’if we travel at the speed of light‘

Question

Hello, everyone,Wormholes: Fact or Theory?Sci Teen: Hi, science fans. Today, we're going to talk about space travel. As we all know, there is nothing faster than light in the universe. So, if we travel at the speed of light, we should be able to get to another planet in the blink of an eye, right?Dr Sci: That would be nice, but space is so vast that it is not possible. In the movie, Passengers, a spaceship headed to a different planet travels at one-half the speed of light. So it should get to another planet very quickly, right? But, the passengers sleep for 120 years because it is expected to take that much time to get to a different planet. (* quoted from our local textbook for high school students)While I think the ‘if clause’ underlined above is for the ‘predictive conditional’ in indicative mood, I wonder why the writer didn’t use the ‘counterfactual conditional’ in subjunctive, since nobody would agree we could travel at the speed of light in the reality.Thus, I assume the sentence should read, “if we should (or, were to, happen to) travel at the speed of light, we would be able to get to another planet in the blink of an eye.”[Q] Is there any grammatical context where the writer could be justified to use the predictive conditional ‘if’ instead of the predictive conditional ‘if’ in the sentence above in your natives’ view?I would appreciate it, if you kindly share your valuable opinions.

AlpheccaStars · Accepted Answer

deepcosmos I wonder why the writer didn’t use the ‘counterfactual conditional’ in subjunctive, since nobody would agree we could travel at the speed of light in the reality.

Because there is an underlying thesis that light speed travel is possible. The long-running TV series Star Trek explained that warp drive powered by dilithium crystals made travel many times the speed of light possible.

The argument is about quick arrival at some other planet, not the possibility of light speed travel.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/universe/how-does-the-warp-drive-from-star-trek-work.html

CalifJim · Answer

deepcosmosI wonder why the writer didn’t use the ‘counterfactual conditional’ in subjunctive, since nobody would agree we could travel at the speed of light in the reality.

I attribute that to writer's choice. There is often more than one way to express the same idea. The use of "If we travel" instead of "If we were to travel" or "If we traveled" makes the situation more immediate, as if we were really going to take such a trip, maybe soon. The sort of mild excitement that this generates is probably more important in teaching younger students.

deepcosmosThus, I assume the sentence should read, “if we should (or, were to, happen to) travel at the speed of light, we would be able to get to another planet in the blink of an eye.”

'should' and 'happen to' don't really work there. You would need "were to travel" or "traveled".

Also, the 'should' that appeared in the consequent clause of the original sentence is the should of expectation, so that clause paraphrases as 'we expect to be able to get to another planet ...'. In your version, that changes to 'we would expect to ...':

If we were to travel at the speed of light, we would expect to (be able to) get to another planet in the blink of an eye.

deepcosmosjustified to use
the predictive conditional ‘if’ instead of
the predictive conditional ‘if’

I think something went wrong here.

CJ

’if we travel at the speed of light‘

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions