While the thread lists multiple issues, the issue that I found was with modeling temporal aspects of relativistic doppler (I also reported it on the github repo of the "slower speed of light" project, but that doesn't appear to be maintained):
Some time ago I had the following shower thought: "the Speed of Light is pretty slow"
How i got there:
The closest major galaxy to the Milky Way is Andromeda, and is 2.5 million! light-years away. And this is the CLOSEST galaxy, the universe is extremely big.
Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.
So again, even at 99.999% C, 11K years seems like a LONG time to reach even the closest galaxy.
My reasoning was: the speed of light is pretty damn slow.
But then I realized: no, it's not the speed of light that is slow, is my frame of reference.
For us humans, 11,000 years seems like A LONG time, but for the universe is not that long.
The universe's age is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. 11,000 years is 0.0000007971 of the age of the universe.
An average human lives 70 years, 0.0000007971 of that lifespan is approximately ~0.4 hours, or 29 minutes, so it's not that bad.
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to contextualize a velocity with a distance or a time period.
You think those time periods are large because you see a lot of numbers in the units you chose, or because it is much larger than your lifespan. But in the grand scheme a galaxy is nothing but a spec of dust, 10k years a blink of an eye.
There is no other natural velocity that I'm aware of that we could compare it to, but we can say that the speed of light is the fastest there is, so how can it be slow?
Yeah, it is and the math get's really counterintuitive to grasp since humans (at least me) have trouble thinking in exponential terms.
If you accelerate at 1g constantly for 1y you travel 0.5 light years. You do that for 10.5 years and you reach the center of the milky way. You do that for another 4 (~14 total) years and you are in the Andromeda galaxy, and you do that for another 10 years (~24 years total) and you reach what today is considered the edge of the observable universe.
By the time you get there you are basically traveling at a rounding error from C.
Sadly there is no realistic approach to get there (even assuming fantasy-levels of technology).
Chemical rockets are currently the only thing that allow sustaining such accelerations briefly for human-size payloads, but the low exhaust velocity and exponential reaction mass requirement make sustaining it for days/months/years completely impossible.
You'd have to supply the energy externally (i.e. some sort of beam propulsion), but getting any significant fraction of g out of such a system (with human-sized payloads) seems unlikely within the next centuries, especially as the distance increases.
> You'd have to supply the energy externally (i.e. some sort of beam propulsion), but getting any significant fraction of g out of such a system (with human-sized payloads) seems unlikely within the next centuries, especially as the distance increases.
Or some form of ram scope, plenty of H everywhere, but those also have the issue of you collecting things while going at relativistic speeds.
We can't do it with any rocket-like propulsive technology. By the time you get anywhere close to c the front of your spacecraft is being abraded into nothing by interstellar gas, larger particles of dust will kill you, and colliding with anything bigger creates an explosion that can be seen for light years. You need to be flying a large asteroid to even think about surviving it - you still won't for long, but you will have time to think about it - and the energy requirements are wildly impractical.
Magic warp bubble tech is the bare minimum, and we're nowhere close to inventing that.
We need a massive rocket to escape the earths gravity (1g). That takes us minutes and a crap ton of fuel. The issue is to keep doing that with fuel and oxidiser constantly for 1, 2 or 10 or 25 years is a monumental amount of energy, which is a monumental amount of weight, which is a monumental amount of volume... Also you also need the exact same amount of fuel to stop again.... So yeah ... We don't got it yet
We can easily accelerate past 1g... 1g is just chosen for human comfort, but running any rocket engine continuously for a year requires an impossible amount of fuel.
People always say that about speed of light stuff, but I don’t get it. Do you have any more examples of counterintuitive math?
Because what you’re describing is basically the equivalent to compound interest in finance. (e.g. investing $100 at 10% interest over 10 years results in $260)
The proper time (that is, the time the traveler measures on a clock) goes to zero very quickly towards the end. Even with both axes plotted logarithmically, it's just a sudden drop at the end towards light speed.
It’s the units that make it seem unintuitive. 12 days is roughly 0.032 years, and 17 minutes is likewise 0.000032 years. It’s relative to how we were taught to view smaller lengths of time. Of course you could argue measuring time by the rotation of heavenly bodies is more intuitive than counting on your fingers for the hours in a day and days in a lunar cycle.
One oddity of Lorentz invariance is that two non-parallel boosts decompose into a boost and spatial rotation.
I've never quite wrapped my head around this and was hoping to get some insight from this simulation. But afaict, I'm not seeing this effect (press W for a bit, the A for a bit and it's not obvious I'm at a different orientation - if I look down at the ground the gridlines are still axial).
I don't know if I'm misinterpreting the math, or the simulation, or maybe the simulation is doing something to 'correct' for this behavior so things are more natural, or something else. Does anyone have any insight?
The wavelength of light is λ = c / f, where c is the speed of light and f is the frequency.
When c is approximately 10^7 times lower, so is the wavelength (if we keep the frequency the same), so now-visible light would have wavelengths far shorter than an atom or a molecule, and probably couldn't be easily detected by biological means.
You could say: sure, maybe we'll just see light at lower frequency. Maybe that's true, but the energy of a single photon is E = hf, where h is the Planck constant. So if we assume much lower-frequency photons, they have much lower energy, and thus become harder to detect.
Lots of other things could be different, like chemistry, heat conduction etc.
At a height of roughly 1.8, at c = 5km/h, light would take 0.1 seconds to travel from head to toe. Nerve signals are much slower than c, so human bodies likely wouldn't exist as we know them.
The list of potential implications to consider is fascinating, endless and maybe even a bit overwhelming :-)
Whenever I think about light speed being fast, I imagine myself standing at the edge of the solar system and watching a hypothetical photon travel from the Sun to the Earth and taking 8 minutes. Suddenly it doesn't feel like light is really all that fast except at human scales. 5 km/h would be fascinating though.
The speed of light is unbelievably slow, not even as a cosmic scale, but on earth.
We cannot play competitive multiplayer games globally, without 300ms ping. I dream of a world playing Black Ops 2 on a original PS3 in 2026 getting into a lobby because latency is low.
light is 186k miles per second, the other side of the globe is 12.5k miles away - so 67 ms / 130ms+ round trip in optimum conditions. Add more for network hops and consider that fiber is not quite as fast as vacuum.
300ms feels extremely optimistic coming from my perspective of someone living on an island in SE Asia
On the other hand think of the wavelength of light and how absurdly fast the oscillation frequency is to provide a wavelength of a few hundred nm at the speed of light. 8 minutes is a lot of cycles, and 150M km is a lot of wavelengths!
But light is not really even light except at human inference level. Like yes if you were a god like being looking at this and understanding light in a proton level way, it wouldn't be very impressive but I would say that is not the right way to think about physcial phenomena. How can you even be sure time has any definite meaning outside human's concept of it? In that sense what do words faster or slower or minutes even mean
No doubt inspired by George Gamow's Mr.Tompkins in Wonderland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins). That was recommended reading for entering Physics undergrads when I did my degree.
Velocity raptor is a free game that accurately simulates the effects of special relativity. It slows down the speed of light to 3m/s and you solve puzzles as a cute dinosaur. https://www.testtubegames.com/velocityraptor.html
There is also a helpful FAQ which explains all the strange things happening, such as length contraction, time dilation, and color shifting: https://testtubegames.com/srel101.html
My favorite levels are #18 (which demonstrates time dilation), #26 (which demonstrates space warping), and #42 (which demonstrates retarded time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_time ). All the levels are unlocked and you can skip to any level.
Interesting this has the exact same controls with slidy movement + space bar to stop. It seems likely Claude based it off of it and the other MIT game.
> A Slower Speed of Light is a first-person game prototype in which players navigate a 3D space while picking up orbs that reduce the speed of light in increments. Custom-built, open-source relativistic graphics code allows the speed of light in the game to approach the player’s own maximum walking speed. Visual effects of special relativity gradually become apparent to the player, increasing the challenge of gameplay. These effects, rendered in realtime to vertex accuracy, include the Doppler effect (red- and blue-shifting of visible light, and the shifting of infrared and ultraviolet light into the visible spectrum); the searchlight effect (increased brightness in the direction of travel); time dilation (differences in the perceived passage of time from the player and the outside world); Lorentz transformation (warping of space at near-light speeds); and the runtime effect (the ability to see objects as they were in the past, due to the travel time of light). Players can choose to share their mastery and experience of the game through Twitter. A Slower Speed of Light combines accessible gameplay and a fantasy setting with theoretical and computational physics research to deliver an engaging and pedagogically rich experience.
It seems like it's open source, and that it splits the game from the actual engine, so if someone wants to vibecode something of their own, they can take this as a base rather than vibing the physics from scratch, with the risks of messing the core mechanic from scratch.
I feel like a rule of vibecoding would be that you shouldn't do it for the core of a product, the quality is just not there yet. Even if it is, your core contribution should be what LLMs would train on, rather than being their output.
This is an awesome thought provoking question! My mind goes immediately to perhaps using this as a “time scaled” model to “observe” well known physical experiments and physical phenomenon if possible eg Young’s Experiment. Could that work / be useful? I am not a physicist but currious.
Too bad that it does not seem to work on mobile. I did not find any way to move around (add arrow buttons? Are we supposed to move around?) and if I double tap I change the direction in which I am looking but not very predictably. Maybe my phone is too slow.
In the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin some of the more advanced civilisations have the ability to change the speed of light locally with very interesting consequences for the that local space
I'm being vague to avoid spoilers, but I'll just say that it serves for a very interesting meditation on the concept of loss, and has stuck with me for the 5+ years since I read the trilogy.
Pedantic note: The speed of light in glass, optical fiber and water is different from vacuum (much lower). On a certain scale, humanity also knows how to locally alter the speed of light though not to this extent.
It's not actually that the speed of light in a singlemode fiber optic cable is slower, but that the photons aren't travelling in a direct path down the fiber like water down a pipe. They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable.
Basically imagine like if you wanted to walk in a straight line between two points at both ends of a empty, long, narrow rectangular warehouse, and instead of walking in a straight line from A to B, you bounced off each wall at an angle (like a pool ball ricocheting off the bumpers) to get from one end to the other. Making your cumulative distance travelled on foot much greater.
>the photons aren't travelling in a direct path down the fiber like water down a pipe. They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable.
I know there are many other mundane technologies that can be described in sci-fi-ish way, but for some reason I'm particularly amazed by fiber transmitters being compact and cheap enough to be used in mass-produced killer drones.
Not just that but your average russian or ukrainian used expendable munition UAV that uses a singlemode fiber spool uses the cheapest and most mundane of fiber transceivers. There's no requirement for data rates above 1 Gbps, so ordinary SFP optics (not SFP+ or anything) are used, and the distances involved means it works fine with a extended range 1550nm to 1610nm reach thing that can nominally handle 40 to 80 km of fiber.
When I say data rates are way below 1 Gbps, it's because commonly you've got two things going on, a UART serial bridge from operator to flight controller board (same idea as what is implemented in RF with ExpressLRS, TBS Crossfire or similar), this is at most a Mbps or two. Then a possible live video feed over IP which will be easily under 50 Mbps.
The only thing a little bit out of the ordinary about them is that they're often bidirectional single strand optics with the prism built in, and tx/rx on different wavelengths (like 1550 and 1570, or 1550 and 1610, or whatever). Basically same thing that somebody lighting a very low cost metro dark fiber circuit might do to use only 1 strand for a gigabit or 10 Gbps link.
You can get a pretty good 1080p60 video at only 6mbps. Depends on how well the sender is encoding I guess, but it shouldn't be too much more than that.
Some of the more basic ones are a very rudimentary NTSC analog video in to H264 encoder board that is tiny in weight and power consumption. They're using the same NTSC analog video-out forward flight cameras as are used in pure analog FPV. It's also not doing really 'complex' H264 encoding. Very similar to what you would get for the H264 encoder in a cheap $60 IP (RTSP) security camera.
There's more advanced ones that take video input from a MIPI digital video interface or native HDMI input.
Not just because latency but also because of cost, size, weight, power.
> They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable
At the risk of exposing how little I remember from physics, doesn't light in a single mode fiber not bounce? (right about now I'm thinking that it's probably not great to think of photons bouncing because this is quantum level stuff, right? light is a wave, etc. gosh it's been a long time since I tried to really know any of this...)
The bouncing is more a metaphor, the refraction of light bending at an angle is sort of like how if you as an exterior observer look at a person who is standing waist deep in a very calm and clear swimming pool, their legs appear to be at a different position than their torso. Now imagine that 'bending' repeating trillions of times.
Right, and it varies with what type of glass, google "refractive index of glass".
If you google image search "refraction fiber optics" you'll get some decent pictorial examples of what I meant by photons bouncing off the interior walls of a 9/125 SM fiber optic strand billions/trillions of times on its path, I guess I was trying to write an extremely simplified explanation of refraction in something like a typical SMF-28e / G.652.D fiber.
You're conflating two very different meanings of "the speed of light". Confusingly, "speed of light" can refer to the universal constant, c, which does not change in glass, or to the speed that light travels in a medium. Here, we're talking about c. Relativistic effects are based only on c. The Three Body Problem trilogy plot device is also about c.
The book Redshift Rendezvous from 1990 explores this idea. (TBH the story is a little clunky, but if you like to see someone look at the physics in depth, it's pretty interesting.)
I'm reading the clockwork rocket at the moment. It's a little different but it's set in a universe where the laws of physics / behaviour of light seems to be different to our own.
similarly, Einstein's Dreams is a collection of very short stories that explore different flavors of time. For example: time slows as you near the city center - those who approach it end up frozen forever like the event horizon of a black hole.
Fun fact: given that the meter is defined in terms of speed of light (and cesium frequency), "changing the speed of light" is a counterfactual impossibility, what is actually changing are some other fundamental constants.
If we realized tomorrow we had the speed of light slightly wrong, we wouldn't change the length of a meter, we would change the definition of the meter. We've redefined the meter thrice already.
The first few Discworld books explore this a little bit too. I think pterry dropped the concept after that, I don't really remember it later in the series.
Nothing would work, including us, because almost everything in physics and biochemistry works at higher speeds.
Whether or not the speeds at which things happen in physics, chemistry, etc are somehow absolute, or somehow inherently relative to c, and would speed up and slow down if c changed, is an interesting question.
Interesting experiment!
What I missed (as a non-scientist) is a live explanation of what is happening while I'm navigating this virtual world and changing parameters.
This would be a great way to learn!
Hmm, by some bug my back arrow first slows me down from approaching c, but then will sudddenly spead me back up (while going backwards), so I get stuck in a dark world. (Firefox on Linux).
Edit, maybe it's because the speed shift is so coarse I cross past 0 km/h from back to forwards and reverse too fast...
Other than this, very very nice. Love this kind of thing for developing intuiting outside the normal range in which we experience the laws of Physics. Well done.
Light doesn't have a "speed" as in the usual meaning of the word "speed". Talking about speed requires defining spatial distances and time durations, which are in turn defined or created by the phenomenon of light.
Light doesn't "travel". It's just an exchange of entangled photons creating the concept of time duration and distance.
This is awesome. I always think about this. As humans, we are very limited in what we can perceive and experience. A higher form of entity could have a completely different way of viewing nature and the world.
Just a thought experiment for you guys: imagine a bacteria that survives inside humans. It doesn't even know what a human is. For the bacteria, its entire world is simply the environment in which it lives. It doesn't know that we are living beings actively trying to maintain ourselves and survive.
Now, suppose a harmful bacteria enters our body, makes us sick, and we take medicine that kills all of them. From the bacteria's perspective, it could look like a natural disaster or some unexplained event in which they all suddenly get wiped out. They have no idea that a living being called a human actively tried to eliminate them using something called medicine, which was engineered specifically to kill them.
Similarly, what if our world, or nature itself, is part of some higher-level entity that we simply exist within? What if the reason for our deaths, natural calamities, and other events is something completely beyond our perception? Whatever we do, we may never be able to understand what is actually happening at that level, just as bacteria may never be able to understand that humans exist.
One thing that could potentially support this idea is self-regulation. We see self-regulating systems throughout nature, and these patterns seem to repeat at different scales. We ourselves are self-regulating organisms, and nature also has countless cycles and mechanisms that regulate themselves.
Maybe these patterns continue at scales we cannot perceive. We can observe certain things at the scale of humans, but we still don't fully understand what happens at the nano scale or on the scale of the universe. Perhaps there are higher levels of organization and self-regulation that we simply don't have the ability to perceive yet.
Woah your reply feels very much like Deja Vu to me - my OP on X from months ago
Gitanjali GulveSehgal
@gigi_sehgal
Jun 22
Replying to @fermatslibrary
Contrarian Takes:
1. We live in a “box” governed by the compute we are capable of. Perhaps the rockets are out there in a form we cannot observe. ( borrowing from Quantum Ruliad ). E.g
What do bacteria think of us? Do we “exist” for them? Are we infrastructure or entities to them? Do they think we do not exist?
We cannot see Neutrinos streaming thru our bodies but atleast we managed to figure out that they existed.
Who knows what else exists that our senses and technology cannot perceive or reverse engineer existence of?
2. Perhaps they have remote observation capability,
3. Perhaps its a simulation we are in a space alien overlord’s lab
4. Perhaps the Men in Black wiped our memory each time we see them
5. What were those drones flying over DC?
6. Perhaps they are already here
The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to c^-2, so this would mean the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth would be about 400 billion km, and the Earth would be a black hole.
If you're allowed to change the speed of light, you can also change the gravitational constant G to compensate since the Schwarzschild radius is r = 2GM/c^2, where M is the mass of the object.
I think it is an illusion because as you approach the speed of light everything in your wide view contracts to the front of where you are going, so it would seem like you are moving back. Stop, and you now appear closer. It's probably why you do not see this effect on sci fi films, instead they show the ship moving forward by streaking the stars showing through the window, which is more intuitive for our brains to understand.
You're not controlling an FPS character walking, you're controlling the 'throttle' of how fast you're moving fwd or backward. Holding it down increases speed.
Forward means light is hitting your eyes faster, making it look like the distance the light had to cross is condensed, meaning it looks further away.
Moving backwards slights the light hitting your eyes, to the point where you're moving away from the light, so everything goes black.
Well I'm not a physicist, but we all travel through time at the speed of light. With a much smaller speed of light, I think relativistic speeds would be much easier to achieve. I.e. you could age noticeably differently than your family on a solo car drive to get groceries.
The more accurate statement is that all objects have the same speed in spacetime. Time is just one dimension of spacetime and objects do not all travel along that dimension with the same speed. For example, an object travelling through space at close to the speed of light will have a speed along the time dimension close to zero.
Having said that... this is mostly a slogan and makes for good Youtube videos, but it falls apart the moment you subject it to even the most basic scrutiny. For one... it doesn't make sense to talk about a speed through time since speed is literally a measure of change with respect to time, so a change in time with respect to time doesn't make any sense.
But as a slogan, it captures the idea that motion through space and the rate of your own clock are tightly linked together.
>it doesn't make sense to talk about a speed through time
Only if you're talking about other people's clocks and not your own. Your own clock is one second per second, but someone else's may be slower or faster relative.
Once again, just subject your slogan to some basic scrutiny. Your own clock is one second per second, which is a pure number, 1... that's not a speed.
So then you say take someone else's clock and compare it to your own clock, but that is still just a pure number. A speed is not a number, it has units like meters per second. A ratio of two clocks has no units at all, the units cancel. Whatever number you get, 3 or 9, it's just a factor by which two clocks disagree. You can absolutely interpret this ratio as a rate, but that doesn't make it a speed.
And a speed is exactly what the slogan needs, because the diagram/geometry it's using involves a right angled triangle where on one side of the triangle is your speed through space, and on the other side of the triangle is your speed through time, and the hypotenuse of the triangle is fixed at c (since every object travels through spacetime at this fixed speed).
For that to mean anything both sides have to be the same kind of quantity. You can't put meters per second on one side and a bare number on the other and call it a triangle. Nor can you patch it by multiplying the ratio by c to give it units, because the thing you get then grows as you speed up instead of shrinking. Either it has the right units and the wrong behavior, or the right behavior and no units at all. There's no version of this geometry that produces a consistent picture.
well the meter and the kilogram themselves are either completely or partially defined by the speed of light. its a fundamental constant that a large portion of nature depends on, so i doubt such surgical changes could be realized.
The most obvious thing would be that we and other creatures would have sight as a secondary sense. If light went that slowly we would have to develop other ways of navigating the world, such as echolocation, smell or touch.
I got confused by the premise. To the fully blind person, the speed of light does not matter. He'll hit the object 5 meters away from him regardless if he sees it or not (as will everyone else, but it'll look weird).
I think that light coming from different parts of the lamp arrives at different times. So if the lamp turns off, you see the part closest to you go black first.
Some of the details in the paper are super cool. Since the game pulls "c" down to near walking speed, you receive photons at different rates depending on their direction relative to your motion (relativistic aberration / searchlight effect) resulting in neat visual shifts.
I don't usually download games, but I might have to make an exception just to try it out.
Less latency in multiplayer games or Zoom calls. Because light can travel around the Earth 7 times in one second, that means one roundtrip to a server on the other side of the world must take ~140 ms (1/7th of a second) which is a timescale you are able to feel. That's lag in multiplayer games. I'm constantly amazed that the reason why multiplayer client-side prediction strategies like rollback netcode exist is because light is slow enough on a human scale that we actually have to architect around it. Light is surprisingly slow in some ways.
Um, speed of light and gravity are so fundamentally linked that nothing you see would look like that. Just changing speed of light but not adjusting anything else makes little sense.
I don’t quite get the assumptions here. If c were actually 5 km/h, causal influences would propagate much more slowly. With G unchanged, planets and stars at their current masses and sizes would lie within their Schwarzschild radii. Any rock greater that 1.5km in radius is a blackhole. With c reduced to 5 km/h, the black-hole threshold would correspond to a surface escape speed of just 5 km/h. Holding the other relevant constants fixed would also radically alter atomic structure and chemistry. It seems like a lot would change before we could be around to observe the cool redshifts. Is the reduced c being applied only to the visual effects?
cool idea, but being vibe coded doesn't inspire much confidence on whether the math or author subject understanding is correct.
As such I wouldn't base my understanding on the subject on this as-is. Which is a shame as, if it was actually hand coded I might actually use this to learn relativity, something which would otherwise be out of my reach.
A note on source code, I think committing the actual javascript code and such is a mistake at the level of committing compiled binaries to a repo. It's more useful, correct and genuine to upload the prompts used, which are the source code that generates the target code, and upon which the author and others can study and modify the program.
"Here look." Her fingers started to fly on the DynaBook's keyboard, altering the program she had·written several weeks before .. You justact as though the ship is pointed towards the sun and add speed!· As she spoke her ship started to fall, but not towards the sun. Oh no!..·"
If we want to move closer to that ideal, of interactive education, I don't think we can just apply the old forms and use the LLM to aid one in being the allmighty program-creator, the LLM needs to be placed at the service of the user. I can't help but seeing the usage of LLMs to generate code as misplacing this power. It's as if a new powerful metal were discovered and smiths can only think about making hammers and foundries and casts with that metal, considering it too valuable to actually use it for the products being smithed.
Can't see your website but I would think everything you see would have so much latency it would be worse than today's internet with dialup using 2GB of RAM on an Atom CPU ;)
I think this is not possible. There is most likely a reason as to why light has this speed. Naturally it must be tied to energy and interaction of energy with other things. I also don't think "human speeds" applies here because it assumes that humans were decoupled from this, which I don't think we are at all. Besides, humans also use fairly fast things once you go down to the level of molecular biology and chemistry; the chromophore 11-cis-retinal is quite fast in its changes, for instance, and various enzymatic reactions such as by the carbonic anhydrase - up to 10⁶ reactions per second for the latter (assuming there is a sufficient amount of substrate available). That's not slow.
At first sight, this is remarkably more accurate that the "slower speed of light" game from MIT that was made available all those years ago (~2012).
Many issues with the MIT game were discussed here:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/43695/how-realis...
While the thread lists multiple issues, the issue that I found was with modeling temporal aspects of relativistic doppler (I also reported it on the github repo of the "slower speed of light" project, but that doesn't appear to be maintained):
https://github.com/MITGameLab/OpenRelativity/issues/17
In this game, it looks like the temporal component of the Doppler effect is modelled correctly.
Some time ago I had the following shower thought: "the Speed of Light is pretty slow"
How i got there:
The closest major galaxy to the Milky Way is Andromeda, and is 2.5 million! light-years away. And this is the CLOSEST galaxy, the universe is extremely big.
Of course that as you get closer to C, the traveling object will experience time dilation (relative to observer), so the time passed will be less. At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years to arrive to Andromeda.
So again, even at 99.999% C, 11K years seems like a LONG time to reach even the closest galaxy.
My reasoning was: the speed of light is pretty damn slow.
But then I realized: no, it's not the speed of light that is slow, is my frame of reference.
For us humans, 11,000 years seems like A LONG time, but for the universe is not that long.
The universe's age is estimated to be 13.8 billion years. 11,000 years is 0.0000007971 of the age of the universe.
An average human lives 70 years, 0.0000007971 of that lifespan is approximately ~0.4 hours, or 29 minutes, so it's not that bad.
So yeah, frame of reference matters.
In terms of comparisons to human lifespan, I think this one is interesting:
If you can somehow accelerate/decelerate at a constant human-acceptable 1G, time dilation means almost anywhere is reachable in a human-lifetime.
That coincidence(?) could easily become false if we are accustomed to lower accelerations or lesser lifespans.
Not only that, from light's perspective, it takes no time at all. ;)
From the light's perspective: "what is this.... time you speak of?"
Also: ”Did we just go somewhere?”
It doesn't really make a lot of sense to contextualize a velocity with a distance or a time period.
You think those time periods are large because you see a lot of numbers in the units you chose, or because it is much larger than your lifespan. But in the grand scheme a galaxy is nothing but a spec of dust, 10k years a blink of an eye.
There is no other natural velocity that I'm aware of that we could compare it to, but we can say that the speed of light is the fastest there is, so how can it be slow?
> At 99.999% C, the traveler would take ~11,000 years
if we add more 9s, is it possible to reduce that number to within a human lifespan?
Yeah, it is and the math get's really counterintuitive to grasp since humans (at least me) have trouble thinking in exponential terms.
If you accelerate at 1g constantly for 1y you travel 0.5 light years. You do that for 10.5 years and you reach the center of the milky way. You do that for another 4 (~14 total) years and you are in the Andromeda galaxy, and you do that for another 10 years (~24 years total) and you reach what today is considered the edge of the observable universe.
By the time you get there you are basically traveling at a rounding error from C.
> If you accelerate at 1g constantly for 1y you travel 0.5 light years
Can't we accelerate past 1G constantly? Or do we expend so much energy doing it that we can't realistically do it with today's technology?
Sadly there is no realistic approach to get there (even assuming fantasy-levels of technology).
Chemical rockets are currently the only thing that allow sustaining such accelerations briefly for human-size payloads, but the low exhaust velocity and exponential reaction mass requirement make sustaining it for days/months/years completely impossible.
You'd have to supply the energy externally (i.e. some sort of beam propulsion), but getting any significant fraction of g out of such a system (with human-sized payloads) seems unlikely within the next centuries, especially as the distance increases.
> You'd have to supply the energy externally (i.e. some sort of beam propulsion), but getting any significant fraction of g out of such a system (with human-sized payloads) seems unlikely within the next centuries, especially as the distance increases.
Or some form of ram scope, plenty of H everywhere, but those also have the issue of you collecting things while going at relativistic speeds.
We can't do it with any rocket-like propulsive technology. By the time you get anywhere close to c the front of your spacecraft is being abraded into nothing by interstellar gas, larger particles of dust will kill you, and colliding with anything bigger creates an explosion that can be seen for light years. You need to be flying a large asteroid to even think about surviving it - you still won't for long, but you will have time to think about it - and the energy requirements are wildly impractical.
Magic warp bubble tech is the bare minimum, and we're nowhere close to inventing that.
We need a massive rocket to escape the earths gravity (1g). That takes us minutes and a crap ton of fuel. The issue is to keep doing that with fuel and oxidiser constantly for 1, 2 or 10 or 25 years is a monumental amount of energy, which is a monumental amount of weight, which is a monumental amount of volume... Also you also need the exact same amount of fuel to stop again.... So yeah ... We don't got it yet
We can easily accelerate past 1g... 1g is just chosen for human comfort, but running any rocket engine continuously for a year requires an impossible amount of fuel.
We can't necessarily survive that well when under acceleration greater than 9.81 metres per second per second for extended periods of time.
Gravity on Earth varies about .7%.
Increasing the acceleration a little bit more than that (eg to 1%) would make a difference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth
> "Increasing the acceleration a little bit more than that (eg to 1%) would make a difference."
Wouldn't that be only a few months on a decades-long journey at 1.01G vs 1G??
> math get's really counterintuitive to grasp
People always say that about speed of light stuff, but I don’t get it. Do you have any more examples of counterintuitive math?
Because what you’re describing is basically the equivalent to compound interest in finance. (e.g. investing $100 at 10% interest over 10 years results in $260)
The proper time (that is, the time the traveler measures on a clock) goes to zero very quickly towards the end. Even with both axes plotted logarithmically, it's just a sudden drop at the end towards light speed.
- [pic](https://home.davidgoffredo.com/hackernews/proper-time-one-li...)
- [plot](https://home.davidgoffredo.com/hackernews/proper-time-one-li...)
Links seem to be broken?
No, but IPv6 only these days. I never set up dynamic DNS.
One million seconds is 11 days, a billion seconds is 31 years.
Thanks! But same here imho:
It all seems quite logical once you put everything into the same unit, I think.Maybe it's just our human calendar/time unit rollercoaster (60*60*24*30*12) that's playing tricks on us here.
Of course it is logical, we are not discussing the math.
But it isn't intuitive, you're not used to numbers that big or that grow that fast.
Few things go from a million to a billion, especially when related to time.
It’s the units that make it seem unintuitive. 12 days is roughly 0.032 years, and 17 minutes is likewise 0.000032 years. It’s relative to how we were taught to view smaller lengths of time. Of course you could argue measuring time by the rotation of heavenly bodies is more intuitive than counting on your fingers for the hours in a day and days in a lunar cycle.
Of course! You can arrive as quickly as you want as the traveler. You can cross the observable universe in a few hours if you add enough 9’s.
You can but I don't want to see that energy bill
Yes. Time dilation (with respect of the stationary observed) is calculated using the Lorentz factor.
At 99.999% of C, the Lorentz factor is ~223.6.
It grows pretty quickly as you add more 9s to the fraction. Every two additional 9s multiply the Lorentz factor by ~10.
So at 0.99999999999 c, it'd be ~223,607x.
2.5M years / 223,607 is: ~11 years
Of course this is all highly theoretical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_factor
The speeds are theoretical (unachievable), time dilation itself is robust and proved (gps wouldn't work as precisely without accounting for it)
Proper time asymptotically approaches zero here right?
Yes. If you can manage to get arbitrarily close to the speed of light, the amount of perceived time would get arbitrarily close to zero.
One oddity of Lorentz invariance is that two non-parallel boosts decompose into a boost and spatial rotation.
I've never quite wrapped my head around this and was hoping to get some insight from this simulation. But afaict, I'm not seeing this effect (press W for a bit, the A for a bit and it's not obvious I'm at a different orientation - if I look down at the ground the gridlines are still axial).
I don't know if I'm misinterpreting the math, or the simulation, or maybe the simulation is doing something to 'correct' for this behavior so things are more natural, or something else. Does anyone have any insight?
You should make it work in iPhone.
The wavelength of light is λ = c / f, where c is the speed of light and f is the frequency.
When c is approximately 10^7 times lower, so is the wavelength (if we keep the frequency the same), so now-visible light would have wavelengths far shorter than an atom or a molecule, and probably couldn't be easily detected by biological means.
You could say: sure, maybe we'll just see light at lower frequency. Maybe that's true, but the energy of a single photon is E = hf, where h is the Planck constant. So if we assume much lower-frequency photons, they have much lower energy, and thus become harder to detect.
Lots of other things could be different, like chemistry, heat conduction etc.
At a height of roughly 1.8, at c = 5km/h, light would take 0.1 seconds to travel from head to toe. Nerve signals are much slower than c, so human bodies likely wouldn't exist as we know them.
The list of potential implications to consider is fascinating, endless and maybe even a bit overwhelming :-)
Whenever I think about light speed being fast, I imagine myself standing at the edge of the solar system and watching a hypothetical photon travel from the Sun to the Earth and taking 8 minutes. Suddenly it doesn't feel like light is really all that fast except at human scales. 5 km/h would be fascinating though.
The globe here is, in my opinion, the best such visualization because I've personally travelled the distances depicted.
https://www.reddit.com/r/educationalgifs/comments/qq5cw7/coo...
The speed of light is unbelievably slow, not even as a cosmic scale, but on earth.
We cannot play competitive multiplayer games globally, without 300ms ping. I dream of a world playing Black Ops 2 on a original PS3 in 2026 getting into a lobby because latency is low.
Ultimate counterevidence of an benevolent "intelligent designer"
How do you arrive at 300ms?
light is 186k miles per second, the other side of the globe is 12.5k miles away - so 67 ms / 130ms+ round trip in optimum conditions. Add more for network hops and consider that fiber is not quite as fast as vacuum.
300ms feels extremely optimistic coming from my perspective of someone living on an island in SE Asia
For a city that is far away from anywhere:
https://wondernetwork.com/pings/Auckland
Your real world latency is going to be worse.
This is a great example of information taking time:
https://www.ibiblio.org/harris/500milemail.html
On the other hand think of the wavelength of light and how absurdly fast the oscillation frequency is to provide a wavelength of a few hundred nm at the speed of light. 8 minutes is a lot of cycles, and 150M km is a lot of wavelengths!
But light is not really even light except at human inference level. Like yes if you were a god like being looking at this and understanding light in a proton level way, it wouldn't be very impressive but I would say that is not the right way to think about physcial phenomena. How can you even be sure time has any definite meaning outside human's concept of it? In that sense what do words faster or slower or minutes even mean
For the photon the time passed is 0 right?
No doubt inspired by George Gamow's Mr.Tompkins in Wonderland (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_Tompkins). That was recommended reading for entering Physics undergrads when I did my degree.
Velocity raptor is a free game that accurately simulates the effects of special relativity. It slows down the speed of light to 3m/s and you solve puzzles as a cute dinosaur. https://www.testtubegames.com/velocityraptor.html
There is also a helpful FAQ which explains all the strange things happening, such as length contraction, time dilation, and color shifting: https://testtubegames.com/srel101.html
My favorite levels are #18 (which demonstrates time dilation), #26 (which demonstrates space warping), and #42 (which demonstrates retarded time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarded_time ). All the levels are unlocked and you can skip to any level.
Interesting this has the exact same controls with slidy movement + space bar to stop. It seems likely Claude based it off of it and the other MIT game.
From further back, https://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/ and https://theandelope.itch.io/a-slower-speed-of-light (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4731749 284 points by po on Nov 2, 2012 with 106 comments and in 2024 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40332586 with 60 comments)
> A Slower Speed of Light is a first-person game prototype in which players navigate a 3D space while picking up orbs that reduce the speed of light in increments. Custom-built, open-source relativistic graphics code allows the speed of light in the game to approach the player’s own maximum walking speed. Visual effects of special relativity gradually become apparent to the player, increasing the challenge of gameplay. These effects, rendered in realtime to vertex accuracy, include the Doppler effect (red- and blue-shifting of visible light, and the shifting of infrared and ultraviolet light into the visible spectrum); the searchlight effect (increased brightness in the direction of travel); time dilation (differences in the perceived passage of time from the player and the outside world); Lorentz transformation (warping of space at near-light speeds); and the runtime effect (the ability to see objects as they were in the past, due to the travel time of light). Players can choose to share their mastery and experience of the game through Twitter. A Slower Speed of Light combines accessible gameplay and a fantasy setting with theoretical and computational physics research to deliver an engaging and pedagogically rich experience.
It would be nice to add controls for mobile.
https://relativity-park-mobile.kshmir.chatgpt.site/
MIT Game Lab made a take on this back in 2012.
https://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/
Discussed a few times:
A Slower Speed of Light (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40332586 - May 2024 (59 comments)
What if we could reduce the speed of light - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26309517 - March 2021 (1 comment)
A Slower Speed of Light (2012) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17169262 - May 2018 (15 comments)
A Slower Speed of Light - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4731749 - Nov 2012 (105 comments)
"A Slower Speed of Light" Game Trailer - MIT Game Lab - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4714779 - Oct 2012 (1 comment)
I ran into this a while back when I was trying to design an RTS with information delay.
Loved that game!! Blew my mind in my 1st year physics classes
It seems like it's open source, and that it splits the game from the actual engine, so if someone wants to vibecode something of their own, they can take this as a base rather than vibing the physics from scratch, with the risks of messing the core mechanic from scratch.
I feel like a rule of vibecoding would be that you shouldn't do it for the core of a product, the quality is just not there yet. Even if it is, your core contribution should be what LLMs would train on, rather than being their output.
Played around with this one before. Very interesting. Thanks for linking it.
This is an awesome thought provoking question! My mind goes immediately to perhaps using this as a “time scaled” model to “observe” well known physical experiments and physical phenomenon if possible eg Young’s Experiment. Could that work / be useful? I am not a physicist but currious.
Too bad that it does not seem to work on mobile. I did not find any way to move around (add arrow buttons? Are we supposed to move around?) and if I double tap I change the direction in which I am looking but not very predictably. Maybe my phone is too slow.
There is a mobile version https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638121
In the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin some of the more advanced civilisations have the ability to change the speed of light locally with very interesting consequences for the that local space
I'm being vague to avoid spoilers, but I'll just say that it serves for a very interesting meditation on the concept of loss, and has stuck with me for the 5+ years since I read the trilogy.
Same here, the quote on time passing stuck with me quite a bit.
Pedantic note: The speed of light in glass, optical fiber and water is different from vacuum (much lower). On a certain scale, humanity also knows how to locally alter the speed of light though not to this extent.
It's not actually that the speed of light in a singlemode fiber optic cable is slower, but that the photons aren't travelling in a direct path down the fiber like water down a pipe. They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable.
Basically imagine like if you wanted to walk in a straight line between two points at both ends of a empty, long, narrow rectangular warehouse, and instead of walking in a straight line from A to B, you bounced off each wall at an angle (like a pool ball ricocheting off the bumpers) to get from one end to the other. Making your cumulative distance travelled on foot much greater.
>the photons aren't travelling in a direct path down the fiber like water down a pipe. They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable.
I know there are many other mundane technologies that can be described in sci-fi-ish way, but for some reason I'm particularly amazed by fiber transmitters being compact and cheap enough to be used in mass-produced killer drones.
Not just that but your average russian or ukrainian used expendable munition UAV that uses a singlemode fiber spool uses the cheapest and most mundane of fiber transceivers. There's no requirement for data rates above 1 Gbps, so ordinary SFP optics (not SFP+ or anything) are used, and the distances involved means it works fine with a extended range 1550nm to 1610nm reach thing that can nominally handle 40 to 80 km of fiber.
When I say data rates are way below 1 Gbps, it's because commonly you've got two things going on, a UART serial bridge from operator to flight controller board (same idea as what is implemented in RF with ExpressLRS, TBS Crossfire or similar), this is at most a Mbps or two. Then a possible live video feed over IP which will be easily under 50 Mbps.
The only thing a little bit out of the ordinary about them is that they're often bidirectional single strand optics with the prism built in, and tx/rx on different wavelengths (like 1550 and 1570, or 1550 and 1610, or whatever). Basically same thing that somebody lighting a very low cost metro dark fiber circuit might do to use only 1 strand for a gigabit or 10 Gbps link.
You can get a pretty good 1080p60 video at only 6mbps. Depends on how well the sender is encoding I guess, but it shouldn't be too much more than that.
I think the drones don't use a complex encoder because latency.
Some of the more basic ones are a very rudimentary NTSC analog video in to H264 encoder board that is tiny in weight and power consumption. They're using the same NTSC analog video-out forward flight cameras as are used in pure analog FPV. It's also not doing really 'complex' H264 encoding. Very similar to what you would get for the H264 encoder in a cheap $60 IP (RTSP) security camera.
There's more advanced ones that take video input from a MIPI digital video interface or native HDMI input.
Not just because latency but also because of cost, size, weight, power.
> They're bouncing off the interior walls of it at like a 45 degree angle billions/trillions of times before it reaches the other end of the cable
At the risk of exposing how little I remember from physics, doesn't light in a single mode fiber not bounce? (right about now I'm thinking that it's probably not great to think of photons bouncing because this is quantum level stuff, right? light is a wave, etc. gosh it's been a long time since I tried to really know any of this...)
The bouncing is more a metaphor, the refraction of light bending at an angle is sort of like how if you as an exterior observer look at a person who is standing waist deep in a very calm and clear swimming pool, their legs appear to be at a different position than their torso. Now imagine that 'bending' repeating trillions of times.
https://www.aflhyperscale.com/articles/how-do-fiber-optics-w...
Light’s still slower in glass than in a vacuum, though, or it wouldn’t refract at the transition between the two.
Right, and it varies with what type of glass, google "refractive index of glass".
If you google image search "refraction fiber optics" you'll get some decent pictorial examples of what I meant by photons bouncing off the interior walls of a 9/125 SM fiber optic strand billions/trillions of times on its path, I guess I was trying to write an extremely simplified explanation of refraction in something like a typical SMF-28e / G.652.D fiber.
You're conflating two very different meanings of "the speed of light". Confusingly, "speed of light" can refer to the universal constant, c, which does not change in glass, or to the speed that light travels in a medium. Here, we're talking about c. Relativistic effects are based only on c. The Three Body Problem trilogy plot device is also about c.
The book Redshift Rendezvous from 1990 explores this idea. (TBH the story is a little clunky, but if you like to see someone look at the physics in depth, it's pretty interesting.)
https://www.goodreads.com/en/book/show/1382560.Redshift_Rend...
I'm reading the clockwork rocket at the moment. It's a little different but it's set in a universe where the laws of physics / behaviour of light seems to be different to our own.
similarly, Einstein's Dreams is a collection of very short stories that explore different flavors of time. For example: time slows as you near the city center - those who approach it end up frozen forever like the event horizon of a black hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein's_Dreams
Fun fact: given that the meter is defined in terms of speed of light (and cesium frequency), "changing the speed of light" is a counterfactual impossibility, what is actually changing are some other fundamental constants.
If we realized tomorrow we had the speed of light slightly wrong, we wouldn't change the length of a meter, we would change the definition of the meter. We've redefined the meter thrice already.
Btw there is also this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Slower_Speed_of_Light
The first few Discworld books explore this a little bit too. I think pterry dropped the concept after that, I don't really remember it later in the series.
Darkness travels even faster than light on Discworld, because it has to be fast enough to get out of the way when light arrives.
What if the speed of light were 5 km/h?
Nothing would work, including us, because almost everything in physics and biochemistry works at higher speeds.
Whether or not the speeds at which things happen in physics, chemistry, etc are somehow absolute, or somehow inherently relative to c, and would speed up and slow down if c changed, is an interesting question.
Interesting experiment! What I missed (as a non-scientist) is a live explanation of what is happening while I'm navigating this virtual world and changing parameters. This would be a great way to learn!
Hmm, by some bug my back arrow first slows me down from approaching c, but then will sudddenly spead me back up (while going backwards), so I get stuck in a dark world. (Firefox on Linux).
Edit, maybe it's because the speed shift is so coarse I cross past 0 km/h from back to forwards and reverse too fast...
Other than this, very very nice. Love this kind of thing for developing intuiting outside the normal range in which we experience the laws of Physics. Well done.
> my back arrow first slows me down
That's exactly what would happen ins space.
On some more testing, I don't seem to alter direction, just suddenly start to accelerate again. Ah well, it worked mostly.
The part you're excluding with "mostly" is still just the laws of physics. And it works according to those.
I think the old SciFi classic "Zone of Thought" and the other book which name escapes me now explorer this idea, although not 5Km/h.
To stop a 'blight' in the universe, some natural laws have to be changed wherever it starts to spread, is the story premise if memory serves me.
The third volume of « Three body problem » and its fan-written and author-approved sequel deal with those local physical constants changes !
"A Fire Upon the Deep" and "a Deepness in the Sky" by Vernor Vinge
Deepness in the Sky "programmer-archaeologist" will never come to pass because of LLMs :(
The Forever War series changes the speed of light at the end to mess with the mortals, not to prevent any calamity however.
The speed of light, wave-particle duality, and so on, always make me feel that the universe also has a "computing power"
Feature request: I'd like to ride the ferris wheel.
Very related Scott Manley video that discusses and simulates the same effects https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_g9EeT233Q
Which parts of this were ideas you came up with yourself?
It’s Astra ui and graphics. I recognise it after only having seen 3 examples…
Awesome, at 5 km/h it feels like I'm in a black hole. Time stops at the speed up light if I'm not wrong!
FWIW, the best traveling speed is 147000km/h, because the Doppler effect makes a red light appear green. ;)
Light doesn't have a "speed" as in the usual meaning of the word "speed". Talking about speed requires defining spatial distances and time durations, which are in turn defined or created by the phenomenon of light.
Light doesn't "travel". It's just an exchange of entangled photons creating the concept of time duration and distance.
So how do you explain that light can be slowed down?
The same way as we talk about it's speed and travel etc - using higher level human perceptions.
"What if the speed of light was 5 km/h?"
Website loads in few ms
Nahh it's not
This is awesome. I always think about this. As humans, we are very limited in what we can perceive and experience. A higher form of entity could have a completely different way of viewing nature and the world.
Just a thought experiment for you guys: imagine a bacteria that survives inside humans. It doesn't even know what a human is. For the bacteria, its entire world is simply the environment in which it lives. It doesn't know that we are living beings actively trying to maintain ourselves and survive.
Now, suppose a harmful bacteria enters our body, makes us sick, and we take medicine that kills all of them. From the bacteria's perspective, it could look like a natural disaster or some unexplained event in which they all suddenly get wiped out. They have no idea that a living being called a human actively tried to eliminate them using something called medicine, which was engineered specifically to kill them.
Similarly, what if our world, or nature itself, is part of some higher-level entity that we simply exist within? What if the reason for our deaths, natural calamities, and other events is something completely beyond our perception? Whatever we do, we may never be able to understand what is actually happening at that level, just as bacteria may never be able to understand that humans exist.
One thing that could potentially support this idea is self-regulation. We see self-regulating systems throughout nature, and these patterns seem to repeat at different scales. We ourselves are self-regulating organisms, and nature also has countless cycles and mechanisms that regulate themselves.
Maybe these patterns continue at scales we cannot perceive. We can observe certain things at the scale of humans, but we still don't fully understand what happens at the nano scale or on the scale of the universe. Perhaps there are higher levels of organization and self-regulation that we simply don't have the ability to perceive yet.
Of course, this is what the end of Men in Black shows.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKnpPCQyUec
But let me tell you another possibility. What if there is no nature, but just our perception of it.
Yea, tree falling in the forest and all that...stated more explicitly..
That is also very much possible, we can never know. Or maybe we can in the future. Only time can tell
Cogito ergo sum is still the only "barrier" for self-awareness, aka real knowledge.
Woah your reply feels very much like Deja Vu to me - my OP on X from months ago
Gitanjali GulveSehgal @gigi_sehgal Jun 22 Replying to @fermatslibrary Contrarian Takes: 1. We live in a “box” governed by the compute we are capable of. Perhaps the rockets are out there in a form we cannot observe. ( borrowing from Quantum Ruliad ). E.g What do bacteria think of us? Do we “exist” for them? Are we infrastructure or entities to them? Do they think we do not exist? We cannot see Neutrinos streaming thru our bodies but atleast we managed to figure out that they existed. Who knows what else exists that our senses and technology cannot perceive or reverse engineer existence of? 2. Perhaps they have remote observation capability, 3. Perhaps its a simulation we are in a space alien overlord’s lab 4. Perhaps the Men in Black wiped our memory each time we see them 5. What were those drones flying over DC? 6. Perhaps they are already here
The Schwarzschild radius is proportional to c^-2, so this would mean the Schwarzschild radius of the Earth would be about 400 billion km, and the Earth would be a black hole.
If you're allowed to change the speed of light, you can also change the gravitational constant G to compensate since the Schwarzschild radius is r = 2GM/c^2, where M is the mass of the object.
Feels like W goes back (instead of forwards like in an FPS), and S goes forward. Is that intended or just my keyboard being weird?
EDIT: ah, by setting 'Speed of light' parameter to 40km/hr I find it a bit more intuitive
I think it is an illusion because as you approach the speed of light everything in your wide view contracts to the front of where you are going, so it would seem like you are moving back. Stop, and you now appear closer. It's probably why you do not see this effect on sci fi films, instead they show the ship moving forward by streaking the stars showing through the window, which is more intuitive for our brains to understand.
You're not controlling an FPS character walking, you're controlling the 'throttle' of how fast you're moving fwd or backward. Holding it down increases speed.
Forward means light is hitting your eyes faster, making it look like the distance the light had to cross is condensed, meaning it looks further away.
Moving backwards slights the light hitting your eyes, to the point where you're moving away from the light, so everything goes black.
What you are observing is relativistic aberration. W does make your velocity increase in the forward direction.
This only works on a desktop? Is there any way to interact with it on a phone?
Well I'm not a physicist, but we all travel through time at the speed of light. With a much smaller speed of light, I think relativistic speeds would be much easier to achieve. I.e. you could age noticeably differently than your family on a solo car drive to get groceries.
The more accurate statement is that all objects have the same speed in spacetime. Time is just one dimension of spacetime and objects do not all travel along that dimension with the same speed. For example, an object travelling through space at close to the speed of light will have a speed along the time dimension close to zero.
Having said that... this is mostly a slogan and makes for good Youtube videos, but it falls apart the moment you subject it to even the most basic scrutiny. For one... it doesn't make sense to talk about a speed through time since speed is literally a measure of change with respect to time, so a change in time with respect to time doesn't make any sense.
But as a slogan, it captures the idea that motion through space and the rate of your own clock are tightly linked together.
>it doesn't make sense to talk about a speed through time
Only if you're talking about other people's clocks and not your own. Your own clock is one second per second, but someone else's may be slower or faster relative.
Once again, just subject your slogan to some basic scrutiny. Your own clock is one second per second, which is a pure number, 1... that's not a speed.
So then you say take someone else's clock and compare it to your own clock, but that is still just a pure number. A speed is not a number, it has units like meters per second. A ratio of two clocks has no units at all, the units cancel. Whatever number you get, 3 or 9, it's just a factor by which two clocks disagree. You can absolutely interpret this ratio as a rate, but that doesn't make it a speed.
And a speed is exactly what the slogan needs, because the diagram/geometry it's using involves a right angled triangle where on one side of the triangle is your speed through space, and on the other side of the triangle is your speed through time, and the hypotenuse of the triangle is fixed at c (since every object travels through spacetime at this fixed speed).
For that to mean anything both sides have to be the same kind of quantity. You can't put meters per second on one side and a bare number on the other and call it a triangle. Nor can you patch it by multiplying the ratio by c to give it units, because the thing you get then grows as you speed up instead of shrinking. Either it has the right units and the wrong behavior, or the right behavior and no units at all. There's no version of this geometry that produces a consistent picture.
Are you trying to tell me time is relative?
As understood by general relativity, it actually is. There is no absolute time.
You can say the age of the universe is 14 billion years, but that's in our reference frame.
In another reference frame it may be a different number.
I'm being flippant
well the meter and the kilogram themselves are either completely or partially defined by the speed of light. its a fundamental constant that a large portion of nature depends on, so i doubt such surgical changes could be realized.
For some reason I get a black screen in Safari. Renders ok in Brave on the same MacBook Pro.
The most obvious thing would be that we and other creatures would have sight as a secondary sense. If light went that slowly we would have to develop other ways of navigating the world, such as echolocation, smell or touch.
This is what it's like with my new glasses
This looks oddly similar to a psychedelic trip.
So it's without collisions, I take it?
I got confused by the premise. To the fully blind person, the speed of light does not matter. He'll hit the object 5 meters away from him regardless if he sees it or not (as will everyone else, but it'll look weird).
Why are the lamp posts blinking in a weird way?
I think that light coming from different parts of the lamp arrives at different times. So if the lamp turns off, you see the part closest to you go black first.
See also https://gamelab.mit.edu/games/a-slower-speed-of-light/, a 2012 game that did the same thing
There's a great demo video of it as well.
https://youtu.be/uu7jA8EHi_0
Some of the details in the paper are super cool. Since the game pulls "c" down to near walking speed, you receive photons at different rates depending on their direction relative to your motion (relativistic aberration / searchlight effect) resulting in neat visual shifts.
I don't usually download games, but I might have to make an exception just to try it out.
What if the speed of light was 2c instead of c? Would that change anything for us?
Less latency in multiplayer games or Zoom calls. Because light can travel around the Earth 7 times in one second, that means one roundtrip to a server on the other side of the world must take ~140 ms (1/7th of a second) which is a timescale you are able to feel. That's lag in multiplayer games. I'm constantly amazed that the reason why multiplayer client-side prediction strategies like rollback netcode exist is because light is slow enough on a human scale that we actually have to architect around it. Light is surprisingly slow in some ways.
The universe would look very different probably.
So weird, after visiting, my mouse icon disappears!
Then we will never be able to see aliens again.
in the real world if the speed of light was 5 km, we'd probably be a lot smaller!
Um, speed of light and gravity are so fundamentally linked that nothing you see would look like that. Just changing speed of light but not adjusting anything else makes little sense.
Now I'm curious what the evolutionary ramifications of this would be.
I don’t quite get the assumptions here. If c were actually 5 km/h, causal influences would propagate much more slowly. With G unchanged, planets and stars at their current masses and sizes would lie within their Schwarzschild radii. Any rock greater that 1.5km in radius is a blackhole. With c reduced to 5 km/h, the black-hole threshold would correspond to a surface escape speed of just 5 km/h. Holding the other relevant constants fixed would also radically alter atomic structure and chemistry. It seems like a lot would change before we could be around to observe the cool redshifts. Is the reduced c being applied only to the visual effects?
cool idea, but being vibe coded doesn't inspire much confidence on whether the math or author subject understanding is correct.
As such I wouldn't base my understanding on the subject on this as-is. Which is a shame as, if it was actually hand coded I might actually use this to learn relativity, something which would otherwise be out of my reach.
A note on source code, I think committing the actual javascript code and such is a mistake at the level of committing compiled binaries to a repo. It's more useful, correct and genuine to upload the prompts used, which are the source code that generates the target code, and upon which the author and others can study and modify the program.
That said, as an idea, it reminds me of Kay's dynabook example ( https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/800193.1971922 ) :
"Here look." Her fingers started to fly on the DynaBook's keyboard, altering the program she had·written several weeks before .. You justact as though the ship is pointed towards the sun and add speed!· As she spoke her ship started to fall, but not towards the sun. Oh no!..·"
If we want to move closer to that ideal, of interactive education, I don't think we can just apply the old forms and use the LLM to aid one in being the allmighty program-creator, the LLM needs to be placed at the service of the user. I can't help but seeing the usage of LLMs to generate code as misplacing this power. It's as if a new powerful metal were discovered and smiths can only think about making hammers and foundries and casts with that metal, considering it too valuable to actually use it for the products being smithed.
Would mean the biomolecular computers would be faster than electronics.
Electronics wouldnt work at all.
Can't see your website but I would think everything you see would have so much latency it would be worse than today's internet with dialup using 2GB of RAM on an Atom CPU ;)
Next step, taking into account effects of acceleration according to general relativity.
this is really great
I think this is not possible. There is most likely a reason as to why light has this speed. Naturally it must be tied to energy and interaction of energy with other things. I also don't think "human speeds" applies here because it assumes that humans were decoupled from this, which I don't think we are at all. Besides, humans also use fairly fast things once you go down to the level of molecular biology and chemistry; the chromophore 11-cis-retinal is quite fast in its changes, for instance, and various enzymatic reactions such as by the carbonic anhydrase - up to 10⁶ reactions per second for the latter (assuming there is a sufficient amount of substrate available). That's not slow.
You wouldn’t be able to see shit OP