The Confusing World of Physics:
14 min readConverting Perception into Reality
Physics!!! The grand blueprint of how the universe operates. But let’s not sugarcoat it – it gets confusing, fast. Especially when you try to untangle the familiar realm of classical physics from the slippery, mind-bending, time-warping world of special relativity. And here’s the kicker: it’s not that the laws of physics change when things get extreme; it’s that out perception gets distorted. Einstein, sharp as ever, didn’t just hand us a new set of rules – he gave us a mathematical lens to see how things really work when they get, shall we say, cosmic.
Classical physics is like your reliable friend—predictable, grounded, always making sense. You know the rules: F=ma, gravity pulls you down, and things move when a force acts upon them. Newtonian physics is the sturdy foundation of rocket trajectories, planetary motion, and bridges that don’t collapse (well, most of the time). It’s the stuff of everyday life, where everything seems in perfect order.
But then… then you approach the event horizon of a black hole, or start pushing the speed of light, and things start to get seriously weird. Time stretches, distances warp, and mass balloons like an over-inflated tire. Cue special relativity, right? Well, hold on a second. Einstein wasn’t saying that the universe itself is warping in some mystical way—he was saying that it’s our perception that changes under these extreme conditions. And that’s a subtle but crucial distinction.
First Example: E = mc2
Let’s start with Einstein’s most famous equation: E=mc2. The rockstar of physics. This beauty tells us that energy (E) is equal to mass (m) multiplied by the speed of light squared (c2). A tiny bit of mass can be converted into a whopping amount of energy. Now, in classical physics, we like to keep mass and energy in their own separate corners—two distinct concepts. But Einstein, the clever devil, showed us they’re interchangeable.
Now let’s throw in some classical physics to spice things up. Remember, weight equals mass times gravity: w=mg. Rearrange that, and mass becomes m=w/g. If we substitute that into Einstein’s equation, we get:
E = (w/g)c2
And what does this tell us? As gravity increases, energy decreases. This is classical physics shaking hands with relativity. What you’re seeing—mass seemingly increasing as an object nears the speed of light—isn’t reality. It’s perception getting all twisted. Einstein’s math is like a cosmic decoder ring, translating those distortions back into classical terms. It’s like a universal conversion chart—only with more math and fewer measuring cups.
Second Example: Einstein’s Field Equations
Let’s raise the stakes a bit. Enter the Einstein Field Equations, the heart of general relativity. These equations describe how matter and energy warp spacetime itself. A simplified form of these equations looks like this:
Gμν+Λgμν=8πTμν
I know, that’s a mouthful. But here’s the deal: Gμv represents how gravity curves spacetime, and Tμν is the stress-energy tensor, which basically tells us how matter and energy are distributed in spacetime. The equation tells us how spacetime bends in the presence of mass and energy, and in return, how spacetime influences the movement of objects.
Now, back to classical physics for a second: remember Newton’s law of gravitation? F=G(m1m2)/r2, which gives the force of gravity between two masses. It works well enough here on Earth, but get near a black hole and Newton’s law starts to break down like an old bridge in need of repair. The curvature of spacetime becomes so extreme that Newton’s formula just can’t keep up. That’s where Einstein’s equations step in—like the cosmic clean-up crew.
Newton’s law is like the training wheels of gravity—works fine for the small stuff—but Einstein gives us the whole picture. He didn’t replace Newton; he just extended classical physics into the bigger reality.
The Cannon and Energy: A Gravity Lesson
Picture this: you’ve got a cannon designed to fire a projectile 300 yards here on Earth. Classical physics at work. The energy required to launch that cannonball is fixed based on its mass, the force of the explosion, and Earth’s gravity. But let’s take that cannon on a field trip across the solar system.
First stop: the Moon. Gravity here is much weaker than on Earth, so when you fire the cannonball, it’s going to soar much farther than 300 yards. Why? Because the energy required to push against the Moon’s weaker gravitational pull is less. Same cannon, same energy, but gravity isn’t doing much to hold the ball down, so it flies.
Next stop: Jupiter. Now things get interesting. Jupiter’s gravity is brutal—far stronger than Earth’s. Fire the cannonball with the same amount of energy, and it’ll barely crawl 10 yards before Jupiter’s massive gravitational pull drags it down. But here’s the key: to make that cannonball go the same 300 yards as it did on Earth, you’d need a lot more energy. The stronger the gravitational field, the more energy you need to fight against it.
So, what’s the takeaway? The cannonball’s behavior isn’t just about how far it goes, but about how gravity alters the energy requirements. On Earth, a certain amount of energy is enough to fire it 300 yards. On the Moon, you get more bang for your buck because gravity isn’t holding it back. But on Jupiter, gravity demands a lot more energy just to move the ball a few feet.
This analogy isn’t just about gravity pulling things down; it’s about how gravity impacts the energy required to make things move. When gravity increases, the energy required to overcome it skyrockets. Same object, same physics, but different energy demands depending on where you are in the universe.
The Cannon, Energy, and the Gravitational Puzzle
Let’s go back to the trusty cannon and its journey through the cosmos. We’ve already established that firing it on Earth, the Moon, or Jupiter results in vastly different outcomes because gravity changes how far the cannonball flies. But it’s not just about how gravity affects motion—it’s about how energy requirements and mass interact under different gravitational forces.
Now, here’s where it gets interesting—and potentially confusing. Let’s take Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2, but modify it slightly using classical physics. Remember that weight is the mass of an object times gravity: w=mg. Rearrange that, and you get mass as m=w/g. Substituting this into Einstein’s equation, we get:
E=(w/g)c2
According to the saying in science, “mass is constant no matter the gravitational force,” but is that really true? When you switch the formula around, w=mg, it tells us that as gravity increases, so does the weight. The more gravitational force, the heavier the object feels. But wait—if weight increases with gravity, why shouldn’t mass also change under gravitational force? Think about it: weight is just a product of mass and gravity, so if gravity pulls harder, why do we assume mass stays the same?
Here’s where things get confusing. We measure a person’s weight on Earth because of Earth’s gravitational pull. To find someone’s mass, we divide their weight by Earth’s gravity. But what if mass isn’t as constant as we think? What if mass actually changes with gravitational forces, but we’ve been missing this all along? After all, weight is essentially how mass manifests under gravity, and maybe we’re just scratching the surface of what mass really does in extreme conditions.
This also leads to a fascinating possibility: if mass decreases in stronger gravitational fields, like near a black hole, perhaps the energy required to accelerate objects would change too. Could this mean less energy is needed to push an object faster? We can’t just change the formulas around without care, but these thought experiments start pulling on threads that traditional physics might be overlooking.
This cannon analogy isn’t just about how far something flies based on gravity—it’s about how gravity might alter mass itself, forcing us to rethink the relationship between weight, mass, energy, and the gravitational field. It’s the ultimate puzzle: we see mass as constant, yet weight and gravity are inseparable. We can’t have one without the other, but maybe our perception of mass is just as distorted as our perception of time near the speed of light.
It’s no wonder physics feels so mind-bending—the more we think we know, the more we start to question what we’ve always accepted.
Speed and Perception: A Relativity Paradox
And this brings us to the next mind-bending thought: speed. In classic physics, we know that if you fire a gun from a car traveling at 150 mph, the bullet’s speed is the car’s speed plus the gun’s muzzle velocity. Simple addition, right? So why, when we try to apply this to the speed of light, does it all go pear-shaped? Earth’s speed through space is roughly 600,000 meters per second, and light travels at just under 300,000,000 m/s. If you point a laser in the same direction Earth is moving, classical physics says the beam’s speed should be 300,000,000+600,000300,000,000 + 600,000300,000,000+600,000 m/s. But according to Einstein’s special relativity, the speed of light remains constant—no matter how fast the Earth, or any other object, is moving.
Wait a minute—why doesn’t the laser move faster? Classic physics says it should. The issue here is perception again. Light, like that projectile from the Saturn cannon, doesn’t behave the way you’d expect at high velocities. It’s not that light slows down or speeds up; it’s that our perception of speed, time, and distance shifts the faster we move. When things start approaching the speed of light, they play by a new set of rules—rules that are consistent with the old ones but appear distorted because we’re looking through a different lens. The problem isn’t with light; it’s with how we’re trying to see light.
Now, imagine an object traveling faster than light. According to classical physics, you’d just add the speeds and be done with it. But with relativity, something curious happens. Anything faster than light becomes effectively invisible—why? Because light emitted from such an object would be moving slower than the object itself. You wouldn’t be able to see it; the object would outpace its own light, and our perception would fail to grasp its existence. It’s not that the object can’t exist, it’s just that we can’t observe it with the same tools we’re used to.
Here’s another thing to consider: we might perceive anything moving at or near the speed of light as light itself. Human perception, being limited by the speed at which our brains process visual information, may just see fast-moving objects as light because their speed distorts our senses. This suggests that the speed of light could also act as a perceptual limit for us. So, when objects approach light speed, they appear indistinguishable from light. It’s not that faster-than-light travel is impossible, but our biology may not be equipped to see it, compounding the mystery of what’s truly happening at such speeds.
And that’s not all. When you bring in gravitational fields and the compression of matter, things get even more interesting. As atoms get squeezed under greater and greater gravitational fields, they slow down. Think of it like water freezing—when water cools, the movement of its molecules slows down, though never completely stops. But what if, under the intense gravitational pull of a black hole, atoms constrict so much that they do reach a point of zero movement—absolute zero? This is the temperature at which atomic motion ceases, and while many scientists speculate that absolute zero is impossible to achieve, perhaps within a black hole’s crushing gravitational force, it’s not just a theory. It could be reality.
This isn’t just perception anymore—this is classic physics at work. The nuclear forces that bind atoms and the electromagnetic forces that attract them are all players in the game, constricting under the weight of extreme gravity. Whether we’re talking about zero gravity or infinite gravity, the principles stay the same. As gravity increases, so does the energy required to move within that gravitational field. This is where perception takes a backseat to what’s really happening. Sure, we observe an increase in energy, but that energy is only equal to the amount of force being used to push an object through space.
Take a star approaching a black hole. We often talk about the star “falling” into the black hole, but in reality, it’s being pulled by an immense gravitational force—into what? Not a “hole” at all, but a massive gravitational sphere, what you might call a super black star. Its gravity is so intense that not even light has enough energy to escape it. The forces at play here, from nuclear binding to electromagnetic attraction, are all working together, constricting under the enormous pressure of gravitational fields. What we observe is almost irrelevant to what’s really happening unless we want to convert that observation into classical terms. Now let’s get a bit more imaginative—take the exact same cannon that fires a projectile 300 yards here on Earth and bring it to Saturn. If you could stand on Saturn (we’ll assume for this experiment that you won’t be crushed by its immense gravity), you’d find the cannonball barely makes it 10 yards. Saturn’s gravity is so strong that it consumes the energy, pulling the projectile down faster than it would here on Earth. Yet, an observer from a distance might see that cannonball soaring forever because their perception is distorted by the gravitational field.
Atomic Clocks, Biological Decay, and Gravity’s Impact
Let’s move from light-speed to biological decay and time itself. Time, we say, is just a construct—our way of making sense of events. Take the atomic clock—this precise timekeeper uses the decay of specific atoms to measure time with mind-boggling accuracy.
But throw gravity into the mix, and things get messy. The stronger the gravity, the slower those atoms decay. Near a black hole, atomic decay would slow down so much you’d practically need eternity to finish a game of chess. This is more than just perception—this is classic physics in action. The same goes for biological decay. Gravity’s time-stretching effects would make living things age more slowly in intense gravitational fields. Get too far from gravity, and things might decay faster—who knows, we could even age out of existence. Gravity, in a sense, is like the universal clockmaker, ticking faster or slower depending on how close you get to its gravitational pull. Time isn’t fixed—it stretches and contracts based on the forces at play.
Faster-than-Light Travel and Energy
Here’s another curveball: faster-than-light travel. Classical physics, says that as you approach the speed of light, energy demands go through the roof, theoretically becoming infinite because its mass increases with speed. But when we replace mass with w/g (weight divided by gravity), we are introducing an idea where gravitational fields could reduce effective mass. And right—if gravitational forces are factored in, as they increase, the effects on mass change. This means that the energy demands could decrease under the right circumstances. Classical physics would indeed suggest that as mass decreases (or approaches zero), energy lessens. This hints that, under extreme gravitational fields, like those near black holes, under extreme gravitational conditions, faster-than-light travel isn’t so impossible after all.
Now, in a strong gravitational field (like near a black hole), objects experience significant “spacetime warping.” If mass decreases as gravity increases (which aligns with some speculative ideas in general relativity and quantum theory), the energy needed to accelerate could, in theory, decrease, potentially bypassing the known limits of light speed. I propose that it’s not impossible, but just incredibly difficult based on our current understanding and technological limits.
Harnessing the Energy of a Black Hole
Take a star approaching a black hole. We often talk about the star “falling” into the black hole, but in reality, it’s being pulled by an immense gravitational force—into what? Not a “hole” at all, but a massive gravitational sphere, what you might call a super black star (I theorize a black star is a massive star that has not become a black hole. It has just enough gravitational force to keep light from escaping but not an event horizon). Its gravity is so intense that not even light has enough energy to escape it. The forces at play here, from nuclear binding to electromagnetic attraction, are all working together, constricting under the enormous pressure of gravitational fields. What we observe is almost irrelevant to what’s really happening unless we want to convert that observation into classical terms.
Now, let’s get even cosmologically wilder: what if we could harness the colossal energy near a black hole (which we’re still far from achieving), is it conceivable that we could manipulate spacetime itself? Einstein’s equations don’t explicitly forbid faster-than-light travel—they just set tough conditions, like needing for exotic forms of energy or matter (like negative energy or antimatter) to create something like a “warp bubble.” What if using black hole energy to manipulate an object’s mass and energy requirements plays on a similar concept? Black hole energy could theoretically reduce an object’s mass or warp spacetime in ways that allow it to skirt the speed-of-light barrier; past the light barrier – some kind of comic catchphrase. This isn’t too far from ideas like the Alcubierre drive—a hypothetical concept – which proposes moving faster than light by warping spacetime itself. Black holes could be nature’s shortcut through the cosmic speed limit, bending spacetime just enough to get us where we want to go – faster than light but without breaking any major universal laws.
Particles Popping In and Out of Existence
Speaking of breaking the rules, ever heard of virtual particles? In quantum field these little guys pop in and out of existence so fast it makes your head spin. It’s like they’re borrowing energy from the universe and then ducking out before anyone notices. What if these particles are actually moving faster than light, zipping through a reality we just cannot perceive.
The idea isn’t so far-fetched. If something outruns its own light, it would appear to blink in and out of existence – seeming to break the rules, when really, it’s just playing by a set of rules we haven’t fully grasped yet. Welcome to quantum weirdness of it all.
Final Thoughts: Perception and Reality
Einstein wasn’t giving us new laws; he was giving us a new way to see the laws we already knew. The math of special relativity is the tool to translate what happens at these extreme ends of physics back into something we can grasp with our classical understanding. It’s not about changing reality—it’s about adjusting our perception of reality, especially when conditions push us beyond our usual frame of reference.
Whether atoms slow down and constrict under the crushing weight of a black hole or objects get pulled into the swirling gravitational field of a black star(hypothetical star that has not turned into a black hole and does not have an event horizon), the truth stays the same: classical physics governs the fundamental forces, and relativity helps us decode how our perceptions get warped in extreme environments.
For a hundred years, people have treated special relativity like it’s some sort of revolutionary, alien science. But really, it’s a philosophical shift. It’s a framework that helps us reconcile what we see with what’s true. And that truth is grounded in classical physics: objects still follow the same rules, energy is conserved, and mass isn’t mysteriously growing—it’s just how we perceive those things that shifts when gravitational fields or speeds near light take over.
Einstein didn’t hand us a whole new rule-book – he gave us the tools to reconcile what we see with what’s really happening. And when it comes down to it, seeing isn’t always being. That’s the genius of Einstein. And you know what? After a century of confusion, it’s about time we start getting it right.
About The Author
English 
Spanish