51
I know what your asking, but im picturing someone zooming by at lightspeed, screaming their message. The person on the ground/stationary just hears the faintest dopler effect as LS person speeds by.
Something like this perhaps. Maybe not quite lightspeed, but surely close
Bad news: If a person was moving at the actual speed of light, from their own perspective they would arrive at their destination instantly. This means they wouldn’t have time to send or receive a message at all!
Assuming a velocity close but not quite as fast as C, yes, you would see severe differences in the speed of the communication. One party would be super slowed down and the other would be super sped up.
Bad news: If a person was moving at the actual speed of light, from their own perspective they would arrive at their destination instantly.
Another commenter here asked about an interesting set-up where the person moving lightspeed is circling around the stationary person. This is of course super impractical but it might allow them to communicate without catching up to one another instantly
Assuming a velocity close but not quite as fast as C, yes, you would see severe differences in the speed of the communication. One party would be super slowed down and the other would be super sped up.
Okay I guess that answers my question then
the angular momentum you would feel from circling someone at light speed would probably tear your limb from limb.
Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum
An infinite, frictionless vacuum?
Is there any other kind for spherical cows to populate?
load more comments
(1 replies)
the angular momentum you would feel from circling someone at light speed would probably tear your limb from limb.
Limb from limb? Either those limbs are massless, or you've just given yourself infinite mass traveling at c with an infinite energy. You'd probably tear the fabric of reality limb from limb.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Anything moving at the speed of light in one reference frame is moving at the speed of light in every reference frame—including its own.
Which is to say, it’s not a real reference frame at all—the experience of moving at the speed of light would be instant teleportation with no subjective elapsed time. So trying to talk to someone moving at light speed would be like talking to a still image.
the experience of moving at the speed of light would be instant teleportation with no subjective elapsed time
I thought time slows down when you approach the speed of light though
Only in comparison to (relative to) others. A photon from the sun experiences no time at all between leaving the sun and landing in your eye but we perceive it as eight minutes.
Oh I see. That makes sense. The fact that it's experiencing less time is why, relative to us, it's time seems to be running slower
Physicist here. Many common misconceptions in the comments.
- No, someone traveling at light speed won't arrive "instantly" or anything of the sort. It's simply not possible for massive objects to travel at the speed of light in any valid (inertial) frame of reference. Any system that does travel at the speed of light (e.g. a photon) does not have a frame of reference in which it is at rest - instead, it moves at the speed of light in all frames of reference.
If the other person travels at some speed (just) below the speed of light, the signal they send will be Doppler shifted/time dilated according to their relative velocity.
- No, quantum entanglement cannot and never has been used to communicate faster than light. See: no-communication theorem.
load more comments
(4 replies)
Another physicist here. I see that the issue of traveling at the speed of light has already been addressed. So I’ll ignore that bit. Otherwise, yes, the time dilation would make it appear to an observer that the traveler is speaking slowly. It would also make it appear to the traveler that the observer is speaking slowly.
So both sides of the conversation would view the other participant in the conversation to be speaking slowly?
Yep.
That's interesting. How would this work with length contraction? Would both sides view the other participant in the conversation to be experiencing length contraction?
Yep. Relativistic effects are generally not what we would intuitively expect.
Okay, so I guess a takeaway here is that each person only observes relativistic effects in the other conversation participant, but not in themselves.
I'm still about confused though with how this would work with time dilation. Like, imagine a scenario where I go in a spaceship and approach lightspeed for a while and then come back (for me, subjectively) a short while later, only to find that I had grandkids that were all senior citizens. It makes sense in that scenario that, if I were to view Earth, time would seem to be moving slowly over there. But I don't understand why, if people on Earth were observing me, they would also observe my time to be going very slowly. Intuitively it would seem that they should observe my time as moving very fast, since relative to them it is
Correct. Everyone thinks their second and meter are unchanged. Everyone else’s second is slower and their rulers are compressed.
Hard to explain the details without using math. Relativity is not intuitive as we don’t encounter relativistic effects in everyday human life.
Relativity build upon the fact that there are no absolute reference frames. If time was absolute then sure, one person would appear slow while the other appears fast. But it isn’t absolute, it is relative. This means outcomes need to be symmetric. So a stationary observer checking out a spacecraft going fast is the same as going fast while observing a stationary spacecraft.
That's interesting, thanks for explaining.
This means outcomes need to be symmetric.
I guess I'm just confused as to how you can have situations where someone ages faster than another due to time dilation. That doesn't seem to be a symmetrical outcome. Like this scene in Interstellar (which, as I understand it, is scientifically accurate). In this scene Matthew McConaughey goes away for 3 hours and finds that, due to time dilation, his kids have aged 23 years. There doesn't seem to be a symmetry here. Because Matthew McConaughey aged slower than his children, it would be weird if, from his point of view, his kid's clocks were ticking slower than his (his kids can't also think that he has aged 23 years in 3 hours). So how do you resolve this lack of symmetry with the requirement that outcomes need to be symmetrical from both these reference frames?
Granted, in this scene Matthew McConaughey ages due to gravitational time dilation. Is that somehow make things different? Would a similar scenario not be possible with time dilation solely caused by travelling at very fast speeds?
(Please let me know if I'm not making sense with these questions, and I'll try to reword them)
Well, parts of interstellar are accurate. :) That being said, time dilation due to gravity is real. Go someplace heavy for awhile and then leave and you will travel far into the future. The spaceship-observer example is special relativity. The gravity thing is general relativity. I’m not sure I have a non math explanation here so, simply put, time dilation due to gravity is different.
You can get a similar outcome by going somewhere real fast, then turning around, and going real fast again back towards the start. In the rocket frame that may take, say 10 years, but more years will have passed by on Earth.
You may think this breaks the symmetry I brought up earlier, and it does, but that symmetry breaking occurs when the rocket accelerates a whole bunch turning around and heading back home. On the outbound journey though the rocket will think the earth clock is slow, and vice versa. Similarly, on the return journey the same thing occurs. During the acceleration phase though things gets real weird. Or weirder I should say.
Well, parts of interstellar are accurate. :)
Wait, you're telling me it's not scientifically accurate to say that love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends the dimensions of time and space? /s
You may think this breaks the symmetry I brought up earlier, and it does, but that symmetry breaking occurs when the rocket accelerates a whole bunch turning around and heading back home.
Ah, okay that answers my question then. It's the acceleration and deceleration that changes things. Thanks for bearing with me so far and answering all my questions!
You are welcome. Thanks for the interest in physics.
Yes. Distant galaxies that are moving away from us at relativistic speeds exhibit measurable time dilation in their inner workings.
How would you even measure time dilation in a distant galaxy? Consider standard candles like 1a supernova, which explode with near uniform power. These supernova can be observed from intergalactic distances. Gather data and record the times for various supernova explosions. You'll find that the same types of explosions take longer in more distant galacies, and that the extra time is exactly what relativity predicts.
load more comments
(8 replies)
So, I would assume that you would be communicating through radio waves. If an object broadcasting a signal moving at the speed light away from you, I would further assume you experience a severe Doppler effect. To the point that I don't think you would experience anything coherent. You would receive small packets of information at a time, scattered across several million years.
This is just my initial impression on the fly, do not take this as any sort of gospel. I also did some communcations work for a time. So, this is tickling my brain and I might spend the rest of my evening in my books.
If we assume that the person moving at light speed is going in circles about the stationary person instead of linearly away. Would the radio waves be doppler shifted if transmitted orthogonally?
Ooh, interesting point.
I suspect all EM would be shifted according to the angle relative to the target - so at exactly 90° It would be "half shifted" - or zero. (Assumption based on blue/red shift of light).
I'm assuming the traveler is at a percentage of C, not at C (I think being at C is a completely different scenario, like would any EM escape the traveler?).
But I'm only an armchair quantum physicist (I've read a few books over the years). Look forward to what someone who understands Quantum Weirdness has to say.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If an object broadcasting a signal moving at the speed light away from you, I would further assume you experience a severe Doppler effect.
In principle you could have equipment that cancels out any doppler effect, no?
I also did some communcations work for a time. So, this is tickling my brain and I might spend the rest of my evening in my books.
That's awesome, let me know if you find anything interesting
Oh boy, I went down a rabbit hole. This has been bothering me to the point where I called in some favors and found some public info for what the current hypothesis on "near" light speed communications is. Because light speed is impossible...for now haha. But let's use some assumptions.
First, light speed travel is possible. Second, that we have superior tracking technology. To the point where we can find the exact location of a traveling at light speed object in space.
The best option we have now is using photonics for communications. This bypasses using radio waves by using an array of lasers that are pointed toward a receiver, which is in turn pointed to the transmitter. We can see why space and light speed travel makes this difficult. It's hard to track objects in space at very high speeds with the precision needed for this level of communication.
The reason photonics is the best option is, it opens up significantly more frequencies to work with. And some frequencies travel farther and faster than others. If we ever master light speed and light speed communications, I would bet money now it's photonics. Because what's faster than light?
Let me know if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer. Please do not ask about FTL, crazy things start happening then. <- in jest, if you wanna ask you can. Engineers I know argue about it to the point of almost fighting. But that's engineers for you.
Oh boy, I went down a rabbit hole. This has been bothering me to the point where I called in some favors and found some public info
I appreciate the dedication!
The lasers idea is interesting.
And some frequencies travel farther and faster than others.
Don't all frequencies of light travel at the same speed?
You are correct, my sincerest apologies. Light at different frequencies can carry more/less data. I will leave my mistake, as failures are the price of progress. I will not make that mistake again and be more careful. Thank you for your kindness.
Edit: Clarification; different frequencies affect data transfer rate
different frequencies affect data transfer rate
Ah that makes sense
You are correct, my sincerest apologies.
No problem mate. Thanks for all your info and the detailed responses
The last thing I'll say is, you still need to over come the Doppler effect. But if you can send large enough packets quick enough, you can mitigate some of the issues. The biggest thing is sending something across long distances quickly. That's the biggest issue. For that, unfortunately, you need faster than light. I hope the information provides a more exciting journey through your story.
In my opinion, the only way to have faster than light communications is a massive breakthrough on the quantum scale. Entanglement is so new and unknown, that I have no idea if that'll be the answer. It doesn't seem so to me, though. But quantum mechanics breaks so many laws of classical mechanics, it's crazy. You'd almost need some wormhole to communicate using classical techniques. I.e radio, photonics, etc. Which I think is where I rest. Photonics for high data transfer pointed at a wormhole. Then someone receives it in the other side. You still have Doppler effect, but much more mitigated. Hope you enjoyed my diatribe. Much love and peace to you, friend.
A wormhole is a cool idea.
Much love and peace to you, friend.
Much love and peace to you as well
To cancel the effect of someone moving away from you, the equipment would simply hold the transmission until you received the whole thing.
Like waiting for someone to finish leaving a message on an amswerimg machine before hitting play.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Where is Hank Green when you need him?
Exactly at the speed of light, the γ-coefficient would be infinite and so would be the time dialation. The eigen time of the moving person would thus be infinitely slower than the non-moving person. From the perspective of the stationary person, the time of the moving person would stand still and thus the person would never say anything. Very close to the light speed, when the coefficients are large, this problem eases but persists. The stationary person would have to wait for very long (and use a massive Doppler shift of the moving signal) to perceive something. At the end of the conversation, it will have lasted much longer for the stationary person, spending years on this. The twin paradox would basically kick in as well. If the moving person is at a speed too close to the speed of light, the stationary person might die before the conversation is over—assuming the stationary person is not immortal. That is kind of a very slow motion, yes. What a dedication, spending a lifetime on a person who can’t slow down ;-) Funny enough, from the perspective of the moving person, the effect is reversed.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Think Star Trek uses a stability feild so the time dilation is void. I'm trying to remember but they actually turned it off in one episode and jumped to like Jupiter and back to close the time gap. So, they could be using a similar idea of technology.
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)
Ask Science
16481 readers
28 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS