In theory, does that make sense?
Could it be possible to increase the time it takes for a certain amount of light to travel from one to another, so that there's a camera traveling in front of it and basically reach a point where we would start seeing the past repeat itself?
Imagine we reach 100000x the speed of light and look at the earth while traveling at that distance. Will we catch up to the light that traveled from earth 4 billion years ago and gradually see earth's story rewind?
The picture doesn't capture the second point I'm illustrating but I hope it makes sense.
>>8004353
>Imagine we reach 100000x the speed of light and look at the earth while traveling at that distance.
>>8004359
>In theory
I know it's technically impossible, but let's assume it is for the sake of understanding the idea.
In theory you could travel faster than light, then look back at earth and see the past. Problem is that how far back you see is linear with how far away you are. Which causes your lens to grow larger and larger. Eventually your lens will be several light years across it self.
>>8004359
>>8004363
Stop
>>8004363
If we assume for the sake of the idea that it is possible, then it would be possible.
>>8004353
>Could it be possible to increase the time it takes for a certain amount of light to travel from one to another, so that there's a camera traveling in front of it and basically reach a point where we would start seeing the past repeat itself?
No, because in order to see the light from the past you would have to catch up to it. In order to get a mirror to reflect light from the past you have to catch up to it. And you can't. So putting mirrors to make light's path convoluted serves absolutely no purpose compared to just setting up your camera right now and start filming.
Yes, this could be done, but only for the part of history that happens AFTER you start the mirror construction project. Which means there is little point.
>>8004353
>Could it be possible to increase the time it takes for a certain amount of light to travel from one to another, so that there's a camera traveling in front of it and basically reach a point where we would start seeing the past repeat itself?
Yes, this happens in the universe already, it's called gravitational lensing.
>Imagine we reach 100000x the speed of light and look at the earth while traveling at that distance.
We would see nothing because it's so red-shifted it goes beyond our the range of what colors we can see.
>Will we catch up to the light that traveled from earth 4 billion years ago and gradually see earth's story rewind?
We would also need a mechanism to see that light. We would have to go far beyond that area, make a super powerful telescope, point it to where Earth was, and wait.
>>8004439
>We would also need a mechanism to see that light. We would have to go far beyond that area, make a super powerful telescope, point it to where Earth was, and wait.
So all we'd need is to reach beyond where the light emitted 4 billion years ago is and we'd need a device to see that light.
Why would we need a mechanism to see that light? Did that light change significantly? Why wouldn't it be like the light emitted 3 minutes ago?
Okay, concept pic related (ignore wonky mirrors)
Make a 3D version, with millions of smaller mirrors, god knows how many miles and miles of light distance within.
The mirrors are tiny, assuming the reflective surface is perfect, with absolutely ZERO degradation.
1cmx1cm mirrors, each "length" (distance from one mirror to the next) is say 1 miles, this is a MEGA STRUCTURE (ISS is 108.5 m in length).
so 1 mile long, 1cmx1cm, PERFECTLY STRAIGHT lengths of square material "tubing" (some hard substance or whatever shit), with mirrors at each end aligned to transfer light through every single length.
>there are 160934 centimeters in 1 mile.
>cube is 1 x 1 x 1 mile
>160,934 x 160,934 = 25,899,752,356 lengths
>25,899,752,356 miles
>light travels at 186, 282 miles per second
>divided it would take light 139035.185 seconds, or 2317.25 minutes, or...
>38.62 hours in the past
you'd need some good godamn mirrors and a big ass mega-structure of periscopes depending on how far back you wanna see. and a good zoom on that camera.
P.S. if you had it in you, you could build something like this flat on land.
>>8004353
Yeah it'll work but what is the point? May as well just set up a video recorder and press rewind.
>>8004926
ease off the amphetamines
>>8004926
Why not just video record and rewind it whenever you want to "See into the past"
>>8004926
Well damn.
>>8004948
>>8004979
Yeah, I guess.
Surely there's a way to get back the light emitted from years, centuries, thousands, millions, billions of years in the past?
Somehow, that camera would gradually suck in the light from behind it and shoot it back from the front. Sort of like a Pac-Man who gives us back light from the past?
I don't know. Damn it.
>>8005112
Stop trying to make your pop-sci fantasies real. Go back to your mechanics homework.
>>8005112
>Surely there's a way to get back the light emitted from years, centuries, thousands, millions, billions of years in the past?
No, because in that time any light which might still be carrying any visual information about the past on earth has traveled hundreds/thousands/millions/billions of light years away. You can't go really fast and catch up with light, it's literally impossible so that information is lost.
>Somehow, that camera would gradually suck in the light from behind it and shoot it back from the front. Sort of like a Pac-Man who gives us back light from the past?
This makes zero sense.
>I don't know. Damn it.
Yeah you've made that pretty clear.
>>8005112
Something like this.
>>8005130
Fuck, but it'd absorb the light incoming that direction too. For fucks sake.
>>8005130
Which way is the light behind the camera traveling?
>>8005138
Ideally, it'd be the one traveling with the camera. So the camera absorbs it instead of catching up to it.
The issue is that it'd absorb the incoming light too (the one going the opposite of the camera's direction).
Surely there's some way to make the device discriminate between which light to absorb based on their direction.
>>8005138
Follow up question, where did it come from?
>>8005143
From Earth.
The entire point is to catch traveling light back so we can observe the future.
Imagine catching up to the light emitted from Earth 4 billion years ago. You'd basically see Earth how it was 4 billion years ago.
>>8005142
>Ideally, it'd be the one traveling with the camera.
The camera can't travel "with" the light, the light will always be moving at light speed in the camera's reference frame, either away from the camera or towards it.
>Imagine catching up to the light emitted from Earth 4 billion years ago.
Literally physically impossible, to imagine it being possible would be to just casually throw out a fundamental physical law, making the whole exercise pointless.
>>8005155
Not really.
The camera's tube would need an astronomical mechanism for sucking light.
In theory it's possible. It's just the practical issue that holds it back.
>>8005155
Something like this.
>>8005169
>>8005173
The first black-hole-camera.
>>8005164
>The camera's tube would need an astronomical mechanism for sucking light.
You can't just say "All we need is X that does the thing I want" and leave it at that, you may as well have said magic wand, it's just as plausible.
>In theory it's possible.
No, in theory it is indisputably not possible. Ever hear about the Theory of Relativity? It's one of the most widely accepted and well supported physical theories we have and pretty much all of it is based on the fact that you DEFINITELY CANNOT TRAVEL FASTER THAN LIGHT, LIKE NOT EVEN IF YOU'RE GOING REEEAAALLY FAST.
>>8005169
Jesus Christ
All that light from the past will be travelling away from the earth, it's not just fucking floating in space. You can't just say "Yo light beams, please turn around and fly into my magic dildo."
>>8005169
>>8005186
Forgot to mention
The only way for light from earth some billion years ago to get picked up by a camera is to already have a camera some billion light years away in the direction the light is travelling. We can't do this now because that would require that we overtake the light, something which I have already told you is definitely impossible.
>>8005186
Hence why we'd need a light-vacuum of some sort. Something that would suck in the light. Force it to go back on its trajectory backwards.
>>8005197
Are you taking the piss or are you really that dense.
You can't just pull light backwards. The only plausible way to have light come back to its source is by having it curve round due to some extremely strong gravitational field. The way I figure, that would require at least two black holes in exactly the right positions so it's vanishingly unlikely.
>>8005206
So it's possible if we get two black holes positioned right. Good.
How do we create a black hole?
>>8005250
Even if we could make a black hole somehow (we would need more material than exists in our solar system), we would not be able to put it in front of the light from years in the past because we would not be able to overtake it.
>>8005301
Heck you could just put a mirror there instead of black holes but there's still the problem of not being able to catch up with the light.
>>8005169
kek this is gold
>>8005149
>catch light emitted 4 billion years ago
>so we can observe the future
>>8005349
Almost spat hot tea onto my laptop.
>>8005429
I mean that if you want to put a mirror or a camera or anything in front of some light from Earth from a billion years ago then you would need to overtake it because it would be traveling away from Earth. However you can't overtake light because nothing can go faster than light.
The only way i can see this working is if there was a 'black hole' that gravitationally lensed the light. Where the light from earth is caught in an orbit where it is sent directly back at us.
The light would probably be distorted by the interaction, however
What if you only travelled at the speed of light, not greater. Would you see the same image constantly, as if it were frozen in time?
>>8006288
>What if you only travelled at the speed of light
That doesn't make sense, we'd need to redefine physics to answer that question, at which point the answer wouldn't mean anything.
Annoying I know but that's how it is.
>>8005186
>you can't travel faster then light
1. Go light speed
2. Go a little faster
You are just like the retards who said faster then sound was definitely impossible.
>>8006358
You can't get to light speed in the first place, that's just one result of one of the most successful theories in modern science. Ever used a GPS? That only works properly because we account for relativistic effects that cause time to pass at a different rate for the satellites.
From relativity, the more you accelerate something the heavier it gets, meaning it requires more force to accelerate it further. In fact it increases in such a way that if it got to light speed then it would gain effectively infinite mass, that's impossible so you can't get to light speed.
>>8006371
Think you got it all figured out huh? Approaching the sound barrier drag apears to increase rapidly and people said it went to infinity and could never be broken. The light barrier will be broken and mass will drop after just like drag does after the sound barrier is broken allowing much faster then light travel. This will happen in the next hundred years.
>travel at the speed of light
>switch on a torch facing the same direction
>light emmited from the torch is travelling 2 times the speed of light
Check mate einstein
>>8006551
Speed of sound and speed of light are not comparable, light does necessarily not travel through a medium. All of sound's properties are to do with the medium, light is more fundamental than that, its properties are tied with the very nature of space itself.
This is very well established and has been tested time and time again without fail.
>>8006551
>and people said it went to infinity and could never be broken
Also nobody thought this, ever since people invented guns we've had things break the sound barrier. It was just really hard to get a controlled flying vehicle to the speed.
>>8006587
And we know things can go the speed of light. For example: light
>>8006701
Yeah and other stuff without a rest mass, so i.e., not us or any of our equipment.
It's possible to slow down light with Bose-Einstein condensates to the point it is basically possible to in them.
If we assume the structure could somehow be retained, then you wouldn't need space travel but only a lab.
So yes. You could. You might as well just watch any video though. Everything is just an interaction between photons, but in a camera it is translated to electrons instead.
I don't understand what is so interesting about the first point, it is literally just being hit by the same photons which might have bounced on you.
The second point goes against the very idea of relativity and speculating beyond the limits of the mathematical correlations is ridiculous. Whenever you push it too far it will be bad physics. It's only when you are within the system of predictions physics make good predictions. Basically at any extreme/beyond the limits the models will break down.
>>8008354
it's basically possible to store light in them*
Also, the light technically don't go slower.
i know it's not possible to accelerate an electron to the speed of light without infinite energy
but is it possible that an electron somewhere in the universe could already be moving at light speed (not requiring any acceleration)?
and if so, what would it look like? a supermassive black hole? dark matter?
>>8008420
>but is it possible that an electron somewhere in the universe could already be moving at light speed?
nah
>>8004363
>I know it's technically impossible
its the exact opposite . its impossible in theory .
the idea of traveling faster then light is incoherent .the gamma factor (how fast time moves in all the shit thats going faster then light relative to you) is an imaginary number (root of a negative).
so it could be that you could somehow accelerate some wierd ass particles past light speed relative to something else its just that we dont know how to model imaginary time . we've never seen anything that dosnt adhere to the model of real time so we say nothing can go faster then light .
the truth is just as classical mechanic is an edge case of relativistic mechanic for slow speeds , relativistic mechanics could be an edge case for nonimaginery time.
>>8006570
no its not .
>>8010827
>the gamma factor (how fast time moves in all the shit thats going faster then light relative to you) is an imaginary number (root of a negative).
Not only time, the gamma factor also pops up for length and mass as well so you'd need to somehow figure out how to work with imaginary everything.
That's not even mentioning the fact that there's an asymptote when you get to c where everything either goes to infinity or zero.
>>8006570
When you reach the speed of light the clock universe is running on speeds up to infinity for you.
In other words, when you reach the speed of light you'll either instantly collide with something and slow down or the universe will die a heat death in an instant and you'll never be able to light up that torch because it's all fucking over before you have a chance to react.
