this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
442 points (94.9% liked)
Asklemmy
44903 readers
1422 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- 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.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Perhaps also worth pointing out that the speed of light is that exact speed, because light itself hits a speed limit.
As far as we know, light has no mass, so if it is accelerated in any way, it should immediately have infinite acceleration and therefore infinite speed (this is simplifying too much by using a classical physics formula, but basically it's like this:
a = f/m = f/0 = โ). And well, light doesn't go at infinite speed, presumably because it hits that speed limit, which is somehow inherent to the universe.That speed limit is referred to as the "speed of causality" and we assume it to apply to everything. That's also why other massless things happen to travel at the speed of causality/light, too, like for example gravitational waves. Well, and it would definitely also apply to that pole.
Here's a video of someone going into much more depth on this: https://www.pbs.org/video/pbs-space-time-speed-light-not-about-light/
Actually, the thing that applies to the pole is the speed of sound (of the pole material), which is the speed the atoms in the pole move at. Not even close to the speed of light.
Yeah, everyone else had already answered that, which felt like we're picking apart that specific thought experiment, even though there is actually a much more fundamental reason why it won't work.
Correct answer is here.
I think relativity demonstrates that light does have mass?
They might not have "rest mass" but they do have mass!
The eclipse experiment proved it, solar sails whilst hypothetical demonstrate it.
Relativistic mass is not helpful to our everyday understanding of mass, it's more helpful to discuss momentum, like the other commenter pointed out
Photons don't have mass, but they do have momentum.
How does that work?