Comment by johnnyjeans

Comment by johnnyjeans 4 days ago

30 replies

Is light slow? Or is the human perception of time just scaled down as a result of our rapid metabolism and infinitesimality? People historically mistake plants for being inanimate things with no reactivity, that they are far more simple and stupid than they truly are. Outside of a few exotic examples, plants simply operate on a wider timescale that's basically imperceptible without careful and particular observation. It becomes much more apparent how alive plants are when we observe them in a time-lapse. Now realize that plants are still relatively short-lived. The absolute oldest ones only go back to the early neolithic, that's only 14000 years or so. 1000 years is a long time for humans, but probably not for the trees where a single one can live 10x that.

From the hypothetical perspective of a star, with a lifespan measured in billions upon billions of years, the entire ecoscape of the world changes in a blink. From the sun's perspective, MENA was green just a very short while ago. Hell, Pangea wasn't that long ago. At this timescale, continental drift would be as apparent as the movement of boats are to humans. Anything that's working at the cosmic scale where the seemingly low speed of light sounds exhausting is most definitely working at this stellar perspective at the minimum. 14000 years of travel might as well be the equivalent of a 10 minute commute to the store.

Philosophically speaking, of course.

notjoemama 3 days ago

Light is comparatively and objectively slow in comparison to the distances that exist. Andromeda is 1M light years from us. From that perspective, 300k kph is oddly slow actually. I love the passion that you're brining to the table though. It reminded me of the blue giant stars whose lifespans can be as short as tens of millions of years, more often hundreds though. For billions upon billions, I suppose that would be white and brown dwarfs. Although, if we could orbit black holes and harness the energy of gravity, then we're really talking long time scales. Cracking the aging problem would allow us to think in very long timescales. But I do wonder whether the human psyche could handle such long lifespans.

  • bobbylarrybobby 3 days ago

    > in comparison to the distances that exist

    This leaves out the time component. Who's to say that a year is long? A galaxy a million light years away takes a million years to reach... and maybe that's a short amount of time, to the right observer.

    • mgraczyk 3 days ago

      Light could only go to Andromeda and back 1000 times before the sun burns out. That's not very many times IMO. On the scale of galaxies, light is slow relative to any timescale relevant to large objects.

      • morsch 3 days ago

        Carrying the metaphor further, that's closer than America was to Europe in the 18th century.

      • darkwater 3 days ago

        How many times can you go from Lisbon to Beijing and back by car in your lifetime?

  • FridayoLeary 2 days ago

    There's a great video is saw. In 30 minutes it goes through the entire lifespan of the universe.

    Even after all the stars die, the white dwarfs will continue to glow. And after eons, the last black holes will evaporate. The point is that the age of stars is only a tiny fraction of the lifetime of the universe. Maybe the speed of light makes sense at that scale.

    But... I'm not happy with that theory. In a relatively short amount of time the expansion of the universe will increase faster then the speed of light. Which means it will be impossible to ever get information from the other side of the universe.

    I find it very unreasonable that the universe imposes a speed limit on everything and then completely ignores it.

davidee 4 days ago

Thanks for this.

In addition to the insight, it reminded me to water a plant at a desk I no longer use. The plant's been with me through quite a bit and I have been neglecting it recently as I no longer see it regularly.

  • nilamo 4 days ago

    Move your plant friend to your new desk?

  • randalsedgewick 3 days ago

    In turn this reminded me to water my terribly neglected office plant, so thank you!

mjcohen 3 days ago

For very philosophical writings about this, read "Last and First Men" and "Star Maker" by Olaf Stapledon. Written in the 1930's, these describe on a very expansive scale the history of, respectively, humanity and the universe. Very mind bending.

eddd-ddde 4 days ago

I always think of those motor proteins moving along slowly inside our bodies, and wonder if maybe we are just the motor proteins of the cosmic scale.

mangodrunk 13 hours ago

Such an interesting perspective! It would be nice to see evolution sped up as well, or any process that seems unchanging for less than a few thousands of years.

ifa_ 3 days ago

yeah light _is_ actually pretty slow and we hit that in networking and optics pretty often if iirc.

like not even on a human level, universally even on a grand scale the speed of light is almost torturously slow, there’s nothing philosophical about it

  • lenkite 3 days ago

    Might have been a deliberate rule enforced on the universe to avoid interstellar wars between sapient civilizations.

    • lukas099 3 days ago

      But that’s making your simulation deliberately less interesting, no?

      • chmod775 3 days ago

        Chances are that only a species who, through one way or another, has become very uninterested in warfare could have advanced to the point where they would be able to run such a simulation, otherwise they'd have ended their own existence with their shiny toys before long.

        War only occurs if you have in the literal sense retarded elements in your advanced species and is nonsensical from an outside POV. A species this advanced would have fixed such shortcomings in itself long ago.

        So no, I don't think they'd necessarily be very interested in watching primitive species go to war with primitive weapons.

        For all we know the simulation of this universe is happening in their equivalent of an overengineered snow globe, us being an artifact nobody has noticed and that nobody would find particularly interesting if they did notice.

  • procgen 3 days ago

    something can only be "slow" relative to something else. it's not an intrinsic property.

the_af 3 days ago

> Is light slow? Or is the human perception of time just scaled down as a result of our rapid metabolism and infinitesimality?

It's slow for humans to explore the cosmos.

"Slow" is meaningless without a frame of reference, and "humans" seems like a good frame of reference, since it's us -- and not plants or stars -- who are writing on HN to discuss this.

Because it's us, humans discussing this in HN, the frame of reference is implied and it's not necessary to spell it out.

api 3 days ago

That’s one of the answers to how you could go to the stars: go sloooooow as in slow down your cognition and metabolism so the trip doesn’t take long.

Ents could fly to the stars no problem.

Makes me wonder if there might not be a bunch of star faring “slow life” out there that we don’t notice for the same reason a hummingbird doesn’t notice trees growing.

mr_toad 4 days ago

> Is light slow?

It’s always faster than you or I. Even if we zipped around at relativistic speeds it would still appear the same.

tim333 3 days ago

At the moment humans only live ~90 years which is a blip in cosmic terms, but shortly we should be able to merge with AI and live for billions of years and visit stars.

chistev 3 days ago

Comments like this are part of the reasons I come here.

swyx 4 days ago

humans are a blip. i think the overwhelming scenario is we were a bootloading sequence for silico sapiens.