/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12497159
CPU can't handle a faster simulation

For everyone's safety.

>>12497159
Maximum positive integer in the architecture of the computer our universe runs on

>>12497159
proof it does?

>>12497159
It makes natural sense to me.
Energy is the time integral of force.
At some point the force required to accelerate will be greater that the total energy in the universe can provide.

It’s the rendering speed of the simulation. If light were faster you would see glitches

>>12497159
Prevents objects from reaching the edge of the universe as it is expanding at max speed

>>12497159
would wouldn't it have one

>>12497211
you can accelerate forever because light is always c faster than you
at no point will you see your acceleration diminishing

>>12497159
if it didn't, there would be no causality

>>12497282
so is speed of light twice the speed of light if you go at the speed of light?

>>12497282
You can accelerate forever the same way you can approach an asymptote forever.
Your acceleration is, by definition, diminishing and this is true for all reference frames.

>>12497337
your acceleration an be infinite but your velocity can be finite? idgi

If there wasn't a speed limit on the movement of information you couldn't have causality. All events would happen at exactly the same instant.

can people answer this without resorting to metaphysics or "lol we're in a simulation" please?
what's the scientific reason for this natural law within this universe

>>12497362
Nice bait. 10/-i

>>12497364
please i just want to understand

>>12497368
Light has no mass.
[math]E = \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]
As velocity increases incrementally, energy increases exponentially for any object with mass.
Anything with mass will require a literal infinite amount of energy, just to get to the speed of light.

>>12497394
If light has no mass then isn't E=0? So it has no energy?

>>12497337
no, light is always c faster than you

>>12497404
idg this at all

>>12497394
>>12497403
[eqn]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/eqn]

>>12497394
what are ur credentials good sir

>>12497403
You just have to accept that it does. If there was no limit then reality would not exist.

>>12497394
That is not true in special relativity. You have to use the relativistic energy-momentum relationship [math]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/math]

>>12497159
You just have to accept that it does. If there was no limit then reality would not exist.

>>12497394
That is not true in special relativity. You have to use the relativistic energy-momentum relationship [math]E^2 = p^2c^2 + m^2c^4[/math]

>>12497438
>You just have to accept that it does
No you don't. Use the equation you posted. All you have to accept is light is never at rest.

>>12497394
>As velocity increases incrementally, energy increases exponentially for any object with mass.
and how did u test this?

>>12497443
>You just have to accept that it does. If there was no limit then reality would not exist.
but why
why would reality not exist

>>12497445
mb, quoted wrong post

>>12497450
for starters none of the forces we have quantum laws for (EM, Weak, Strong) would be the same or even exist so there would be no matter, no life, no us. it may not be the more interesting explanation but the universe isn't here to make us happy. it's like asking why does a circle have 360 degrees.

>>12497446
By dropping a ball and see it accelerate exponentially totally due to gravity.

>>12497446
By dropping a dookie at different heights and seeing how much splashback your tushy gets

>>12497407
it's just a fact of the universe, we don't (yet) have an answer as to why it is so.

>>12497476
This is unironically how the relationship was discovered.
Except they were measuring indentation in clay.
A ball going twice the velocity will sink 4 times as far as the original ball (in a medium that exerts a perfectly constant reactive force)

>>12497159
Because the speed of light is constant in all reference frames

>>12497479
so energy is a force?

>>12497497
J=Nm

Load up youtube and pick from the dozens of popsci videos titled that exact question.

>>12497159
It would require [math]\epsilon_0[/math] and/or [math]\mu_0[/math] to be 0, which would really fuck up electricity and/or magnetism.

>>12497362
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

[math] \displaystyle

\begin{align*}
\text{Theory} && \text{Circulation}
&& \text{Gauge fields}
&& \text{Gauge condition}
&& \text{Helicity}
&& \text{Electric field} \\
Electrodynamics && \overrightarrow{B} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{A}
&& \varphi , \overrightarrow{A}
&& \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{A} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \varphi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& h_e = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{B}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{A}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
Hydrodynamics && \overrightarrow{ \omega} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{v}
&& \chi = \frac{v^2}{2} , \overrightarrow{v}
&& \overrightarrow{\nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{v} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \chi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& f_h = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{ \omega}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{v}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
\end{align*}


[/math]


source:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics
page 7

>>12497362
Space has something like density and compressibility that defines the speed of light.

[math] \displaystyle
c = \frac{1}{ \sqrt{ \varepsilon_0 \mu_0}}
[/math]

[math] \displaystyle

\begin{align*}
\text{Theory} && \text{Circulation}
&& \text{Gauge fields}
&& \text{Gauge condition}
&& \text{Helicity}
&& \text{Electric field} \\
Electrodynamics && \overrightarrow{B} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{A}
&& \varphi , \overrightarrow{A}
&& \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{A} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \varphi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& h_e = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{B}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{A}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
Hydrodynamics && \overrightarrow{ \omega} = \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \times \overrightarrow{v}
&& \chi = \frac{v^2}{2} , \overrightarrow{v}
&& \overrightarrow{\nabla} \cdot \overrightarrow{v} + \frac{1}{c^2} \frac{ \partial \chi}{ \partial t} = 0
&& f_h = \overrightarrow{v} \cdot \overrightarrow{ \omega}
&& \overrightarrow{E}_e = - \frac{ \partial \overrightarrow{v}}{ \partial t} - \overrightarrow{ \nabla} \varphi \\
\end{align*}


[/math]


source:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1003.0070
A quaternionic unification of electromagnetism and hydrodynamics.
page 7

>>12497159
>why does the universe have a speed limit?

Further evidence we live in a simulation.

Energy infusion required to reach speed of light is near infinite, therefore the speed limit.

>>12497166
>CPU
>not running the universe on an infinite array of parallel GPUs
fuck this technology

>>12497905
e is the permittivity of free space (Vacuum), It represents the capability of a vacuum to permit electric fields

μ is the permeability of free space, It is connected to the energy stored in a magnetic field.

>>12497905
Bro this makes so much more sense

But this begs the question
can't we model anything as fluids and use fluid dynamics to understand it

>>12497170
Massless particle (photon) moves at a certain speed in vacuum.

>>12497986
how can you measure the speed when it goes too fast?

>>12497992
It was first measured through movements of astronomical bodies, around the 17th century. And yes, it was initially thought it was either infinite or too fast to measure. Today, more precise measurements probably have been made. Why not research for yourself?

>>12497997
>Why not research for yourself?
because I'm dumb
I like physics a lot but the math is hard and then it gets really advanced if you don't know the math and seems so counterintuitive

>>12497159
Well, if it was faster you would still ask the same thing.

>>12498017
If light traveled at an infinite speed that would make the most sense. But it travels at 299792458 m/s
Such a weird number
That's what gets people tripped up

>>12497159
Tachyons could exist, and if they do we have no way of detecting them right now.

>>12497415
This.
Photons carry momentum and therefore energy. The Planck-Einstein relation E=hf, also describes the energy of a photon.

>>12497975
Fluid dynamics is not developed enough to model anything with that sort of complexity.

>>12497159
It might not everywhere, right now it's just a very strong assumption that it is consistent. Though for all we know it might be just a local speed limit.

>>12497944
>simulation on the GPU
yeah, no...

>>12497159
[math]c \equiv \pm\infty[/math]

>>12497166
>dude we're inside a COMPUTER LMAO!!!
Absolutely niggerlicious

>>12498300
Not really tho, as speed and energy levels approach that limit, Time slows down!.

Not entirely unlike moving one of your meme folders to a different HHD compared to moving that same meme folder AND your entire porn collection to a new drive, the same task takes way way way longer relative to the task at hand.

Try it yourself at home.
Move a folder.
Move many folders.
Keep moving folders again and again and again.
Watch how long the first moving folder dilates its est time of completion.

Spacetime does same thing... kind of...pretty close...close enough for further looking into

>>12498028
I've been reading up about the idea of Geons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geon_(physics)

Not Tachyons but interestingly similar in that they are predicted to be particles/waves that are moving faster than light but are thus held back by their own energies.

quarks/ leptons or anything smaller then them are really wave functions moving faster then the system they exist in allows for (c), so they manifest as a particle that cant ever dissipate unless the wave function collapses.
Its as if the wave creates its own shockwave that is measured/observed as a particle.

>>12497159
this video shows you why I think. I suck at physics so I don't know If he's bullshitting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=au0QJYISe4c

because acceleration can't be linear.
F=ma is wrong when the speed becomes too fast. it implies linear relation between acceleration and force needed when in reality the force needed increases exponentially after a certain speed. it's like an asymptote

>>12497404
You don't have an objective speed, so that's gibberish.

>>12498965
>light is not constant for all observers
what did you mean by this?

>>12497166
Unironically, though -- this.

>>12497159
Nobody knows. But if you ask a physicist this question, they get triggered.
>hurr science is not about why
Shut up. If you don't know, you don't know. Just don't fucking weasel around me.

>>12497159
Read this.

>>12497159
it doesn't
things just get heavier the faster they move.

>>12497944
>an infinite array of parallel GPUs
What are brains for $100, Alex

>>12498300
>>12498787
>>12498810
>>12500800
Just replace some of these words and what you're saying is just a religious text from the middle ages

>>12497159
So you cant go 299,798,459 m/s in a school zone

>>12501148
*792 not 798, thou its still true.

>>12497342
>What is a converging series?

>>12497169
>biggest integer allowed is smaller than int in C/C++
>simulate the whole universe

>>12497159
because energy should not be infinite

>>12497323
You’re actually close to understanding. When you go at 99% of the speed of light, light still travels away from you at the speed of light. So no matter how fast you go, your speed never changes relatively to the speed of light. This is handled by some bs like time dilatation

>>12497159
Its just an illusion bro.
Velocity is measured with distance and time, neither of which exist at c

>>12502782
why not?

>>12502790
>When you go at 99% of the speed of light, light still travels away from you at the speed of light.
At 1% faster andor 100% andor 99% andor 101% faster andor other?

After that may be energy andor light oceans, forests, fields - information densities (?) (and some (whereandwhenandhow and an other word other than the integral question phrase words) constructs) and the edge of extradimensionality andor (a) god consciousness - if good - in some way andor form - as more coherent and advanced and freeform than their somewhat heavily constrained yet quasiparadoxically hyperfree existent emanations here and thus somewhat less coherent also and a third category.

In regards to the "99%" quotated and highlighted reply intro; if there are light constructs whether extradimensional andor not, and there are some very interinteresting interratios and interphenoma between physics fields facets, would you imagine that infornons are viewed similarly as to how standard physicality beings veiw light? And beyond the infornons is actually the aforementioned extradimensional andor a different kind of that? Such as astral andor spirit andor metaphysical realms?
Whilst many facets are entangled and have gateways, the ones that do not i.e. cannot physically host a 90D object etc in 11D reality - there are some connections whereby it is vaguely possible - even though there often exist pros and cons either way, noting that there are also pros and cons of proists and anticonists (and personally rediculously antiproists and conists) occassionally which could and should be intelligently considered how?

Might be an informal andor formal interform interplay including nonstructs and unstructs like a god shaped hole in time - however this idea could be expounded better which would elucidate better ideas that could spring from a transreaction from a transaction, however in the context of this phrase it may be a transaction cultivated from a transreaction. So the lingua morphs weirdly.

>>12502870
Inforons*(?)

They might opt for 'infon' just to save space, lol.

>>12497986
>massless particle
take your meds

>>12502899
Leviation field. Mass = ?

>>12502937
Oh, lightform andor energyform statechange?

Ahhh. Nvrmnd.

>>12502899
>particle
ok schizo

>>12497905
Nigga anon delivers

>>12502899
Photon and Gluon are both massless particles.

>>12503726

Light moves at one Planck length unit per Planck time unit.

>>12502725
different units

>>12503880
Or at least it's excitation remnants suggest so.

Does light have a nonlocal nature?

Great answer by the way, ultralight.