Why we cannot go faster than light - BBC REEL

The Universe has a speed limit and it seems there is no way around it.
For more videos from BBC REEL visit: www.bbc.com/reel/
#bbcreel #bbc #bbcnews

[@WilliamDunn1]

The suggestion that you could get to any part of the universe in one lifetime ignores the fact that space itself is expanding, in some areas faster than the speed of light

[@markraishbrook]

That's not actually correct. What we measure as velocity in galaxies is not actually the galaxies moving, it’s the space in between them getting larger. There’s nothing actually traveling faster than light, hence Einstein’s theory of relativity - which tells us nothing can move faster than light - is not being violated.

[@chandniku1770]

General relativity says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light between two points in the universe but that doesn't stop the universe from expanding faster than the speed of light.

[@jasonhacker6614]

not only could you travel to any part of the universe by going at light speed, since expansion and movement of space is what is causing movement faster than light, but it would feel instantaneous to the traveler. And not only that, but movement, contraction and dilation of space is the basis behind warp travel, allowing a ship to effectively travel faster than light.

[@valentinaselektrikas]

Star trek invented warp engines to brake theoretical light-speed limit by bending space. To bend space you need huge mass, for example like a planet mass.

[@TheCaptainSplatter]

Ya but it doesn't have to be at that size. A black hole generator would give you that planet size mass at only the size of a fingernail.

[@maxschut7093]

Yeah except at the same time they nonchalantly could monitor other vessels that we in warp or NOT IN WARP. Oops.

[@Finn-OleHertz]

actually NO. you need negative mass and something to control a matter-antimatter reaction safely.

[@jholla125]

“Nothing moves faster than light” Quantum Entanglement enters the chat

[@johnnyj2k8]

They are just making claims without substantiating any real science. This video is about 40% accurate, basically the buzz feed of physics

[@WokeandProud]

Explain how?

[@santiagoabliterature]

whats a better option?

[@cardiaccoder9622]

There are a plethora of better videos on the subject

[@edwardwinstanley5879]

Yeah the part about the shadow going faster than light is not true

[@bonesaw36]

Bababa

[@MicrowaveBackground]

Why's everyone swaying like they're pissed

[@fazegarlic1233]

Cuz he makes no sense

[@gregoryviper]

@@fazegarlic1233 He made sense to me...

[@DMSJagXK]

As an object moves faster, its inertial mass increases and therefore as it gets faster, a greater amount of energy is needed for each additional 1m/s increase in speed. There isn’t enough energy in the Universe to get even a single electron to the speed of light.

The moon shadow puppets idea broke my brain.

[@TommyMissus]

3:50 faster than light wouldn't be going back in time tho? Wouldn't you just SEE things in reverse? Doesn't mean they're going back in time it just appears to be to our perspective

[@ericgolightly8450]

You would see things before they happen, and message someone about it.

[@TommyMissus]

@@ericgolightly8450 no u shouldn't see things BEFORE the happen, you would catch up to light from the past. So everything would appear to go in reverse. But nothing ACTUALLY changing. It's just your POV perspective

[@iamFSRL]

Why would you see things in reverse? Entropy means nothing is going from its current state to a state of less disarray, always towards a state of more disarray.

[@PRYZMINDLESS786]

Can we still go the same speed as light

[@RandomGerman8008]

Yes. It's called light speed travel. We just don't have the tech to do it yet. Wait until the end of the century. Pretty sure we will have it by then.

[@penguin9941]

No. The comment above is wrong

[@rzk3190]

I doubt it tbh. We will probably reach close to it maybe about 65/70% at a stretch, in the very far future. But to reach the speed of light or even 90% of it, its near enough impossible

[@RandomGerman8008]

@@rzk3190 + there is already a camera built to capture light as it is moving to study it's speed. If humans can create a camera to accomplish that, they can do the same with a spaceship.

[@АннаАлексеенко-о4ы]

we wont reach 10% speed of light, 2 nuetron stars collided into each other and still realised 65% the speed of light, imagine the power you have to get to have mass go at speed of light

[@hordebucket8971]

Well then this is the real reason why we have not been visited by aliens 🤣

[@guillermogouldburn763]

"You did it! You bastards!" Charlton Heston in the iconic scene with the statue of liberty ruins on the beach.

[@elisampley7598]

So what if you could cancel out mass? If a flashlight had zero mass, and you turned it on and let it go. It would fly off at the speed of light. Being propelled by the photons.

[@marksimpson2321]

Thelight the flashlight produces travels at the soeed of light in a vacuum. The flashlight itself has mass so it can't.

[@elisampley7598]

@@marksimpson2321 bruh... Read my comment. I just said if a flashlight has ZERO MASS. Then it would fly off at the speed of light using light as a form of propulsion. The problem of speed of light travel is solved by lowering the mass of the craft. Not building a huge engine.

[@williamdbp8252]

@@elisampley7598cant cancel out mass, would require negative mass or smth then u could just use that instead

[@stephentoons]

the shadow over the moon thing is wrong. the change in theleading and trailing edge position of the shadow propogates to the moon at the speed of light

[@markbaranyai4479]

what about the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole?

[@joegodwin890]

I thought this was cool. I liked the voices.

[@ujjwalbhattarai8670]

Light is not fast our eyes sees faster than anything. Light is old according to distance in comparison to your eyes. Light is billions years late when compared to stars distance. 8:20 minutes late when compare with our eyes seeing capacity.

[@rudyharyanto3590]

1000 years ago Iron can't fly

[@papaidoceuteamamuito5975]

who said that

[@fazegarlic1233]

Facts, now we got plains and rockets, this guy makes no sense, stupid guy talk about radiation when evolution is still going on, and we can use the energy of the sun

[@jinjunliu2401]

@@fazegarlic1233 Lol, radiation as in energy being emitted from your spaceship as you lose tons of energy and if you accept the light postulate (and relativity principle, which also holds true for classical mechanics as far as we know) it follows from the mathematics that you cannot go from less than speed of light to speed of light or more by accelerating normally then there's this star trek thing about warping spacetime but that's just a fun idea at the moment

[@Daniel-jc1wd]

Pure conjecture...thx for sharing ✌

[@ultimateost4004]

you need a fusion reactor to get infinit energy

[@ericgolightly8450]

Nothing has infinite energy.

[@johnkingangimwithiga]

WHAT DO YOU MEAN WE TRAVEL THE SPEED OF LIGHT

[@Sabinathor]

we can, outside space-time.

[@patatokeftes6914]

but if you had a bow that spreads thousands of light years from one side to the other....and a super massive human to use it....wouldn't the arrow go as fast as light maybe even faster????

[@ericgolightly8450]

No, the arrow would quickly accelerate to nearly the speed of light, but it wouldn't surpass it.

[@ThatCoolGuy12]

I wouldn't say never. There's theories that unknown subatomic particles from dark matter could have physical attributes to make something of the sort possible. Only 5% of 'ordinary/normal' matter exists, the rest is mostly dark matter and dark energy, which we barely understand the laws of physics behind.

[@tesstoby]

Prince Andrew's reputation travels faster than light.

[@lovezuuu]

What if you made light tangible and rode it ?

[@Piadoroshi]

What about if you became the light?

[@stefanc4520]

Would this mean that people that exercise LITERALLY have more time???

[@EddieWOJ]

If something travelling faster than the speed of light needs an infinite amount of energy to slow it down, but produces massive levels of nuclear radiation, then you could harness that energy to take something up to the speed of light, as you would have an infinite nuclear power source. So give me a few minutes whilst I build a tachyon displacement device that will in turn create multiple supernovas in a controlled graviton chamber to produce the energy required to power my warp core propulsion system that will in turn help me reach the speed of light. I just need someone to build the space ship for me, I’m no good with a welder.

[@sounsure9108]

I think you just described the wrap core/ field thing

[@gristly_knuckle]

Wow Star Trek really got it wrong.

[@thesmartaspiranttsa5845]

The more you dig in, The more you get lost in uncertainty

[@steinrich56]

too much giggling by a couple of amateurs.......

[@punyapanchal8043]

?

[@isacvalette8623]

What?

[@jr5389]

Space is going FTLS …🎉 …🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿😎

[@mickymtl]

You forgot to add the property of consciousness. All scientists know that if YOU are travelling close to the speed of light, for "you" (consciousness) time appears normal and doesn't slow down, your mass is still the same, and you do seem to shrink in size (relative to the direction you are travelling) . BONUS: if you turn your headlights on, light will travel at light speed away from you. BONUS#2: we do not know our true speed in the universe, because everything is moving, how fast, we'll never know.

[@fazegarlic1233]

Do make sense

[@jinbiezel683]

I don't know why you said that if you could go close to the speed of light say .99c then you could go anywhere in the universe in one humans lifetime. I understand the time dilation, but that doesn't account for the fact that the observable universe is 10's of billions of light years across. Even if you approached light speed, even .99c, you still would only be able to travel to places that are within a humans lifetime in relation to their light year distance from you. Not to mention the fact that you would Never be able to go beyond our own local group because anything past that is being pushed away from us by dark energy faster than the speed of light. So that statement was highly inaccurate.

[@Nopanop]

Get to the answer nt your childhood

[@BlizardMedia]

👽

[@rishidutta09]

We cant travel faster than light because our universe is already expanding faster than light.Imagine a train traveling 100 km per hour and you are running behind the train at 100 km per hour you will never catch the train.

[@barabbasrosebud9282]

Nice try and you're right. But the universe isn't actually expanding, reports by non-scientists (the relativity ignorant) to the contrary. All galaxies exhibit a red-shift, except for the Andromeda galaxy which exhibits a blue-shift, but no conclusions can be drawn by this fact alone. The red shift means either A. acceleration* or B. curvature* with no objective way of determining which. For example: if you were on the surface of a semi-rigid transparent sphere with a gravitational center your weight would cause a concavity and anything close enough to you to be affected would exhibit a blue shift due to the recurvature you've caused while everything else would exhibit a red shift due to the inherent convexity or decurvature of a sphere. However, since the term universe means "everything" the universe cannot logically be expanding, so B is the only logical answer. Therefore, the galaxies are in a Static Curved Relationship (SCR) viz. there is zero expansion or contraction of the universe, but only a relative positioning caused by the Milky Way's gravity. In addition, if you total the apparent expansion of all the red-shifted galaxies with the total contraction of all the local blue-shifted galaxies, (it's obvious that other galaxies exhibit blue-shifts relative to their nearest neighbours) they will be in complete equilibrium viz. remote expansion and local contraction are in balance resulting in a net zero change. Now if the Andromeda galaxy were exhibiting a red-shift like all the other galaxies then the "universe" would have a real net expansion and wouldn't, in consequence, logically be the "universe". In conclusion, the universe is in a "Dynamic Equilibrium" with the speed of light (in vacuo) fixed due to the fixed absolute size of the universe itself... You're right because the update speed or refresh rate of the universe viz. the Plank Second linearized ("c") cannot be "caught up to" or exceeded by any N.B. visible object. * Note: Acceleration and curvature are inherently synonymous. However, if there is no net, absolute, or only a relative motion, acceleration is more accurately/specifically described as curvature.

[@rishidutta09]

@@barabbasrosebud9282 make a video on it

[@Auras2002]

Yes, we can.

[@mountains889]

bet there would've been a video just like this before we broke the speed of sound :)

[@IloveElsaofArendelle]

Enterprise with exhaust plumes?? Really??? And you want to explain FTL travel??

[@twixxtro]

This is why i bought a 120hz screen:

[@azizsaad2543]

Another bs explanation

[@sylvainbrosseau6239]

These guys still think in terms of propulsion... silly. First, you never travel space with propulsion (action-reaction principle). It's like using a one gear baby bicycle to travel around the world. Second, if you're serious traveling the cosmos, you need to think in terms of millions of time faster than speed of light if you're to go to Andromeda (closest galaxy to us) let alone distant galaxies. Or even multiple time speed of light (like 100) if you want to get to Alpha Centori (closest solar system to us) and get there in a reasonable few weeks). It is possible to go faster than light but it's not even the best solution if you're to really travel the cosmos. Warp speed is a good start and these guys didn't even catch up to this method.

[@primodernious]

you confuse two different things that have nothing to do with each other. a change in force of angular momentum is not the same as a change in speed of the accelerating body. the mass does not increase with speed. only the gyroscopic angular force increases with speed. its the steering that is eczpensive not the linear acceleration. to prove the mass did not icrease with speed you can take a car at the top of a weight at the top of a trailer and let that trailer travel at some speed and then check the weight on the car. if the car had increased in real mass the weight would also increase. as far as i know it does not change at all. the weight of the car remain the same. it means that force of momentum and mass is two different things that have been confused to be one and the same by science. that is where the nonsense of time dilation comes in. your 5 senses is not lying to you. only a scientists can make you disbelieve in your own sense in faviour of scientifc fables.

[@takackman9325]

See. It's this type of rhetoric that limits us. Instead of it's impossible say "it would be possible if"

[@setoman1]

Yes, yes we can. Just depends how you measure the "speed of light". Light moves at different speeds through different mediums.

[@ThatCoolGuy12]

You're right, but given references to Space Travel and Star Trek, it's pretty clear they mean inside a vaccum.

[@luismorelos1334]

Wtf no it doesnt. One of the main things einstein wanted to prove was that light travels the same for everyone, even if time has to change in order for this to happen. The speed of light is not relative

[@setoman1]

Bread flovored bread Well, I guess he didn't fully understand how optics work.

[@fazegarlic1233]

@@luismorelos1334 ur wrong, we just need the energy to do so, like today we use solar panels and they help us extract energy from the sun light ,In the near future we will be advance and build more advanced techniques to extract the energy of our star

[@luismorelos1334]

@@fazegarlic1233 and how does that change the speed of light exactly?

[@RandomGerman8008]

Wrong again BBC! We can infact go faster than the speed of light. Scientists hsve already created a camera capable of capturing the phenomenon. If the flash of a camera can go fast enough to capture light moving, then so can we!

[@TaverrVance]

It works by decreasing the speed of light and not by being faster than light in operation.

[@RandomGerman8008]

@@TaverrVance + Unless your talking about a slow motion camera setting, I don't follow your logic. Slowing down the speed of light is scientifically impossible. You can't change the speed light travels anymore than sound. You can only capture it as it is and hope you have the equipment strong enough to monitor it. As scientists have done.

[@cohnjena2246]

Deutsche Hierarchie I hope no one reads this comment. It's just plain wrong and clearly you know nothing about physics.

[@RandomGerman8008]

@@cohnjena2246 + I clearly know plenty as I have just described in detail how they work.

[@cohnjena2246]

Deutsche Hierarchie haha okay, no point in arguing with you

[@dr20231may]

Hahahahhhahahhahahaha

[@govindbisen388]

We can I have created a theory.

[@lukemurray3854]

Yea almost everything we do today in the area of entertainment, travel, culture, lifestyle and technology in general was "impossible" mostly not even imaginable only 200 years ago. Lol "It's impossible to have enough energy to go that fast". Yea today, no one knows what will be 200 years from now. When are these people going to learn that things are only impossible because no one has found out how to do it yet not because there is no way to do it. Seriously this movie is like a guy saying to a girl (200 years ago) No you cannot go to the moon it is simply impossible. Or no you can not send data almost instantly across the globe to billions of other people at the same time all connected with a handheld device. It's simply impossible, NO! It's unimaginable, not impossible!

[@IamAWESOME3980]

God said no matter can reach light speed and so it is ever thus.

[@maxigamer4776]

I’m the 1000th sub, can i get a prize or some sort of reward, thanks

[@sharmainejeanmapalo8088]

Why is this video so annoying? so, much giggling.

[@johncovered311]

It is very easy to go faster than the speed of light. If you know how to do it. Just don't be stupid and start telling everyone it is impossible to travel more than the speed of light, then no one will try it. Nature has already a way of telling us we can travel more than the speed of light. The bible says we can live up to 969 years. If it seems impossible to you. Then you do not know my God or you do not have God. People who do not have God does not have faith. Then you do not have hope. Then you're hopeless.

[@howcrom6528]

I thought this was great how I wish my oldl days at school explained things in such a practical way.....

[@048et012]

I think space itself is moving faster than the speed of light. That's why its dark

[@jacobdonnarhiantalleyanput8186]

We know. ❤. Jacobs Ladder. Is. ❤. Belt. ❤. Plankton. ❤.

[@drjones1736]

I kinda regret wondering about this, I’ll just accept you can’t because it’s complicated….

[@jasonhacker6614]

In star trek, they don't actually travel faster than light. They use warp travel, so the light speed limit doesn't mean that star trek warp travel cannot happen

[@OperationDx1]

In Star Trek they where not traveling using conventional means. The warp drive created a warp bubble that bypassed the space / time problem. However this is not been proven possible and would also require a massive amount of energy. Like the building blocks of the universe kind of energy.

[@lukemurray3854]

Very true! Just because it has not been proven possible does not mean it isn't. The Romans did not believe it was possible to travel to the moon. Did not make it impossible, it just was not proven to be possible at the time. That is what a lot of people making "it's impossible" claims need to understand.

[@sounsure9108]

Energy = warp core ( it was radioactive)

[@theob1455]

Before we broke past the speed of sound, scientists said you couldn’t and you’d hit a wall of air. Is this not history repeating itself?

[@qwato]

True and the hypothesis of Einstein is not a theory it was based on a thought experiment and so far scientists are still trying to prove whether it is true but that doesn't mean that his speed relativity isn't true which is accounted for in GPS systems.

[@Eric-zs6rd]

First that's not true and many things had been known even in ancient times to go faster than sound. And secondly the speed of sound and the speed of light are not at all the same thing. The speed of sound in air is an arbitrary speed. The speed of light has nothing to do with light at all, it's the speed of causality and which all things with 0 mass and positive energy move. The equations in physics show that if C wasn't C and speed had no upper limit, it would become impossible for mass, space, or time to even exist.

[@stewiesaidthat]

@@Eric-zs6rd First of all, that isn't even true. Causality is instantaneous. It's the EFFECT that travels at the speed of sound or light or whatever. The speed of light is c because of the amount of vacuum energy available in which to propagate the EM wave. In the early universe, when energy was much more denser, the EM wave propagated throughout space at a much faster speed - Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. As stars and black holes formed, the energy density decreased resulting in a slower speed of light.

[@ericgolightly8450]

​@@stewiesaidthat Proof?

[@shukitheconscious3150]

I'm pretty sure back then they thought sea and air travel were impossible until they achieved it. It's possible, we just don't know how yet.

[@arianz1791]

Did you not just listen?

[@ericgolightly8450]

​@@arianz1791 You need a loophole in physics. An example is warping space-time around an object so that space just carries it without it needing to move. People like Alcubierre, Natario, Harold White, and Broeck have worked on warp drives.

[@edmarespaniola4241]

wishful thinking

[@shukitheconscious3150]

@@edmarespaniola4241 better to hope for the impossible than gloom at the inevitable

[@edmarespaniola4241]

@@shukitheconscious3150 i rolled my eyes so hard i almost saw brain matter. The solar system itself have enough stuff inside we could spend a lot of our time studying it. And do you really have to go ftl to explore the rest of the Galaxy? Slower-than-light in my opinion is more plausible last time i checked. No need to either hope or gloom at reality.

[@fogh1983]

I would like to hear more about the shadow puppet and how it goes faster than light. I am not convinced this is true, think about it in a slower setting, like if you are watering the moon with a giant watering can and put fingers under the stream to make water “shadow” puppets, the drops will not fall where your hand is, moving it around will let drops fall, but these drops would have to travel from the giant can to the surface - taking time. Now think of the water drops as being darkness in the shadow puppet example, how can darkness travel faster than light?

[@mackfisher9373]

Darkness doesn't travel faster than light because darkness is nothing. You can do some more research about things like virtual particles that possibly exist in that "darkness" you talk about with is really interesting.

[@Dolores5000]

Unless you exist outside causality

[@newchannel1106]

If I were a scientist, I would rather get out of the community that aimed to achieve the speed of light, and tell them until now we were are pretty much did not understand 80% our body, and don't focus on achieving it because it will diminish our potential to discover a new possible way. If we can move a space craft from earth to pluto(the sad disowned planet to a piece of debris claimed by human) by just 1 month, that already a feat of engineering. I just wonder if every nation that invest in space industry or pioneer it just use billion to argue at each other.

[@Stopinvadingmyhardware]

Dude, seriously, why do you want to? There’s no where else to go, and if humans are any indication of how brutal existence is, you’re not going to survive any “alien” encounter.

[@johndevine6687]

It does not exist. You are confused. Electro magnetic levitation exists. With electromagnetic levitation one can speed a ship, or anything else, over obstacles at what might appear to be something nearly instantaneous, so called ‘light speeds’.

[@buckchile614]

So that's why I can't hit the bed before the light goes out

[@Marc816]

We most certainly will travel faster than light some day, given enough scientific research in that area. After all, it was once said that mankind would never be able to fly, and that it was impossible to build a boat that would travel underwater. The bottom line.......THERE ARE TOO MANY NAYSAYERS IN OUR SOCIETY!!!!!!!

[@sounsure9108]

I wonder if Isaac Asimov’s jump ships would’ve any more possible than warp drive

[@Adrian-uq9mq]

what a load of crap

[@kassimissa6022]

I think its possible if they use negative energy.

[@barabbasrosebud9282]

Totally wrong. The reason why you can't go faster than light is very simple i.e. the speed of light in vacuo or "c" (~670,000,000 mph) is the speed at which the universe is refreshed, linearized.

[@WintrWolf]

It's disapointting that bbc release this kind of video like they know it all and got whole got universe figured out. I think 1000 years ago if you tell me human are going to explore the mars and moon they will say the same thing it's impossible.

[@JonathanJollimore-w9v]

Lowest mass object in the universe

[@nicholasmartin534]

He said words, but me brain no liked it.

[@nif82]

Is this the guy from gameranx

[@its_nozie1439]

Where does space get the energy to expand faster than light?

[@ma-bl6eg]

then how does the flash do it

[@johnhacsi178]

No

[@randybaumery5090]

Yet...

[@sounsure9108]

In Star Trek they had solved the time problem, the same amount of time passed on the ship as on planets no matter the speed

[@ericgolightly8450]

The ship does not move when in warp. Space-time is warped around it to carry it.

[@darexxdarexx]

I agre :)

[@stephentoons]

these are reasons, but the basic reason is that every object is in constant motion in space-time at a single constant speed which is the speed of light. all motion you perceive in 3d space is relative motion and pretty much imaginary

[@douglasb5046]

What about progressively reducing our mass as we approach speed of light?

[@AMC2283]

mass increases infinitely as you approach c

[@Seventh7Art]

If we could reach the speed of light, we would not be travelling at 300k km per second from our point of view. We would be travelling at INFINITE speed, from our point of view.

[@Lok783]

That kind of irrelevant because the higgs field won't allow it. Everything is moving at the speed of light the higgs field gives everything mass slowing things down, if you go faster then light you would lose mass and fly apart. The closer you get to the speed of light the closer you become to breaking the effects of the higgs field holding your molecular structure together, the higgs field has to work twice as hard to slow you down requiring infinite energy thefore you would disintegrate. The only way you can go faster then light is if space is moving faster then light.

[@0HARE]

Wow, we’re obviously stuck in time. Well, maybe not really STUCK, but surely in the time equivalent of molasses.

[@mastergems5145]

Technically moving at the speed of light is one aspect. We have bending time and space to decrease distance. We have matter transportation which is another.

[@primodernious]

when you travel faster than light the object becomes invisible as the object stop reflecting light at that speed. the so called equal to sonic boom would be a light trail that just stops as the object become invisible.

[@jasondoller9875]

I am so disappointed in this, mostly because of how wrong they get stuff. If it was just a commentary on relativity and the speed of light it would be really educational. But it's not. It decided to bring star trek into things, and that's where things go badly sideways. Ships in the Star Trek universe don't actually go faster than the speed of light. They use warp drives. A warp drive does not currently exist, but the science behind it is (theoretically) sound. A warp drive allows you to EFFECTIVELY travel FTL (faster than light) without ACTUALLY travelling FTL. It does this by "punching a hole" through space-time and travelling through the "hole". Imagine the universe as a balloon. Now, identify two points on opposite sides of the balloon. Warp the balloon (squeeze it) until the two points are as close together as you can get them. Now imagine travelling from the one point to the other. Looking at the surface of the balloon, you will appear to have travelled the (long) distance from one side to the other, when in reality you travelled the much smaller distance between the two points you warped together. If the balloon was large enough, you will have travelled a distance so large in a time so small that your average speed will appear to be faster than the speed of light, but in reality you only travelled the much smaller warped distance at sublight speeds. Another area where this video gets things wrong is talking about sending signals or messages FTL. Lets forget, for a second, Star Trek using warp relay stations to accomplish this, because there is something even better - Quantum entanglement. We know that quantum entanglement exists, and very simply (VERY simply) what it does is create two particles that are 'linked' to each other in such a way that one particle mirrors the other - what happens to one particle happens to the other, even when they are separated by vast distances (as I said, this is VERY simplified, but it worjs to illustrate a point). Theoretically, if you have a quantum entangled pair, you can send messages (signals) across the pair by finding a way to encode information into the movement of the pair. This does not yet exist, and is purely theoretical, but the science behind it is well understood and pretty sound (for a theory).

[@CoinHELPu]

I can't believe you didn't get more thumbs up for this comment. A very good correction!

[@babaaurhum7449]

The universe expands faster then light!

[@gunjchowwiwat8357]

We can't go faster than light!

[@abhinnverma2142]

Well not the universe But space time It's the base on which the universe is on No material object (anything with mass) can do at the speed of light

[@fazegarlic1233]

@@gunjchowwiwat8357 yes we can, years ago people didn’t believe in a lot of things, today we are doing all the impossible

[@arifstar34]

SIMPLE SCIENCE ANY ACTION REQUIRES A MOVEMENT THAT INCLUDES SLOWING DOWN

[@glitchyt3626]

What I hear is that object that will not move is the planet you can't see in your path.

[@agentduck13]

I think this sounds like the guy from Khans academy. Isnt he?

[@russhamilton3800]

Oh brother... Infinite energy still has to work over the course of time. At the speed of light all time is stopped so if you understand the formula for velocity and T equals 0. You begin to see the problem.

[@fazegarlic1233]

We can extract the energy of the sun and use it, but that will happen in the future of human exploration, this guy in the video makes no sense

[@cardiaccoder9622]

All of this feel so lazy and boring. Like something a high schooler would make

[@user_ytndslk]

No! We cannot go faster than light because we cannot see where we’re going once we are beyond light 💡

[@celineragnarto6546]

That's true thats like we're stopping time as well

[@devimv5447]

Fun fact : actually time travels faster than light.. light got second rank. Lol

[@greyface3055]

Saying what we cannot do in science is the opposite of a explorative scientific mind. Saying we cannot go faster then light right now in this time is true, but saying it is impossible is closed minded. Who are you to say what we can and cannot do in thousand or a million years.

[@robdas1]

"If you could send signals going faster than the speed of light, then you could send information back in time." That seems like a jump in logic. I don't see how one follows from the other.

[@ericgolightly8450]

You should look at a space-time diagram when someone goes faster than light. Because of time dilation, the traveler would see things in a different order, and message someone stationary about the future before it happens.