to "realise" that it's actually supposed to be attracted by the Earth and change its trajectory and start orbiting/falling. Just like these cartoons, if you see what I mean.
Faster-than-light line source: kzhead.infoqBqP3ZAGjT4?si=gNIdcC4WI8AYsTUf
Einstein's idea of space and time not being absolute, but the speed of light being absolute is nothing short of groundbreaking. This simple yet complex idea has opened so many doors to the answers to the nature of the universe.
I don't understand half of what this man says, but head still does a great job for dumbing this stuff down for the blue collar guy who loves to think about space and the universe. Thanks Arvin.👍👍
Amazing video! I'm sure you already made a video about quantum entanglement but I think it would be an excellent topic for next time as it seems to break everything that you spoke about in this video.
Yeah I agree. He says it doesn't because the entangled particles form 1 single object. IMO it doesn't matter if they do form 1 object, it's still FTL cause & effect
About the introduction thought experiment of (break the speed of light with laser), one channel(I think was a old Vsauce or Verittassium video) easy explained that in fact the lazer work like a photon water hose, where no matter how fast you change the angle of the hose the photon will still travel at speed of light and so you don't create a instant line that travel the circunference of the moon, but a speed of light shapped curve. Like how you wouldn't expect break the speed of light with a gattling gun just because you changed the angle and bullets ended far apart of each other. The only reason it seen instant to us is because in close distant is pretty much is instant.
Arvin u r simply amazing in the novelty of perspective of your thought experiments/examples and clarity of communication of convoluted concepts!
Physics is the most incredible, beautiful and important knowledge ever created.
Discovered not created, we just observe and record the grand scheme of universe
@@atharvsharma7648 hmm,knowledge cant be created
Nope. Mathamatics is.
Agree
I love physics but I vote for compassion as more important - there's a meditation where you can love every1 eg start by feeling love for family & then see how other families are similar eg families in the holocaust & feel compassion for them & wish for them to be protected. Since this is a thing that the brain can do, 1 day brain scientists will be able to help everyone become much kinder & society will be happier & more harmonious & wealth will be distributed so no one suffers from eg lack of doctors or water & we'll maximise the global number of scientists & humanity will explore space & terraform other planets etc.. Therefore this knowledge is the GOAT
Do you know it is a meditation to watch your videos. They just make no thoughts situation in the mind Sir. all the best and keep it up Sir. ......
The best explanation I heard about causality in the context of special relativity.
Outstanding incredibly easy to understand. Thanks keep us thinking. Good Fortunes Great Successes Many Blessings 🤓
The fact that there's no absolute "now" is mindblowing and hard to process. How does this factor in with wormholes?
It proves that wormholes can't exist.
Its no that hard to process consider this: Mom: Cone here son, right now! In order for the son to appear right now, he would have to travel at the speed of light and yet faster, why? “Now” typically means current, “right now”typically pins a point in current time So in order for the son to appear at the end of the “right now!” He would have to appear instantly at the direct end of “now!” Which is hypothetically impossible because time is relative after she finishes the “w” in now her son must appear with no time in between, meaning no milliseconds, microseconds, or nanoseconds he must appear instantaneously at the end of the “w” if that were possible, it would still rise doubt as to when the mom finishes the word “now” in exact space time meaning the mother would have to instantly spew out the word “now” does this make sense?
@@thuggeegaming659 kzhead.info/sun/ic9uktyAnKaCZ6s/bejne.html - The NEW Warp Drive Possibilities
@@PringleDinglesonThe3rd kzhead.info/sun/aNWYqpx6oZuPoZ8/bejne.html - Starship Congress 2017: Miguel Alcubierre, "Faster Than The Speed Of Light"
@@PringleDinglesonThe3rd o snap, don't let the kids watch this one. Could you imagine? "but mum, it's theoretical impossible for me to be there right now, it will break causality"
13:56 thanks for the special mention😂
😛
Indians will be Indians
@@somyajain593 I'm not.
I love how they always tell me how a guy flying in a rocket at super-speed will age slower than us on earth... but in the next sentence they tell me how everything is relative and to the guy in the rocket, we are travelling at super-speed, thus we age slower than him.
How can time for the rocket to be flowing at half the rate of the earth, yet when you swap perspective it's the opposite. How can they both be experiencing time faster than the other?
@@mityace "Uh... shut up."
This is because the light from both, the ship to earth, and from earth to the ship will be outdated by years respectively, but appear instantaneous from those perspectives. Likewise, for very large distances, we are looking at the past of other galaxies because the light from their present hasn't reached us yet, and vice versa
@@mityaceEasy. We are both seeing each other’s past.
The relative part here means the guy in the ship will not feel like he is aging slower, he won't look at his clock and see it tick slower. Only an observer outside the ship will see him age slower.
If Bob turned around part of the way during his trip and returned at the same speed, then according to Alice he should have experienced half the time she did. But according to Bob, Alice should have experienced half the time he did. Isn't that also a paradox? Or is the direction of motion change the speed of time?
I think as Bob slows down, Alice's time will 'catch up' with him, and then overtake him, so Bob will see Alice age quickly during deceleration. It's like Bob is riding in front of a wave of light that struggles to catch up with him, so it looks like Alice is aging slowly. Then when Bob slows down, the light catches up normally and Alice looks like she is aging normally. Then when Bob turns around and comes back, he smashes into the light at nearly twice the rate compared to if he was stationary, so Alice appears to age twice as fast (or is it 4x as fast, as time for Bob also moves twice as slow?). In any event, the paradox solves itself and, when back on earth, both Alice and Bob agree that it was Bob who has aged slowly. That's probably not quite the right explanation though.
yea, basically on return the oppisite happens. But this was a simple explanation of it because it doesnt take into account time dilatation.
From Alice's perspective Bob's time ticks slower (9:56). From Bob's perspective Alice's clock is running slower (10:32). That means both are right and wrong at the same time. And from the instant message's point of view, both Alice and Bob are moving at the same speed in opposite directions thus keeping the same timestamp. (something like pause at 13:09)
This is exactly my thought!! I still can't understand how causality breaks. This contradicts all explanations about Alice having aged at a faster rate than Bob. So, what is it? I feel that I am either missing something or the explanations are not complete. Even looking at your point of view (where they are both moving in opposite directions to each other at half the speed mentioned) where both of their clocks tick at the same time, there's still the problem with how much Alice has aged compared to Bob. It is a fact that Bob is traveling faster than Alice since they both have a reference frame (Alice) and also, by the time bob gets the message and replies back, for Alice some time has passed but Bob is not getting the message in the past, it looks like that because his time has dilatated. When he receives the first message at his 2 seconds mark, it's still 4 seconds for Alice, then, when he replies back at his 4 seconds mark, the time dilatation has made Alice's time to be 8. Because if we stop the rocket right there, Bob is 4 seconds younger than Alice, hence, the message is not traveling back in time, just from a different frame of time. I see it almost as sending messages back and forth between 2 people at different time zones. Anyways, I've seen and read at least 5 articles and videos about FTL communication and how it breaks causality and still can't understand how it happens to break it, because it contradicts all the other explanations about how you can basically age at a slower rate inside a ship that moves at relativistic speeds.
@@nosmirck Nice one with the Time Zones analogy. Usually the causality break statement is based on the established rules of the frame of reference. It's easier to dismiss the idea based on resulting paradoxes than to make it viable by adding extra unknown variables to the frame. Maybe one day quantum computing and AI will give us another perspective on this topic.
No. Bob and Alice are not moving at the same speed from each other. Bob is accelerating. Alice is not. I noticed two flaws in this explanations. Arvin uses the explanation of light as he just freely chooses at his convenience to explain the speed of light and its limit. Once he says that light is an electromagnetic wave and once that it is photons. When Arvin explains the fields that are the root of forces he actually uses two electrons nagatively charged. And sure enough in such situation the two containing mass and charge objects will cause forces to act. Any mass object can be made to exert a force. But suddenly Arvin switches to light being an electomagnetic wave and then again to photons as he pleases. So, if Arvin chooses light to be photons and he further explains that photons are massless then, how can something massless exert any force? Photons have no charge either. So, again, how can photons create a force? But Arvin in a snide way swithes to waves. Arvin! Make up your mind! You can't have massless and chargeless photons exert a force. Another point is special relativity; there is one big difference in Alice and Bob situations. Bob flying away with the 0.87c experiences ACCELERATION whereas Alice does not. So, by twisting the time axle is wrong for Alice because she did not experience acceleration. I do not agree with Arvin; Alice or Bob can never receive a message before it was sent. It is just the manipulations with the graph which does work one way when Bob is accelerating but does not work for Alice because she is at stand still relative to Bob. Arvin uses a bit of sophistry here and a slight trick in mathematics. More on it here in a related correspondent: It is all fine and dandy. As it was stated here: light carries energy. Well, not so fast. If light is a wave then we can consider that as energy. But if we consider light as photons then we have a problem. Photons are massless. Therefore, how can a massless photon knock a free electron from a metal? I think this rather now has something to do with the observer who ''controls'' if he/she wants the light to be a particle or a wave. And therefore, also we come up to the paradox of Schrodinger's cat. Something massless cannot exert force and therfore cannot have energy and cannot do work. Massless photons cannot exert force either. How do they create photoelectric effect? That just does not make sense. Unless we have an active observer/experiment conducting person which leads us to the duality of light and the delayed choice experiment in Alain Aspect method. E=hf only pertains to frequency of light and the Einstein's KE for electrons is dealing with, well, electrons which have mass. So, the Einstein's equations using electrons with mass cannot be applied to kinetic energy of photons which have no mass. Something that has no mass cannot have kinetic nor potential energies.
@@ericephemetherson3964 Yes, I know that. It was another point of view. Let's say Bob uses a warp drive engine, meaning that he isn't really accelerating, but the space around him warps. Although both of them are relatively stationary the distance between them grows.
@@yinfest I would agree with you explanation, too.
When we look from one star to another our pupils travel light year's :)
@Kelvin It's a joke lol.
@@SyenPie A bad one. It is the point you are looking at that has travelled.
@@garethhanby The only relevant motion in this scenario is the motion of light from the star being observed from (x) light years distance. You are seeing it as it existed however many light years in the past when these photons started their journey.
@@MarinCipollina doesn't that contradict the whole point of casualty this video just discussed...?
its the difference between group velocity and phase velocity. A wave approaching the shore has a group velocity less than c. But the a point of constant phase on a breaking wave, parallel to the shore, can move at speed greater than c, as it moves from left to right.
The animation with the graph was amazing. When you flipped from rocket to earth 🤤
So there is one thing by I’ve always been confused about when it comes to relativity. If the astronaut leaves earth according to earths reference frame he’d age slower to those on earth, but on his reference frame earth would be the thing moving and therefore be experiencing the opposite effect and people on earth would age slower then the astronaut, this seems like a contradiction, the only solution I can see is that if they met again their clocks would sink(excluding gravitational time dilation) but any signals exchanged before then are just temporally shifted. Am I correct in this analysis of relativistic time dilation, or am I missing a critical understanding of some part of it?
Wow! I finally understand why we can't break the speed on light! Amazing! Thank you!
Great video! I needed this. Thank you.
Arvin I have a doubt think two masses are revolving each other with high speed then. Is there a possibility that the mutual gravitational pull act like a string joined with a stone then can there be a compression of space due to the centripetal force or something or will it act like a proppeller a thrust out the space above the propeller? can this be utilised in making a warp drive.
My brain hurts. Thank you for amazing content👍👍
Just as there are different experiences of time due to relativity, what if there are also different causal chains? What if these temporal paradoxes are possible due to different timeline threads or time forks that occur? What I'm saying is what if time travel produces new timelines such that you can actually go back in time and kill your grandfather but that wouldn't result in your death but the death of another you in the original time thread; because the act of going back in time put you in a new and separate time thread independent of the one from which you came.
Your channel is blessing for those of us who are curious souls!
Thank you, the Lorentz transformation finally made me understand what I already knew academically
Even Zefram Cochrane did not know he invented an impossible machine.
That’s the only thing about Star Trek that gets to me, the communication stuff, and a few other things like travel speed sometimes seems to be inconsistent. This is episode wise.
Question- some galaxies are so far away from us that even at the speed of light we could never get to them. If the speed of light is actually the speed limit of causality in the Universe rather than just a speed limit, then how could galaxies this far away possibly have any gravitational effect on us since we are moving apart faster that the speed of causality could reach us?
Space has no speed limit..gravity is spacetime
@@stanleysteamer3212 wrong, gravity have a delay from different point on the universe, gravitational wave travel at the speed of light, so the real answer is, if there is some galaxy that is travelling faster than speed of light from our perspective thant their gravitational effect would be none to us but also we wouldn't be able to see them for the same speed limit
What a fantastic explanation! That was exactly what I was looking for. Easy sub!
That was one of the best videos yet Arvin!!!!
Just to be picky: Where we see Alice moving from Bob's perspective we see that his engines are firing. This is probably a mistake because it would mean that he is accelerating and hence not in an inertial frame of reference 🙂
You are absolutely correct. I noticed two flaws in this explanations. Arvin uses the explanation of light as he just freely chooses at his convenience to explain the speed of light and its limit. Once he says that light is an electromagnetic wave and once that it is photons. When Arvin explains the fields that are the root of forces he actually uses two electrons nagatively charged. And sure enough in such situation the two containing mass and charge objects will cause forces to act. Any mass object can be made to exert a force. But suddenly Arvin switches to light being an electomagnetic wave and then again to photons as he pleases. So, if Arvin chooses light to be photons and he further explains that photons are massless then, how can something massless exert any force? Photons have no charge either. So, again, how can photons create a force? But Arvin in a snide way swithes to waves. Arvin! Make up your mind! You can't have massless and chargeless photons exert a force. Another point is special relativity; there is one big difference in Alice and Bob situations. Bob flying away with the 0.87c experiences ACCELERATION whereas Alice does not. So, by twisting the time axle is wrong for Alice because she did not experience acceleration. I do not agree with Arvin; Alice or Bob can never receive a message before it was sent. It is just the manipulations with the graph which does work one way when Bob is accelerating but does not work for Alice because she is at stand still relative to Bob. Arvin uses a bit of sophistry here and a slight trick in mathematics. More on it here in a related correspondent: It is all fine and dandy. As it was stated here: light carries energy. Well, not so fast. If light is a wave then we can consider that as energy. But if we consider light as photons then we have a problem. Photons are massless. Therefore, how can a massless photon knock a free electron from a metal? I think this rather now has something to do with the observer who ''controls'' if he/she wants the light to be a particle or a wave. And therefore, also we come up to the paradox of Schrodinger's cat. Something massless cannot exert force and therfore cannot have energy and cannot do work. Massless photons cannot exert force either. How do they create photoelectric effect? That just does not make sense. Unless we have an active observer/experiment conducting person which leads us to the duality of light and the delayed choice experiment in Alain Aspect method. E=hf only pertains to frequency of light and the Einstein's KE for electrons is dealing with, well, electrons which have mass. So, the Einstein's equations using electrons with mass cannot be applied to kinetic energy of photons which have no mass. Something that has no mass cannot have kinetic nor potential energies.
@@ericephemetherson3964Massless photons can exert a force, they carry momentum.
Thank you! This explains the concept of "no universal now" way better than static diagrams. Question: If Bob were to stop moving relative to Alice at 8 seconds, would their "now" become simultaneous again, such that if they could communicate instantaneously from that point onward, there would be no backward propagation of the signal through time?
If Bob stops he gets the same notion of "now" as Alice. So it's t=16 for Alice and t=8 for Bob, these two events are simultaneous now for both of them, and in a second it's t=17 for Alice and t=9 for Bob etc. Bob is younger, he lived 8 seconds less.
@@thedeemon Thank you. I suppose we know it's Bob who's youngest, because he's the one who had to decelerate to get back in sync with Alice's time line. Still, a difficult concept to wrap your head around --- that Bob's deceleration at a distance from Alice re-synchs their time. Now THAT is "spooky action at a distance!"
@@alansewell7810 Maybe. Don Lincoln on Fermilab's channel did a video a few years ago on the "twin's paradox" (i.e. why is it the "moving" twin that ages slower) where he explains why there really isn't a paradox even if there is no acceleration / deceleration involved. Actually he did two videos: one with the math and one without. Basically Bob and Alice still don't have a consistent "now" even if not moving relative to each other, because Bob has been in two different reference frames. So you can't even say one is younger than the other "now" because there is no "now".
@@rancidbeef582 I watched Don's videos on that, and will watch them again, now that you've jogged my memory. Don knows his Relativity but is less lucid than Arvin Ash. One thing I have picked up from the discussions on several KZhead channels is that when objects begin relative motion starting at a time "X," the "X" becomes a different time for each of them, because the Lorentz transformation modifies the time when an event begins as well as dilates it. For example, if the sun goes supernova at 12:00 and a spaceship leaves earth a half the speed of light, then the wave front must overtake the moving spaceship and stationary Earth at 12:08, since the velocity of light is the same for both of them. However, the moving spaceship, which is overtaken at twice the distance of Earth, perceives the supernova originating at 11:52. If instantaneous communication existed between the Sun, Earth, and Spaceship (assuming no vaporization by the supernova) then at the moment the supernova wave front reaches Earth, someone on Earth could relay a message to the spaceship, the spaceship relays it to the Sun, and the Sun bounces it back to Earth 8 minutes before it was sent. My understanding of what would happen if signals could travel instantaneously.
@@alansewell7810 Ok, that scenario just broke my brain. I suspect you're right. I'm going to have to think about it for a while.
Tilting the graph has been the clearest explanation of this I have seen thus far. Well done.
I watched recent videos on the speed of light and was not able to understand until I saw this one ☝️ great video 🎉
In comes Quantum mechanics, with Quantum Eraser experiment. Maybe close to nothing is good enough, who knows.
the Quantum Eraser doesn't allow to transmit information faster than light. In fact no entanglement based thing does.
@@user-wv1in4pz2w Not thar I am physicist, but if I remember it right, isn't it so that they are connected and can be measured no matter the distance between, but as the result is random and you can't affect it, you don't transfer information
@@andersolsson148 exactly
@@user-wv1in4pz2w Like the spin can't be affected, but if you take the Quantum Eraser experiment, I still don't get it. Like it basically knows if it will be erased or observed even if it gets erased after the entangled particle hits the screen. Like how... To make it even more complicated, what happens if you put in a mechanism which recognises the interference pattern so if it predicts that it will be erased, the mechanism observe it. But then you get a new version of the grandfather paradox.
@@andersolsson148 kzhead.info/sun/a7aedtSuh3l8mJ8/bejne.html - Warp drive
I’ve just ordered a laser pen thanks Arvin. I’ll see if I can speed up light with radiation
Adding in the explanation of the fabric of reality that the waves travel through was great. It would be helpful if you could show in the explanation of the rocket and instant communication explanation how that fabric would be affected.
I always love to hear you Sir.. ❤️ Thank you 😊
In Event Horizon, a sci-fi horror movie, they bend space in order to travel faster than light.
That's just shortening the distance between two points in space aka a wormhole not increasing speed past that of massless particles.
Yeah, and how did that work out for them? :P Seriously, I love that movie.
@@MrDJAK777 Quite right.
@@TheSwiftFalcon My second favorite sci-fi horror movie after Alien.
@@sylviarogier1 I can't fault your judgement there. :) I'm not usually a fan of horror, but I make an exception for those two. The atmosphere and tension in both are just brilliant.
If warp drives and hyperdrives are physically impossible, what about a ‘jump drive’? This science fiction idea postulates that a craft can create an alternate pocket universe around itself and remove itself from normal space - thus circumventing real space. There is also Dune’s notion of 'folding space’. Technologically, this is pie in the sky of course, but is it hypothetically possible?
I'll have more on this in the next video. Stay tuned.
Isaac Asimov postulated hyper space where whole universe was a single point
Star Trek's warp drive involves a warp bubble that collapses space in the direction of travel. The ships don't travel faster than light in the usual sense.
That was exceptionally good explained.
Great video. Thank you. These always make me start wondering. So its information that keeps c at a max? Or the ability to read that information at any point in its journey. And quantum fields make it possible for that information to travel or be read? In that case, could it be that the expanding of the universe is the expanding of quantum fields? And outside that universe there are just no QF’s yet?
1:18 If the speed of the laser dot can be any and it is possible to code information according speed or direction of such dot why not to use two coder-decoder (on moon and on earth) devices to communicate faster than ligth? I think this example with moving laser dot needs more detailed explanation ;)
At first that’s what I thought too but when you think about it more carefully, it isn’t instantaneous Because the movement of the dot shining on the moon will be delayed compared to the movement of the light from earth. So if you moved the dot from the left side to the right side of the moon very fast, it will still take whatever amount of seconds for it to actually move. The dot will move at the exact same rate as you are, but by a few seconds behind. So in the end, it’s the same as just communicating normally through radios or whatever.
That was mind bending!!!!!!
You are so very good at this Alvin.
Best explanation about why FTL breaks causality I have ever seen. Much better than the explanation that chatgpt gave to me for example.
Key phrase: “according to physics as we understand it.”
There was another thing he didn't say and that is that our current understanding of physics is extremely closely in agreement with experiment. Where current theory fails is in extreme situations such as near black holes and the Planck length. The gaps where theory is weak have gotten smaller over time. For example, QFT has theory matching experiment to 10 decimal places. That doesn't leave much wiggle room for unknown unknowns.
@@lupus7194 I mean Newtonian mechanics was extremely close to experiment.
Quick question: For your example at ~ 11:00, is this not simply a perception issue? shouldn't Annie and Bob both see each other at a time sooner than they are actually at, but be able to agree that those times are earlier than present for each of them with ftl communication?
I don't quite understand you but i dont think they would be seeing each other earlier than they are actually at because the moving observer will just experience time slower than the inertial one but to the moving observer time will just tick normally. So they won't be looking at each other's past selves but rather present selves, just that one feels time to pass slower than the other
No, because there is no absolute time. Time is relative, as he explained in the video. It is hard to wrap our head around the idea, but it's true, it's been proven many times.
This is the greatest explanation I have ever watched about relativity, thanks
Why do people say "if speed of light is infinite, then you don't get to use special relativity anymore" and then turn around and say "infinite speed means that due to relativity e=mc2, no mass can exist, therefore speed can't be infinite"? Trying to use that equation means you haven't thrown out relativity.
Okay the part I’m still struggling with is, why would his reply go to her in the past? So if she sent a message at her 4 which is his 2, wouldn’t his reply at 4 be her 8? Because of Bob’s time dilation even though the clocks were synced they would go out of sync over his journey. So the more they spoke the quicker time for Alice would move.
Agreed. This is the part I do not understand either. When he flips the graph to Bob's perspective it looks almost as if Alice's time is going 1/2 f Bob's.... Shouldnt this still be double?? How did Bob's 2 seconds all of a sudden become Alice's 1 second?
Since no one replied it has to do with frame of reference. Remember that the signal is going faster than light
@@michaelhearn3043 Bob's 2 seconds became Alice's 1 second since by BOB's point of view, HE IS the one who is standing STILL while ALICE is moving. That is from HIS point of view (which is equally valid as Alice's point of view, this is why it is called theory of relativity. There is not absolute truth of who is moving and who is stationary. It is all relative and based of perspective).
@@giannisms1861 i know this is like 5 months old and i'm probably pretty off base here but isn't there a difference in energy regardless of perceptive, bob is moving through space time with enough force to create time dilation while Alice is not, shouldn't that be the end all be all idk how perspective matters other wise time dilation makes zero sense.
@@porky5567 well i get what you mean but i am pretty sure the theory of relativity does not recognize WHO is moving, it only recognizes that two people are moving relative to each other. This creates paradoxes, maybe there is a way to tell which one is legit moving thorugh space and who is not, but as of now i beleive we cant tell.
Man I love the way you put this: C is the limit of the speed of communication (aka "causality"), not movement
I thought movement itself is a form of communication through which forces act upon. 🤷🏻♂️
@@Bassotronics it is, but not all information equals movement
i watched a lot of vídeos explaining this, but your video are the first ho makes me the click to understand this.
Arvin, I need help answering this question. So the strings in string theory was a transition from classically thinking about particles as 1D points to thinking about them as 2D strings. But, this did not work and there are problems with the theory and it's at a standstill like point particles were at before. What if you treated 2D string particles as vibrating 3D-shape/spherical particles? Has that been approached?
9:40 it really explains space time, time dialation, special relativity in a simple way good job!
I have a question, though. I've always thought that if you left on a spaceship going a high fraction of the speed of light for a while, that you would return to Earth and all your friends and family would be long dead. But according to Bob and Alice around 11:48, 4 seconds for her is 8 seconds for him, meaning that if he returned at that moment, HE would be older than SHE would be? I thought I understood the time dilation effect until your video. I get that from her perspective, he would barely age and she would age normally. However, even from his perspective, he would age normally, but she would age like REALLY fast, right? What am I missing?
I see this way: time is actually absolute. Alice SEES bob slow because he is going away from her at near light speed, as bob also sees her slow. If bob were to do a 180° turn, each would SEE the other fast. When they encounter, both would be the same as if they were always together, with clock times alike. In truth, they were always at the same time, they were only PERCEIVED by each other differently.
This would only happen if one side were the decelerate back into the same velocity frame. If both sides decelerated with the same force, the effect won’t happen
Excellent communication. Simple explanation.
"So, why did you quit Space Force?" "Well, I was stationed on the moon, and this guy Arvin kept shooting a laser like i was a cat every time I had a moonwalk... Now I've got PTSD"
Science is amazing
8:38 "There is no absolute "now". The "now" depends on a reference frame." Kinda sounds to me like quantum theory. The current state of a particle is fully dependent upon the circumstances that led to its being observed. The perspective of the observer is still the catalyst, in both Relativity and Quantum Theory. Interesting 🤔
Actually in quantum mechanics time is linear, what is a problem.
Indeed Quantum mechanics via the Feynman path integral can actually be formulated in context of a relative observer with an entanglement cone that propagates outwards faster than light(but is unable to transmit information) One fascinating prospect within Wolfram's physics project is that the constraints of a Turing machine operating on some network in the limit as the network becomes extremely large can be shown to reproduce Einstein's Field Equations where distance is derived from the rate of information propagation but if allowing the network to update in all possible unique configurations in super position it automatically reproduces the Feynman path integral of quantum field theory within different possible unique states branch out from each other not unlike the many worlds hypothesis except where these are only reference frames and not truly separate i.e. they will due to branchial metric curvature (the branchial component of the metric tensor turns out to be the wave guide of Broglie-Bohm theory the rest of this interpretation doesn't really hold though) gravitate towards each other resulting in different branches converging or collapsing resulting in an apparent probability of outcomes. Naturally this is far from confirmed and any extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence but this model places some strong constraints on quantum computers and has an interesting alternative possibility for inflation based off of the emergent nature of space allowing the number of spatial dimensions to change via a phase transition. But if this is true then rather than molding gravity into quantum mechanics quantum mechanics will fold into gravity with the microstructure below normal space being very very weird based on causal hypergraphs and geometric edges. It gets really weird with further conclusions being hard if not impossible to draw without the development of entirely new areas of mathematics.
@@Dragrath1 Have you ever heard of punctuation? You run-on sentences are unbearable.
@@Dragrath1 - Never seen it that way and also the fundamental theorem of QM, Shcrödinger's equation, requires of linear time.
@@FobbitMike - He only missed one stop sign, after "Indeed" and before capitalized "Quantum". Obviously a typo.
Good stuff! For some time now I have noticed that the number of insults I get from alien fan boys have dropped off markedly, I think it may because of you! You are doing exactly the right thing, explaining LS, relativity, special and general in a pictorial way, I have been doing that for a more than a year a now without success. The difference is, I just post text only information...that does not work with alien fans. They want to hear only the nonsense they think about, scientific facts get ignored and I get insulted. There's no doubt that pictures make a difference to certain people. So I will give it a rest for a while and see how it goes with you. I notice that some of your graphics is similar to the ones presented by Brian Greene in his relativity lectures, they are very good. All the best with your channel Arvin!
I hear you buddy. I try to remember this adage: "The higher the insults emanating from the mouth, the lower the IQ residing in the brain"
@@ArvinAsh Yes, I'll go with that Arvin.!
Thanks For this great video. Do you think that if Quantum entanglement communication becomes possible one day then the law of causality will be broken? If we apply the same example of Quantum entanglement communication (which is theoretically instantaneous) on the Bob and Alice example, how will this play out?
Stay tuned. I will have a detailed video on entanglement in about 2 weeks. It can't really be used to communicate or carry any information.
or meaby laws are not the way we written