this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
391 points (94.9% liked)

Asklemmy

44895 readers
2373 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy πŸ”

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

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

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

The motion of the stick will actually only propagate to the other end at the speed of sound in the material the stick is made of.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 46 minutes ago (1 children)

So when you pull on the stick and it doesnt immediately get pulled back on the other side, you are, at that instant, creating more stick?

[–] duckythescientist 3 points 42 minutes ago

It would stretch like a rubber band stretches just a lot less. Wood, metal, whatever is slightly flexible. The stick would either get slightly thinner or slightly less dense as you pulled it. Also, you won't be able to pull it much because there's so much stick.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

If your stick is unbreakable and unavoidable you have already broken laws of physics anyway

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 hour ago

If your stick is unbreakable and unavoidable you have already broken laws of physics anyway

You have it backwards: if your stick is unavoidable, NOT HAVING IT is the impossible thing.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

There's a thought experiment about this in most intro classes on relativity, talking about "length compression". To a stationary observer a fast-moving object appears shorter in its direction of travel. For example, at about 87% of the speed of light, length compression is about 50%. If you are interested in the formula look up Relativistic Length Compression. Anyway, if you are carrying a pole 20 meters long and you run past someone at that speed, to them the pole will only look 10 meters long.

In the thought experiment you run with this pole into a barn that's only 10 meters long. What happens?

The observer, seeing you bringing a 10-meter pole into a 10-meter barn, shuts the door behind you, closing it exactly at the point where you're entirely in the barn. What happens when you stop, and how does a 20-meter pole fit in a 10-meter barn in the first place?

First, when the pole gets in the barn and the door closes, the pole is no longer moving, so now to the observer it looks 20 meters long. As its speed drops to zero the pole appears to get longer, becoming 20 meters again. It either punches holes in the barn and sticks out, or it shatters if the barn is stronger.

Looking at the situation from the runner's point of view, since motion is relative you could say you're stationary and the barn is moving toward you at 87% of the speed of light. So to you the 10-meter barn only looks 5 meters long. So how does a 20-meter pole fit in?

The answer to both questions is compression - or saying it another way, information doesn't travel instantly. When the front end of the pole hits the inside of the barn and stops, it takes some time for that information to travel through the pole to the other end. Meanwhile, the rest of the pole keeps moving. By the time the back end knows it's supposed to stop, from the runner's point of view the 20-ft pole has been compressed down to 5 meters. From the runner's point of view the barn then stops moving, so it's length returns to 10 meters, but since the pole still won't fit it either punches holes in the barn or shatters.

One of my physics profs had double-majored in theatre, and loved to perform this demo with a telescoping pole and a cardboard barn.

[–] [email protected] 54 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

The compression on the end of the stick wouldn't travel faster than the speed of sound in the stick making it MUCH slower than light.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago

But.. But.. The stick is unfoldable!

[–] [email protected] 15 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

For anyone looking for other cool ideas or videos about speed of light etc

What Is The Speed of Dark? - Vsauce (13m:31s)

  • Cool older vsauce video going over shadows and light speed etc

The Faster-Than-Light Guillotine - Because Science (w/ Kyle Hill) (14m:19s)

  • Basically goes over the "FTL Scissor action" that a lot of people have covered but he does a good segment covering it.
[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 hours ago

Here's a video that actually kinda answers the question:

https://youtu.be/DqhXsEgLMJ0

[–] [email protected] 34 points 13 hours ago

You're forgetting the speed at which the shockwave from the compression travels through the stick. I guess it's around the speed of sound in that material, which might be ~2 km/s

[–] [email protected] 71 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

You're pushing the atoms on your end, which in turn push the next atoms, which push the next ones and so on up to the atoms at the end of the rod which push the hand of your friend on the moon.

As it so happens the way the atoms push each other is electromagnetism, in other words sending photons (same thing light is made of) to each other but these photons are not at visible wavelengths so you don't see them as light.

So pushing the rod is just sending a wave down the rod of atoms pushing each other with the gaps between atoms being bridged using photons, so it will never be faster than the speed at which photons can travel in vacuum (it's actually slower because part of the movement of that wave is not the lightspeed-travelling photons bridging the gaps between atoms but the actual atoms moving and atoms have mass so they cannot travel as fast as the speed of light).

In normal day to day life the rods are far too short for us to notice the delay between the pushing the rod on one end and the rod pushing something on the other end.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 hours ago

Thank you for this. Everything above it was just people saying the stick would move slower than light, nothing about why!

[–] [email protected] 71 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

When you push something you push the atoms in the thing. This in turn pushes the adjacent atoms, when push the adjacent atoms all the way down the line. Very much like pushing water in the bathtub, it ripples down the line. The speed at which atoms propogate this ripple is the speed of sound. In air this is roughly 700mph, but as the substance gets harder* it gets faster. For example, aluminum and steel it is about 11,000mph. That's why there's a movie trope about putting your ear to the railroad line to hear the train.

If you are talking about something magically hard then I suppose the speed of sound in that material could approach the speed of light, but still not surpass it. Nothing with mass may travel the speed of light, not even an electron, let alone nuclei.

*generalizing

[–] [email protected] 5 points 16 hours ago

Best answer

[–] [email protected] 9 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

What about the speed of the earth's rotation though, could that fuck up the stick holding?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago

It'll knock the moon and earth out of orbit!

[–] [email protected] 40 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Even if it were perfectly rigid, supernaturally so, your push would still only transmit through the stick at the speed of light. The speed of light is the speed of time.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 18 hours ago (3 children)

The push would travel at the speed of sound in the stick, much slower than the speed of light

[–] [email protected] 19 points 17 hours ago

In a "perfectly rigid" stick (a fictional invention), the speed of sound is the speed of light.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (6 children)

So folks have already explained the stick, but you're actually somewhat close to one of the ways you can sort of bend the rules of FTL, at least when it comes to a group of photons.

Instead of a stick, imagine a laser on earth pointed at one edge of the moon. Now suddenly shift the laser to the other side of the moon. What happens to the laser point on the moon's surface?

Well, it still takes light speed (1.3 seconds to the moon) for the movement to take effect, but once it starts, the "point" will "travel" to the other side faster than light. It's not the same photons; and if you could trace the path of the laser, you'd find that the photons space out so much that there are gaps like a dotted line; but if you had a set of sensors on each side of the moon set up to detect the laser, they would find that the time between the first and second sensor detecting the beam would be faster than what light speed would typically allow.

It's not exactly practical, and it's such an edge case that I doubt we can find a good way to use it, but yeah; FTL through arc lengths can kind of be a thing. At least if you tilt your head and squint funny at it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 hours ago

The photons move from laser to moon and it takes time of light's speed. FTL is not possible in that case. Also the information is transmittes from earth to moon and not from one side of moon to other side of moon

[–] [email protected] 7 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (1 children)

With your example, nothing is β€œmoving”.

Imagine a giant wave in the ocean that is almost lined up perfectly parallel to the shore. Imagine the angle that the wave is off by is astronomically small (0.0000000001 degrees off from parallel). Also imagine the shore line is astronomically long (millions of kilometers).

One end of the wave will crash the shore slightly before the other end of the wave at the opposite end of the shore. The difference in time between the two sides of the shore is also astronomically small (so small that not even light could reach the other end in time)

Now let me ask you: did the wave β€œcrash” travel faster than the speed of light? Of course not. I think that is a similar analogy to the laser movement concept you described.

Edit: Fun thought experiment. Depending on where you are on the shore (which end you are closer to), you may see one end crash before the other end (one event happening before the other event). Have two people at different locations on the shore, once they meet up with each other, they might disagree on which end crashed first! And they would BOTH be correct! Relativity is fucking crazy

[–] UrPartnerInCrime 1 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

I mean, for a little the guy on the right would be correct, but the using math you should be able to tell who was actually correct, right?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 hours ago

That’s the thing. The math says they’re both correct, and that it depends on the viewpoint of the observer.

I’m inside a car moving at 60 mph. I throw the ball forward (let’s ignore air resistance) at 30 mph.

Me, who’s inside the car, sees the ball move forward at 30 mph.

You, who’s outside the car, sees the ball move at the car’s speed PLUS the throw speed (60 + 30 =90 mph)

So, the ball is moving both at 30 mph and 90 mph. How can that be? It depends entirely upon your reference frame (inside the car? Outside the car? Inside another car moving at 40 mph?). The ball moves at all these speeds, and they are all β€œcorrect” within universal terms.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 13 hours ago

this isn't at all what this example depicts, here there is actual information transfer.

this depiction is actually just false, the light would send information faster than the stick, because in the stick information only travels as fast as speed of sound in the stick, which is why completely rigid objects don't exist

[–] [email protected] 6 points 13 hours ago

You'd still be limited by light speed to transmit the information between the two locations to compare times or indicate they received a signal.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 14 hours ago

Sure, the time between detections is faster than the time it takes light to travel from one detector to the other. Nothing is actually traveling faster than light and no physical laws are broken.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

I'm not sure. The beam of light would bend as it travels to the moon, delaying the projected dot on the moons surface.

Just like it happens with a stream of water coming out of a hose. You point the hose in a new direction, but it won't get wet before the the time it takes the water to travel from the hose to the pointed location.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There's no such thing as a perfectly rigid object.

[–] [email protected] 37 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

There was, but now I'm getting older and more tired

[–] [email protected] 6 points 17 hours ago

Have you spoken to your healthcare provider about Viagra^tm^? It may be able to help with your issue. (Please seek immediate medical help with an erection lasting more than 4 hours).

[–] [email protected] 83 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 66 points 23 hours ago (6 children)

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

Speak for yourself! 😏

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 15 hours ago

Putting it on the moon is just a distraction. It doesn't matter if the rod is 1m long or 100,000km.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 20 hours ago

Matter is made of atoms. Things are only truly rigid in the small scales we deal with usually.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

I predict we'll have FTL travel before we can invent a stick that's "unfoldable".

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 215 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (25 children)

The problem is that when you push an object, the push happens at the speed of sound in that object. It's very fast but not anywhere near the speed of light. If you tapped one end of the stick, you would hear it on the moon after the wave had traveled the distance.

For example, the speed of sound in wood is around 3,300 m/s so 384,400/3,300 ~= 32.36 hours to see the pole move on the moon after you tap it on earth.

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 22 points 23 hours ago

always had this question as a kid

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

(And the good people already provided answers.)

[–] [email protected] 113 points 1 day ago (10 children)

It would work, but only in the impossible world where you have a perfectly rigid unbreakable stick. But such an object cannot exist in this universe.

Pick up a solid rigid object near you. Anything will do, a coffee cup, a comb, a water bottle, anything. Pick it up from the top and lift it vertically. Observe it.

It seems as though the whole object moves instantaneously, does it not? It seems that the bottom of the object starts moving at the exact same instant as the top. But it is actually not the case. Every material has a certain elasticity to it. Everything deforms slightly under the tiniest of forces. Even a solid titanium rod deforms a little bit from the weight of a feather placed upon it. And this lack of perfect rigidity means that there is a very, very slight delay from when you start lifting the top of the object to when the bottom of it starts moving.

For small objects that you can manipulate with your hands, this delay is imperceptible to your senses. But if you observed an object being lifted with very precise scientific equipment, you could actually measure this delay. Motion can only transfer through objects at a finite speed. Specifically, it can only move at the speed of sound through the material. Your perfectly rigid object would have an infinite speed of sound within it. So yes, it would instantly transfer that motion. But with any real material, the delay wouldn't just be noticeable, but comically large.

Imagine this stick were made of steel. The speed of sound in steel is about 5120 m/s. The distance to the Moon is about 400,000 km. Converting and dividing shows that it would actually take about 22 hours for a pulse like that to travel through a steel pole that long. (Ignoring how the steel pole would be supported.)

So in fact, you are both right and wrong. You are correct for the object you describe. A perfectly rigid object would be usable as a tool of FTL communication. But such an object simply cannot exist in this universe.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

As an object becomes "closer" to a perfectly rigid object it becomes denser, would such an object eventually collapse onto itself and become a black hole? Or is there another limit to how dense/rigid an object can be?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 41 minutes ago

Seems likely. The most rigid materially known, (or at least theorized) is nuclear pasta.. Nuclear pasta only forms inside neutron stars, stellar objects that are the last stage of matter before matter gives up entirely and collapses into a black hole.

load more comments (9 replies)
load more comments
view more: next β€Ί