# Speed of Light & Identity **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 13, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620 "2005-05-13T00:11:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ZomZom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zomzom/32/5620_2.png) [@ZomZom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ZomZom)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/1 "2005-05-13T00:11:21Z")
I can’t quite explain why, but the thought occurred to me that if there were no universal speed limit then there could be no identity. Everything could be everywhere else simultaneously. Even actually be everything else simultaneously. Does this make any sense? Would it be possible for anything in the universe to have an identity - as an atom, a photon, a Buick, whatever - if there weren’t an upper cap on speed? ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/2 "2005-05-13T00:19:17Z")
Warp 10. aka - chronosyncratically infindibulated. ---
**Author:** ![Balthisar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/balthisar/32/2825_2.png) [@Balthisar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Balthisar)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/3 "2005-05-13T00:30:53Z")
I can’t remember in which book I read it, but there’s a possibility that every atom is the same one. Logically, I think I’m misremembering that, 'cos it would make more sense if it were every electron was the same one, and proton, and neutron. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/4 "2005-05-13T00:33:20Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > chronosyncratically infindibulated. Ahem, that’s **Chronosynclasticly Infundibulated** there, Stoney. \<\\> Must be from Schenectady. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/5 "2005-05-13T00:33:59Z")
There are a few logical problems with the OP. Even if there were no upper bound on speed, it would still take infinite energy to move a particle at an infinite speed. Even massless particles require energy to move, so they wouldn’t be exempt. Since infinite energy is impossible\*, then all particles would still move at finite speeds. As long as all speeds are finite then nothing could be everywhere simultaneously. There might be some very odd effects in such a universe, but I don’t think that simultaneity would be one of them. \*in our universe. I don’t think a universe with infinite stores of available energy is possible in any universe though. That would make the equations very top heavy. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/6 "2005-05-13T01:18:28Z")
> [@Qadgop the Mercotan](#): > > Ahem, that’s **Chronosynclasticly Infundibulated** there, Stoney. > > \<\\> > Must be from Schenectady. Sorry, **QtM** I’m going to have to disagree with you there. I believe the correct term is chronosyncratically. For one’s self being everywhere and nowhere at the same time. ---
**Author:** ![CynicalGabe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3e96dc/32.png) [@CynicalGabe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CynicalGabe)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/7 "2005-05-13T01:19:44Z")
You may be right about the spelling of infundibulated, though. ---
**Author:** ![bizzwire](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/958977/32.png) [@bizzwire](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bizzwire)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/8 "2005-05-13T01:27:12Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > in our universe. I don’t think a universe with infinite stores of available energy is possible in any universe though. That would make the equations very top heavy. 🙂 Why assume that our equations are valid in another universe? ---
**Author:** ![KarlGauss](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/karlgauss/32/3713_2.png) [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/9 "2005-05-13T01:30:35Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > There are a few logical problems with the OP. > > Even if there were no upper bound on speed, it would still take infinite energy to move a particle at an infinite speed. Even massless particles require energy to move, so they wouldn’t be exempt. Since infinite energy is impossible\*, then all particles would still move at finite speeds. As long as all speeds are finite then nothing could be everywhere simultaneously. I don’t think you need to invoke infinite speed. Travel at light speed would mean that no time is passing. Hence, “one particle” could be everywhere simultaneously (it takes no time for it to go from here to there to wherever). ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/10 "2005-05-13T01:35:46Z")
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like the OP assumes that two things can’t occupy the same point in space and time without actually being the same thing. I’m not convinced, though. ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/11 "2005-05-13T01:48:33Z")
> [@CynicalGabe](#): > > Sorry, **QtM** I’m going to have to disagree with you there. > > I believe the correct term is chronosyncratically. For one’s self being everywhere and nowhere at the same time. Are you sure? **Chronosyncratic** : From _Chrono_ or time, plus _Syncratic_, or brought about by fusion of forms of belief/practice. **Chronosynclastic** : From _Chrono_ or time, plus _Synclastic_ or curved towards the same side in all directions. To me, the “synclastic” element is what brings in the “everywhere/nowhere” element. ---
**Author:** ![citybadger](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/45deac/32.png) [@citybadger](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/citybadger)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/12 "2005-05-13T02:03:04Z")
If there were not a speed limit, logically liight and possibly gravity would travel with infinite speed. This presents a few difficulties. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/13 "2005-05-13T02:16:48Z")
> [@bizzwire](#): > > Why assume that our equations are valid in another universe? Well, I was making a joke, hence the smiley. However, if you want to defend the physical existence of infinite energy available to move particles at infinite speeds in any universe you’re free to do so. Please show equations. > [@Karl Gauss](#): > > I don’t think you need to invoke infinite speed. Travel at light speed would mean that no time is passing. Hence, “one particle” could be everywhere simultaneously (it takes no time for it to go from here to there to wherever). Travel at light speed means that no time passes _inside the reference frame_ of a massless particle. Those massed observers outside the reference see that time passes for that particle. A universe of massless particles moving at light speed may be possible, but along with being contrary to the what the OP asked about, I don’t see how they could be everywhere simultaneously. Massless particles would get created (how, I don’t know) and move in a straight line forever (there would be no gravity in that universe, I don’t think) until they intersect another one. What happens then depends on what the massless particles are. However, definitely no everywhere involved. > [@tim314](#): > > Perhaps I’m misunderstanding, but it seems like the OP assumes that two things can’t occupy the same point in space and time without actually being the same thing. I’m not convinced, though. Could you try defending this by giving an example of two things that could occupy the same point in same and time **without** actually being the same thing? And don’t forget the [Pauli Exclusion Principle](http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/atomic/bosons.html): > [@](#): > > All fundamental particles in nature can be divided into one of two categories, Fermions or Bosons… Many bosons can occupy a single quantum state. This allows them to behave collectively and is responsible for the behavior of lasers and superfluid helium. Only one fermion can exist in a given quantum state. This is known as the Pauli exclusion principle… > > Any object which is comprised of an even number of fermions is a boson, while any particle which is comprised of an odd number of fermions is a fermion. For example, a proton is made of three quarks, hence it is a fermion. A 4He atom is made of 2 protons, 2 neutrons and 2 electrons, hence it is a boson. [chronosynclastic infundibulum](http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-inf1.htm): > [@](#): > > INFUNDIBULUM > A funnel-shaped cavity. > It’s the Latin word for a funnel, derived from infundere, “to pour”, plus the ending –bulum which formed the names of instruments. In English, it turns up in various anatomical contexts for something funnel-shaped. For example, in the human body it describes the outermost section of the fallopian tubes, a structure in the cochlea of the ear, and a formation in the brain close to the pituitary, among others. Science-fiction fans may have come across the splendid phrase chronosynclastic infundibulum that was invented by Kurt Vonnegut in The Sirens of Titan, which he explained, perhaps less than helpfully, as being “those places … where all the different kinds of truths fit together”. The plural is infundibula and the adjective these days is usually infundibular, but others such as infundibuliform and infundibulate have also been used from time to time. Hmm. That almost gave my spellchecker a migraine. ---
**Author:** ![Enola\_Straight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dec6dc/32.png) [@Enola\_Straight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enola_Straight)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/14 "2005-05-13T05:19:08Z")
Regarding Einsteinian reference frames: If you replace the speed of light with instant speed, the Lorenz Transformation becomes the Gallilean Transformation. Regarding only one electron/proton/neutron in the universe: Richard Feynman realized that an anti-particle moving forward in time behaves exactly like a normal particle moving backward in time (as plotted on a Feynman Diagram). Someone postulated that a single electron or whatevermaybe bouncing back and forth between the Big Bang and Big Crunch, thus filling the cosmos with all the matter we see throughout time. ---
**Author:** ![picunurse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/7bcc69/32.png) [@picunurse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/picunurse)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/15 "2005-05-13T06:43:25Z")
Aren’t you describing the [bare bones basics](http://superstringtheory.com/) of [String Theory?](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html) Ok, maybe not. I think [String Theory](http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html) makes everything, everywhere and everywhen connected. I could be wrong, I’m afraid my head will explode if I think about it too much. Carry on… ---
**Author:** ![wayward](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a87d85/32.png) [@wayward](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wayward)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 9:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/16 "2005-05-13T09:48:37Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > A universe of massless particles moving at light speed may be possible, but along with being contrary to the what the OP asked about, I don’t see how they could be everywhere simultaneously. Massless particles would get created (how, I don’t know) and move in a straight line forever (there would be no gravity in that universe, I don’t think) until they intersect another one. What happens then depends on what the massless particles are. However, definitely no everywhere involved. But if the particles were travelling at infinite speed, the collisions would happen at the same time that the particles were created. And since given enough time, every particle would collide with every other one, they are all hitting each other at the same time. In fact, I don’t think time could be said to exist in such a universe at all. And without time, could the universe be said to exist? I need a lie down. ---
**Author:** ![Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/58956e/32.png) [@Hoodoo\_Ulove](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hoodoo_Ulove)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 1:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/17 "2005-05-13T13:19:45Z")
Is anyone going to Aldebaran 7 this week? Could you give me a ride? ---
**Author:** ![Pleonast](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pleonast/32/1183_2.png) [@Pleonast](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pleonast)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 3:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/18 "2005-05-13T15:11:40Z")
> [@](#): > > Is anyone going to Aldebaran 7 this week? Could you give me a ride? Was that you sleeping in the back seat? We got back from Aldebaran yesterday, it was a great trip! Customs was a pain, though. We’re not leaving until tomorrow tonight, and my memory is a little hazy (FTL travel and alcohol can do strange things to your brain), so maybe some other Dopers came along too. ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/19 "2005-05-13T18:30:30Z")
> [@Exapno Mapcase](#): > > Could you try defending this by giving an example of two things that could occupy the same point in same and time **without** actually being the same thing? > > And don’t forget the [Pauli Exclusion Principle](http://www.pa.msu.edu/courses/1997spring/PHY232/lectures/atomic/bosons.html) Actually, I had the Pauli exclusion principle in mind when I said it . . . as your quote states, it only applies to fermions (e.g., protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.). There is a whole other class of particle to which it doesn’t apply, namely bosons (e.g., photons, gravitons, W and Z bosons, mesons, etc.) So far as I know there is no rule against to bosons occupying the same point in space-time. (Although I should mention that it would be impossible to say definitively that they were at the exact same point, because of the uncertainty principle. But I think you could at least say that it’s possible for both particles to have non-zero probability density at a point.) Moreover, the Pauli principle is only a restriction on _identical_ particles (meaning two electrons couldn’t be in the same state, but an electron and a proton could be, because they’re different particles.) And since it’s just a restriction on two particles having the same _state_, that means even two electrons could occupy the same point in space time so long as they differed in some other way (such as their spin orientation – and since every Fermion has at least two possible spin states, that means you could have at least two of every fermion at a given point.) Although, again, with quantum mechanical particles the best you can really do is talk about whether they both have non-zero probability density at a given point. At any rate, the exclusion principle would prevent two identical particles (including identical spin states, etc.) from occupying the same point in space time even if they were traveling at infinite speed – it isn’t the speed limit that prevents it, it’s a separate law. As an analogy, think of an infinitely fast particle contained in an impenetrable box. Because of the particle’s infinite speed, it can occupy all points in the box at once (although it doesn’t _have to_ occupy them all, as it could just bounce back and forth on a single line). But it still can’t get outside the box, as those points are off limits due to a separate restriction, namely the impenetrability of the box. It’s not being too slow that was stopping it from getting there in the first place. I should also mention that simply doing away with the universal speed limit wouldn’t necessarily mean anything could travel infinitely fast, only that there was no cap on speed. Unless something was _initially_ going infinitely fast, or was able to achieve infinite acceleration, it would still take it forever to reach infinite speed. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2005, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620/20 "2005-05-13T21:26:02Z")
I’m not convinced. Photons may be able to occupy the same quantum state, and may possess identical properties, as in a laser. But does that in any way imply that more than one distinct photon can occupy the same place at the same time? If two separate photons meet don’t they necesarily interact? If an electron and proton meet as in your example, don’t the other fundamental forces come into play? Your infinite speed particle in a box must also therefore have infinite energy. Bye bye box. Talk of infinite speeds of particles has no real meaning that I can understand. Nor can physics handle such an object, because it would create a singularity where our current physics doesn’t work. I’ve already said that raising the upper bound on light speed makes no conceptual difference as long as that speed is still finite, as it must be. The only way to alter that is to make the upper bound infinite and nobody has yet suggested a serious way to handle the infinite energy required. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/speed-of-light-identity/303620.md?page=2)