Can We See an Object After It Disappears If It Travels Faster Than Light?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter chrisakel
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the hypothetical scenario of observing an object that travels faster than the speed of light, particularly focusing on the implications of such travel on visibility and perception. The scope includes conceptual reasoning and speculative ideas related to relativity and the behavior of light and sound.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant postulates that if an object could travel faster than light, it might still be visible due to the time it takes for light to catch up, suggesting a scenario where an object appears to last longer than it actually does.
  • The same participant draws an analogy between the speed of sound and light, proposing that similar effects could occur with objects moving faster than light.
  • Another participant questions the coherence of the initial argument and challenges the analogy made between the speed of sound and light.
  • A different participant introduces a scenario involving a supersonic jet and a boom box to illustrate a point about perception and timing in relation to sound.
  • A moderator reminds participants to adhere to mainstream scientific principles, indicating that speculative discussions may not be welcome.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the validity and coherence of the initial postulation about faster-than-light travel and its implications. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the ideas presented.

Contextual Notes

The discussion is limited by the speculative nature of faster-than-light travel, which is currently considered impossible according to mainstream physics. Assumptions about visibility and perception in such scenarios are not established within accepted scientific frameworks.

chrisakel
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I know that relativistically, it is absolutely impossible for anything to travel faster than the speed of light.
However, let's say that something were to travel faster than the speed of light...
I would postulate that although it is traveling faster than light, it can only visibly be seen traveling at the speed of light, and thus, it would be possible to see something that has already disappeared...for example...
Let's say a particle is traveling at twice the speed of light through a particle accelerator and said particle only has a life of one second...although the particle would be non-existent after one second, because it was traveling at twice the speed of light, it would take two seconds for light to trace the path of the partice and allow us to visibly see it, making it seem like the particle lasted twice as long as it should have and thus increased its life, when in fact we were only seeing something that had already disappeared.
I am using the same concept as the speed of sound, when you break the sound barrier, something can pass you and you will not hear it until the sound catches up to it.
An offshoot of this concept is this...let's say bullet is traveling faster than the speed of light and it strikes a piece of paper...first there would be a hole in the paper and then we would see the bullet pass through the hole that it had already created?

I know this is hard to contemplate due to relativity and that it is currently considered impossible and implausible, but like the title says...briefly suspend your beliefs...and let's hear your thoughts.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
what is your point? if it was possible all these other things would be possible? are you saying that the speed of sound or a bullet is analogous to the speed of light? your ideas aren't really coherent.
 
If a supersonic jet crashes into a boom box, do you hear the music stop before you hear the crash?
 
I'm afriad these kinds of threads are not permitted here. We ask that you stick to mainstream, accepted science. :smile:

- Warren
 

Similar threads

High School Would We See the Same Light After Traveling Back to Earth Faster Than Light?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
High School Let me ask a thing about the Speed of Light
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Can Curved Spacetime Enable Faster-Than-Light Travel?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
High School Time Travel: Can Humans Go Faster Than Ordinary Speed?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Undergrad Why do we still say “the speed of light” instead of “c”?
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
High School Faster than speed of light due to time dilation?
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
Undergrad Faster-than-Light Causality-Flip: Thought Experiment Reference?
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Undergrad Why Can't Objects Travel Faster Than Light?
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Undergrad Why would we need faster than light travel?
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
6K
High School Why is it impossible to go faster than the speed of light?
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K