this post was submitted on 27 Apr 2026
51 points (96.4% liked)

Ask Science

16490 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
 

I'm asking this because there is a scifi book I'm reading, and in the book there's a scene where someone is communicating with a person in a spacecraft moving at lightspeed. I know their ability to communicate would probably not be possible, but let's just put that aside for a second. Hypothetically, if you could communicate with someone moving lightspeed, would the time dilation make it so that they would appear to be moving and speaking very slowly relative to you?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Physicist here. Many common misconceptions in the comments.

  1. 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.

  1. No, quantum entanglement cannot and never has been used to communicate faster than light. See: no-communication theorem.
[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for clearing that up

It’s simply not possible for massive objects to travel at the speed of light in any valid (inertial) frame of reference.

I know there are a lot of impossibilities baked into how this scenario is set up. But hypothetically, if you could have a spaceship travelling at the speed of light, and hypothetically if they could communicate with someone who is stationary (ignoring Doppler effect etc), what would it be like to talk to them? Would the time dilation make it seem like the person travelling at lightspeed is speaking very slow?

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

This hypothetical is of the type "immovable object versus unstoppable force." The question becomes: which of the axioms of relativity do you want to discard? Yet, once you do, you are leaving the realm of physics and entering the realm of sci-fi, in which anything may be possible.

If you want to maintain any link to our current understanding of physics, there are no hypotheticals, no ifs or buts. It's simply not possible to have a set of laws of physics consistent with relativity as we understand it, wherein massive objects can travel at the speed of light in vacuum.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Okay well let’s just stipulate that the object is travelling close to enough to the speed of light for there to be time dilation of some sort. Or maybe the object is stationary but near a black hole or something so there is time dilation from the gravity

[–] Hapankaali@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

Okay well let’s just stipulate that the object is travelling close to enough to the speed of light for there to be time dilation of some sort.

There is always time dilation between any two frames of references moving at nonzero speed with respect to each other. It's generally negligible for everyday velocities, but it's still there. You can find the degree of time dilation (and length contraction for that matter) in special relativity (i.e. ignoring gravity) by computing the gamma/Lorentz factor. For example, for 90% of the speed of light, the Lorentz factor is about 2.29.

Or maybe the object is stationary but near a black hole or something so there is time dilation from the gravity

In that case, it depends on how strong the gravitational effect is. The mathematics is a bit more complicated though. I would recommend to stick to special relativity if you're learning about relativity as an interested layman.

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So both sides of the conversation would view the other participant in the conversation to be speaking slowly?

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)
[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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?

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Yep. Relativistic effects are generally not what we would intuitively expect.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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)

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

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!

[–] musicalphysics@discuss.online 3 points 4 days ago

You are welcome. Thanks for the interest in physics.

[–] Bubs12@lemmy.cafe 3 points 6 days ago

Where is Hank Green when you need him?

[–] gsv@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 1 points 6 days ago

Interesting. That makes sense, thanks for explaining

[–] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 6 days ago

I don't actually know, but to my understanding...

Firstly it would be impossible because of the doppler effect and the fact that at these speeds you would go around the earth in about the same time it takes to say "Hello" , but if you ignore that:

At a difference of around 260,000 KM/S you could actually have a time dilation difference that would be perceived by the observer (the slow one) as 0.5x and anything said by the traveler would be heard by the observer in slow motion.

Again, I have no physics background, so...

[–] LogicalDrivel@sopuli.xyz 35 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MilkToast@breakfast.haus 4 points 6 days ago

Something like this perhaps. Maybe not quite lightspeed, but surely close

[–] pennomi@lemmy.world 25 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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

[–] runner_g@piefed.blahaj.zone 7 points 1 week ago (4 children)

the angular momentum you would feel from circling someone at light speed would probably tear your limb from limb.

[–] shoomemer@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

I'd probably just assume the traveler and receiver aren't experiencing any maleffects in this situation. Else the traveler would be cooked by all of the radiation that they would be receiving all at once.

[–] tyler@programming.dev 19 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

An infinite, frictionless vacuum?

[–] Ludicrous0251@piefed.zip 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Is there any other kind for spherical cows to populate?

[–] frongt@lemmy.zip 0 points 6 days ago

Now I'm trying to image how spherical cows, or really anyone, can reproduce in a frictionless vacuum.

[–] TheTechnician27@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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 (1 replies)
[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (3 children)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 6 points 1 week ago (8 children)

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)
[–] imahappyguy@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (11 children)

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.

[–] shoomemer@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›