Most active commenters
  • andsoitis(4)
  • amelius(3)
  • lazide(3)

←back to thread

171 points belter | 11 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | source | bottom
Show context
heed ◴[] No.41893173[source]
Also consider the speed of light is also the speed of causality. If there was no such limit it means it would be possible for effects to precede causes which would lead to a very different kind of universe!
replies(8): >>41893279 #>>41893283 #>>41893339 #>>41894129 #>>41895456 #>>41897144 #>>41897641 #>>41903045 #
MattPalmer1086 ◴[] No.41894129[source]
How could an effect precede a cause if there were no speed limit to causality?

No matter how fast an effect propogates, it is always after the cause (with an infinite speed, I guess effects happen instantaneously, but not before).

Of course, this doesn't fit with a universe described by general relativity, where time can be different for different observers. But you wouldn't have a universe described by general relativity without that constraint in the first place.

replies(4): >>41894744 #>>41895562 #>>41895599 #>>41903822 #
andsoitis ◴[] No.41895599[source]
> How could an effect precede a cause if there were no speed limit to causality?

> No matter how fast an effect propogates, it is always after the cause (with an infinite speed, I guess effects happen instantaneously, but not before).

If everything happens instantaneously then there is no real cause and effect, and the universe would be over before it really got started.

replies(3): >>41895699 #>>41897444 #>>41903443 #
amelius ◴[] No.41895699[source]
No speed limit does not mean that everything goes infinitely fast.
replies(2): >>41895745 #>>41895840 #
lazide ◴[] No.41895745[source]
If the speed limit is infinite, what else would you expect to happen?
replies(3): >>41895756 #>>41896721 #>>41903128 #
1. amelius ◴[] No.41895756[source]
Light traveling at infinite speeds, atoms and such not.
replies(1): >>41895797 #
2. andsoitis ◴[] No.41895797[source]
If effects were instantaneous then atoms would not exist.
replies(3): >>41895834 #>>41902989 #>>41903614 #
3. amelius ◴[] No.41895834[source]
There can be many types of effects in a hypothetical universe.

Imagine a universe like Conway's way of life, where only neighboring cells can be affected in one timestep. Now add to it a rule that all blocks have a color, and the color of all blocks are changed when one block changes color. Now you have a universe with both immediate and non-immediate effects.

replies(3): >>41896546 #>>41896661 #>>41900136 #
4. jodrellblank ◴[] No.41896546{3}[source]
But what is “One time step” in that universe? We have the idea of a light clock - light bouncing between two perfect mirrors in a vacuum - as an ultimate clock.

The distance between the mirrors is a number of meters. A meter is based on how far light travels in a second. How long it takes light to go between them is based on the speed of light. Speed, distance and time are connected.

If we untether the speed of light and it’s unlimited, then in some sense there is no way to say how long it takes light to bounce between the mirrors - it doesn’t take any time. And there is no way to say how far apart the mirrors are, if light passes between them instantly that implies there must be no gap to cross. If light crosses no distance in no time then it also bounces back covering no distance in no time, ahh does lots of bounces in no time. There goes the concept of a time step and any concept of “non immediate effects”.

If you try and add time as a separate thing, then you have some kind of Conway’s game simulation - but that gives you a way to track where light is (which simulation cell it’s in) and therefore a kind of distance (how far the mirrors are apart in simulation cells) and then you lock down how light moves in “simulation cells travelled per timestep” which brings you back to a fixed speed of light again.

5. lazide ◴[] No.41896661{3}[source]
A ‘one level of cells in one timestep’ is a speed limit, and a very slow one actually.
6. andsoitis ◴[] No.41900136{3}[source]
what assumptions have to be true for such a universe to exist? did it just appear fully formed with N number of cells and defaulting to a color?

a hypothetical universe is mostly worth discussing seriously if there's a physics that is coherent, not just a mathematical landscape. At least it isn't that interesting in the discussion of universes, but might be in discussing mathematical ideas, but those do not necessarily mean there's a universe represented by it.

replies(1): >>41907736 #
7. tremon ◴[] No.41902989[source]
You're saying that an atom's decay rate is a function of the speed of light? What proof do we have of this? Does Newton's law of momentum also erroneously leave out the c component?
replies(1): >>41903655 #
8. simonh ◴[] No.41903614[source]
Absence of a speed limit doesn't mean all speeds are infinite. It's just the picture everyone assumed before relativity.
9. lazide ◴[] No.41903655{3}[source]
If decay rate is related to the elements composition (seems to be true), and the forces holding elements together include Electromagnetism and the Lorentz Force which also seems to be true, then yes. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_electromagnetism_a....]

See also [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_four-potenti...]

Notably, light is a form of electromagnetism, so this shouldn’t be as surprising as it is. c is an explicit part of many formulas, interestingly. And electromagnetism was the first thing tackled in special relativity.

10. dcow ◴[] No.41907736{4}[source]
Wolfram would disagree.
replies(1): >>41910788 #
11. andsoitis ◴[] No.41910788{5}[source]
> Wolfram would disagree.

many people believed in, and advocated for, string theory. Don't make it real.