this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2025
982 points (95.8% liked)

Science Memes

14291 readers
2221 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

Time is frozen at light speed. You arrive at your destination instantaneously, not even experiencing a tick of Planck time. To an outside observer it takes you time. From the perspective of a photon from the sun, there is no time or distance passing between its genesis in the sun and it landing on your face. From an observer on earth it took 8 minutes and millions of miles.

[–] jerkface@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 days ago

Well, you arrive at A destination instantaneously. Important distinction. Though you might not all arrive at the same destination. And since no time passes for you and your computer... how exactly do you decelerate again? If you are going the speed of light, then you ARE light. You have ceased to exist as a Lemmitor. There is no coming back.

[–] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

You'll need to accelerate to the light speed though, which will take time.

So for the astronaut it'd take approximately a year to reach light speed if accelerating at 1G, and another year to slow down

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I mean if we're already violating physics by having objects with mass going the speed of light, I don't see what's wrong with also assuming the thing we have for going light speed can't also instantaneously accelerate.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

I would think you'd have to instantaneously accelerate because incremental acceleration doesn't work the way we typically think it does at high speeds.

If you're moving at 99.999% the speed of light relative to Earth, anything close to your speed is going to be moving quite slowly relative to you. When you accelerate some more, the change in speed relative to those close things is much larger than the change in speed you experience relative to Earth (it gets smaller and smaller as you approach light speed). But as far as I understand, there's no such thing as moving at light speed relative to Earth but not relative to other sub-light speed things. You'd have to instantaneously move at light speed relative to everything (every sub-light speed thing).