Frame of reference above the speed of light

  • B
  • Thread starter roineust
  • Start date
  • #1
305
7

Main Question or Discussion Point

Would it be correct to say, that we are moving away from stars at the edge of the universe, at the same rate that these stars are moving away from us? I am relating to stars that are moving in relation to us, at a speed that is faster than the speed of light.

Is the symmetry that maintains that if an object in space is moving away from me at a certain rate, then to all regards i am moving away from the object at the same rate, also true for objects moving away from me at a speed higher than the speed of light? Is symmetry the correct term in this context?

This question is asked for both momentary speed, for acceleration and for unnatural (hypothetically human made) constant speed.

Does modern physics assume that all theories that relate to objects moving away (or towards) us at a speed lower than the speed of light, are also correct for objects moving away from us, at speeds higher than the speed of light and that the matter of being unable to observe these objects, is just a question of non-significance in this context of theories ratification?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Orodruin
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
Gold Member
16,817
6,630
Nothing is "moving" relative to anything else here. The distance* between comoving observers may grow faster than the speed of light, but this has nothing to do with actual relative motion. Relative motion can only be defined locally (i.e., in a region of spacetime small enough for spacetime curvature to be negligible).

* For the particular definition of "distance" typically used in cosmology.
 
  • #3
305
7
Nothing is "moving" relative to anything else here. The distance* between comoving observers may grow faster than the speed of light, but this has nothing to do with actual relative motion. Relative motion can only be defined locally (i.e., in a region of spacetime small enough for spacetime curvature to be negligible).

* For the particular definition of "distance" typically used in cosmology.
I will try to rephrase my questions later, according to the terminology that you use here, it might take me some time.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Nugatory
Mentor
12,854
5,499
I will try to rephrase my questions later, according to the terminology that you use here, it might take me some time.
It's not just a matter of terminology. The superluminal velocity that you're considering here is completely a coordinate artifact. It has no more physical significance, and no more can be used sensibly as a velocity, than the apparent superluminal velocity of Alpha Centauri when I sit on my porch and watch it move halfway around around a circle of radius four light-years in just one night.

Any physical insight into the situation will come from studying the directly measurable invariants, such as the redshift of light signals exchanged between us and the distant stars.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Doc Al, PeterDonis and vanhees71
  • #5
Mister T
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,575
829
Another way to look at is that in a race between some object (with mass) and a beam of light, the beam of light will always win.
 

Related Threads on Frame of reference above the speed of light

Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
895
Replies
5
Views
5K
Replies
52
Views
21K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
11K
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
24K
Top