Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Breking speed of light

  1. Aug 11, 2010 #1
    Hello, this is my first post here and I'm sorry if I say a dumb thing. Something is bothering me for a long time... I have read that if you break the speed of light you will go back in time. Ok... So what if when a star explodes, and creates a black hole, the energy released from the explosion travels faster than the speed of light? It creates a hole in the time fabric in which all the matter and light are sucked in... I could go on from this with lots of theories but I don't have enough space on the forum :))... Sorry for my english, I'm from Romania :P
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 11, 2010 #2

    Fredrik

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    This isn't quite true. What will happen is just that different observers will disagree about whether the object that moved faster than light traveled from A to B, or from B to A.

    It doesn't.
     
  4. Aug 11, 2010 #3
    I understand what you are saying. But what I wanted to say is that if before a black hole is created the energy that is produced by the explosion of a star, if it travels faster than the speed of light, could trigger the forming of the black hole... So, what if the black hole isn't a dot where matter is compressed to the infinite? What if it is a gateway to the past?
     
  5. Aug 11, 2010 #4

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Basically, all of your assumptions are wrong here. The energy involved in a star exploding does NOT move "faster than light" and, anyway, "moving faster than light" does NOT mean "moving back in time".
     
  6. Aug 11, 2010 #5
    Re: breaking speed of light

    I don't know much about the theories behind black holes, but the theory of relativity, denies any possibility for anything (energy, waves, matter) to move faster than the speed of light.
    And, there is not any satisfactory explanation of even what it means by going into the past, l
     
  7. Aug 11, 2010 #6

    ZapperZ

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    One of the things we try to do in this forum is for people to learn some basic concepts before they extrapolate that into something else. What you are doing here is https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380", i.e. making speculative post. It is considered speculative because you never bothered to first double-check if what you are using to base your post on is correct. In this case, you started with what you perceived to be a "fact" ("... explosion travels faster than the speed of light... ") and using that to arrived at other things might be consequences of SR/GR.

    If you truly wish to learn about these things, what you ought to do is to learn some basic concepts of SR/GR first, and then ask about any validity of such astronomical explosion traveling faster than light. You will note that this is not a done deal and hopefully, you will not feel as secure to make that next leap based on the lack of evidence. It is difficult for us to counter something that is based on faulty assumptions in the first place, because the whole premise is moot. When you start with a faulty assumption, then almost any kind of outcome can be postulated (garbage in, garbage out).

    I suggest you go to the Astronomy forum and investigate if such a claim about exploding stars, and then look up basic physics on special relativity.

    Zz.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Breking speed of light
  1. The speed of light (Replies: 4)

  2. The speed of light (Replies: 7)

  3. Light speed (Replies: 5)

  4. Light speed (Replies: 8)

  5. Speed of light (Replies: 18)

Loading...