# What is the maximum speed we can travel at through space?

#### Mart943

What is the maximum speed we can travel through space?

#### billslugg

The laws of physics limit speed to the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s exactly. The meter is based upon the speed of light which is based on the second which is the amount of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions of the cesium-133 atom.

Last edited:
COLGeek

#### Mart943

The laws of physics limit speed to the speed of light, 299,792,458 m/s exactly. The meter is based upon the speed of light which is based on the second which is the amount of time it takes for 9,192,631,770 unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transitions of the cesium-133 atom.
Can you tell me what that is relative too?

#### billslugg

The speed of light, in a vacuum, is the same relative to any observer in an inertial (non-accelerating) frame of reference.
If the source is moving, their clock is running slower due to relativity. If the receiver is moving, space is Lorentz contracted. Both effects combine to make it such that no matter how fast the source or the observer are moving, each one measures the speed of a light beam to be exactly c.

Mart943

#### Mart943

Thank you for the enlightenment. Now another question on the same subject.
What or how is the maximum speed limited from going faster? I am referring to a physical object rather than light. The speed of light would appear to be merely a form of measurement of speed. If an object went faster than the speed of light it would perhaps split in 2 time zones?

#### billslugg

As an object with rest mass goes faster, it becomed endowed with more and more kinetic energy. Energy has mass, thus the object becomes more massive. This is "relativistic mass" and must be accelerated along with the rest mass. More mass requires more energy to accelerate thus becomes even more massive. If the object were to reach the speed of light it would be infinitely massive which is not possible, thus it cannot reach or exceed c.

Uhm!

#### Pogo

Yeah, it's a hard thing to wrap your head around, but, that's what relativity indicates. It's even been shown: a few years ago, a single nucleus (I forget what element) was detected that had a kinetic energy equivalent to a baseball pitch, doing the math, it relativistic mass pretty much agreed with relativity. So, it would take you humongous amounts of fuel to accelerate to anywhere near a small fraction of c.

Mart943

#### Mart943

So, there is reflected light and generated light? Our sun generates light, which our earth reflects. That is what I was taught. Am I correct in interpreting you to mean that our earth also generates light of its own accord? Also, all mass will generate its own light. After all, everything is traveling and not all in the same direction.

#### billslugg

Every object generates electromagnetic waves of a frequency depending on the temperature of the object.
The Sun generates EM waves in the visible spectrum since it is at 5,000°K. The Earth generates EM waves in the far infrared at 9 microns due to its temperature
of 20°C.
The ice cold deep sky at 3K radiates in the millimeter radio spectrum.
All objects can reflect light, to varying degrees.
As an object goes faster and faster and gains kinetic energy, it does not change temperature as measured by those on the object.
Those people seeing the object coming towards them see the light blue shifted to a higher temperature.
Those seeing it recede in the distance see it red shifted to a lower temperature.

#### Mart943

I'm sorry Bill, but you are blinding me with science. In my simple words, I suspect that the speed of the object is measured relative to its own origin. It's temperature , colour and other properties being determined relative to its origin and not where it actually is any time later. Every other place except the origin would perceive the object based upon its own location. Would this be correct?

#### billslugg

The speed of an object, the color of an object , the rate its clock is going and how far away it is, are all seen differently by every observer moving relative to it.

Speed, color, clock rate and distance are "relative" to different observers. There is only one thing that is always the same as measured by everyone and that is the speed of light. Everyting else looks different to each observer in a different frame of reference.

Last edited:

#### Helio

I'm sorry Bill, but you are blinding me with science. In my simple words, I suspect that the speed of the object is measured relative to its own origin. It's temperature , colour and other properties being determined relative to its origin and not where it actually is any time later. Every other place except the origin would perceive the object based upon its own location. Would this be correct?
Yes.

At the turn of the century (early 1900s), the universe was getting much bigger with the idea that spiral nebulae were other galaxies, and extremely far away. Their speeds were an issue as well. So the view that space itself is an absolute frame of reference -- all speeds are to be judged relative to it -- began to create problems in the physics.

When Einstein fixed the speed of light to one single value (for any given medium, like space), then he solved this growing problem. He called his theory his "Invariance Theory" for this reason. He demonstrated that any reference frame, as you mentioned and often they are called "intertial frames", can each apply known physics without having to reference their speed with the space itself.

At least, this is what I read and I think I have it right.

#### karlp295

What is the maximum speed we can travel through space?

I believe it is 99.999999% of the speed of light, isn't it? Relative to a stationary point of course, whatever that means in the context of the Universe.

#### billslugg

The fastest particle observed in a cosmic ray shower has 23 nines. There is no limit to how many nines there can be.

Helio

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
At the latitude of the UK "you are travelling at 950 mph as Earth rotates on its axis" but you are also "travelling at 66,700 mph as you orbit the Sun" . . . "the Solar System . . . rotates about the centre of the Galaxy, and the Galaxy is part of a local cluster that is moving towards the constellation of Virgo". [sic] "Put it all together and you are travelling at '(about)' 205 miles per second relative to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies".

Don't tell me! I know that the detail is slightly flawed (for which reason, I will not expose the source)
The rotation speed of the Solar System, and one or two other facts have been omitted, and no attempt is made to suggest any resolution of direction (which I fully understand) - but I believe that the principle is worth highlighting, in relation to the question.

Cat

P.S. Perhaps OP might have added "What is the maximum speed we can travel through space relative to? and, maybe, "assuming, at what speed is space(time) travelling?"

Helio

#### Helio

P.S. Perhaps OP might have added "What is the maximum speed we can travel through space relative to? and, maybe, "assuming, at what speed is space(time) travelling?"
Indeed. One of the reasons Einstein, apparently, sought to develop relativity was for these reasons. He seemed to hold to the idea that the laws of physics should not have to change with all those variations in motions; physics should hold true for any inertial frame instead.

One curious feature of the universe regarding relative speeds is the apparent fact that any observer from any planet and from any galaxy would be able to agree that the Hubble Flow is essentially one value.

#### Classical Motion

In the classical view there is no limit. The only limit, is finding an acceleration source. We have not found a force faster than c. So, right now, c is the limit. We just can't figure out how to add another velocity to it. Yet.

Entanglement might be an example of FTL. But it happens so fast, we have no idea of even.....where to look for a solution. And of course it might be something we can never use. Which would be insulting.

#### Atlan0001

Since whatever exists to emit light must exist electromagnetically and quantum mechanically to emit light it will exist at the same instant as it emits light, and every slightest fraction of a second following, having advanced in space and time to 0-point that slightest fraction of a second while light-time history was becoming more of a light-time history behind 0-point space-time by that same slightest fraction of a second away from emission point. The quantum mechanics of the emitter traveled one way in space and time; the emission traveled another way in space and time at the same speed. Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And nothing can travel slower than the speed of light. Travel in the universe is always from the negative (-) to 0-point real space-time arrivals except the history (the light-time history) which is always positively (+) farther into the negative (-) (thus more redshifted(?)) at each and every 0-point space and time arrival away from 0-point emission point.

Per the speed of light, the only observations that can be made is of, from, the negative of light-time histories (-). Trying to observe 0-point reality is like trying to observe futures (+)! . . . is a try to observe futures! Futures can only be traveled from the history, the light-time history, the negative (-), via the positive (+) to a 0-pont real.

Last edited:

#### billslugg

Although entanglement is istantaneous, it cannot be used to move information. The sender has no choice of which quantum state the "sending" particle devolves to.

Catastrophe

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Let me add a rider about speed and its connection with sensory bandwidth.

What if you inhabited only the abyssal zone? Miles deep in the ocean where light cannot penetrate? There are fish here with no sense of sight. They are unaware of light, and, afawk, any other em radiation. Afawk, nothing, for them, travels faster than sound.

Is it then inconceivable that one's knowledge of speed maxima might be sense dependent?

Cat

#### Classical Motion

We might be un-aware of an electrical and/or magnetic sense in water creatures. It might be common and much more spectacular than vision. Or maybe a sense of smell might be much more informative than imagined. Unlike sight and sound, maybe a history or sequence comes with it.

And even though it's dark, many can sense and react to light. What ever their senses are, they have been successful.

All of our senses seem to be mid range.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
CM, my point is: How can some property (such as speed) be deemed beyond surpassing when we do not have the sensory perception to judge any alternative? Does this not come into the category of pulling oneself up by one's own boot straps?

IIRC, the speed of light was discovered by observing phenomena of the Galilean moons from opposite sides of Earth's orbit.

Incidentally there are, apparently, some fish inhabiting the abyssal zone, which emit their own light to attract their prey. But this only works when their prey can recognise light.

Cat

#### Classical Motion

"How can some property (such as speed) be deemed beyond surpassing when we do not have the sensory perception to judge any alternative?"

Sorry, I can not relate to, or understand that question.

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
631
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
0
Views
702
Replies
1
Views
85