Hypothetical scenario spacecracft moving faster than c

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Blogical
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Hypothetical
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a hypothetical scenario involving a spacecraft moving faster than the speed of light (c) and how light emitted from such a spacecraft would appear to a ground observer. Participants explore the implications of this scenario within the context of relativity and the nature of scientific inquiry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how light from a hypothetical faster-than-light spacecraft would be perceived by an observer on the ground, emphasizing the hypothetical nature of the scenario.
  • Another participant argues that the question cannot be answered scientifically because current theories do not allow for faster-than-light travel, suggesting that formulating a theory to address it is beyond the forum's scope.
  • Some participants emphasize the importance of understanding relativistic velocity addition and express frustration over the initial question being posed without sufficient background knowledge.
  • There are assertions that asking about scenarios that violate established physical laws, such as faster-than-light travel, is nonsensical and lacks scientific validity.
  • One participant draws parallels between the hypothetical scenario and well-known paradoxes in quantum mechanics, arguing that such discussions are essential for exploring the boundaries of physics.
  • Another participant points out that while Schrödinger's cat has a theoretical framework, no such framework exists for faster-than-light travel, highlighting a key difference in the nature of the two discussions.
  • Concerns are raised about the appropriateness of using paradoxes to justify the original question, with calls for clarity on the distinction between established theories and hypothetical scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the validity and sensibility of the original question regarding faster-than-light travel. While some argue that it is a meaningful hypothetical inquiry, others contend that it lacks scientific grounding and cannot be addressed within the current understanding of physics.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in addressing hypothetical scenarios that contradict established physical laws, as well as the dependence on existing theories for meaningful discourse. There is also a noted lack of consensus on the relevance of using paradoxes from quantum mechanics to inform the discussion.

Blogical
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
How will light switched on from a space-craft moving faster than c appear( hypothetical space-craft) to a ground observer??
I am new to this forum and i am unfamiliar regarding threads, but some guy locked my previous thread, its absolutely unfair,citing the reason space-craft can't travel faster than c!
If the same logic was used, there would have been no Schrödinger's CAT, EPR, etc
Its HYPOTHETICAL!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Blogical said:
How will light switched on from a space-craft moving faster than c appear( hypothetical space-craft) to a ground observer??
I am new to this forum and i am unfamiliar regarding threads, but some guy locked my previous thread, its absolutely unfair,citing the reason space-craft can't travel faster than c!
If the same logic was used, there would have been no Schrödinger's CAT, EPR, etc
Its HYPOTHETICAL!

You need to learn about relativistic velocity addition.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

The reason why your other thread was locked as because you made some assertion of something moving faster than c! If you don't know, ASK, but do not make some wild guess before you learn things. How you ask things is as important as what you are asking.

Edit: furthermore, please read the Relativity FAQ subforum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=210

Zz.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Biological, read your private messages.
 
Blogical said:
How will light switched on from a space-craft moving faster than c appear( hypothetical space-craft) to a ground observer??
I am new to this forum and i am unfamiliar regarding threads, but some guy locked my previous thread, its absolutely unfair,citing the reason space-craft can't travel faster than c!
If the same logic was used, there would have been no Schrödinger's CAT, EPR, etc
Its HYPOTHETICAL!

Since no current scientific theory allows for this, it cannot be answered as a scientific question. You first need a theory that allows it to even begin to answer this - and both formulating and discussing such a theory are outside the scope of this forum (until developed enough to be published as a possible generalization of known physics).
 
ZapperZ said:
You need to learn about relativistic velocity addition.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/einvel.html

The reason why your other thread was locked as because you made some assertion of something moving faster than c! If you don't know, ASK, but do not make some wild guess before you learn things. How you ask things is as important as what you are asking.

Edit: furthermore, please read the Relativity FAQ subforum:

https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=210

Zz.
I agree with you Zapper Z, but the reason i asked this was they had used the scenario i posted to explain the fact that c is ultimate speed in the chapter Special relativity in the book,
"CONCEPTS OF MODERN PHYSICS"-
ARTHUR BEISER
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You are basically asking what the law of physics would imply if the laws of physics weren't valid. Questions like this make no sense, and physics cannot answer them.
It's like asking "If a man could be pregnant, how long would pregnancy last?" The situation is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
 
micromass said:
You are basically asking what the law of physics would imply if the laws of physics weren't valid. Questions like this make no sense, and physics cannot answer them.
It's like asking "If a man could be pregnant, how long would pregnancy last?" The situation is impossible, so the question makes no sense.
I don't seem to understand why so many members are regarding this as a question which does not make sense!
If Schrödinger was alive, he would have been probably be saddened by the arguments posted here, Schrödinger's CAT also does not make any sense, so does the famous MAD SCIENTIST paradox or even the EPR paradox, But these are the paradoxes which created intense discussions in Quantum mechanics and modern physics!
so going by the arguments posted, these would be nothing but statements which make NO SENSE!
 
Blogical said:
I don't seem to understand why so many members are regarding this as a question which does not make sense!
If Schrödinger was alive, he would have been probably be saddened by the arguments posted here, Schrödinger's CAT also does not make any sense, so does the famous MAD SCIENTIST paradox or even the EPR paradox, But these are the paradoxes which created intense discussions in Quantum mechanics and modern physics!
so going by the arguments posted, these would be nothing but statements which make NO SENSE!

I don't see why you say Schrödinger's cat does not make sense?? There is a physical theory which describes what happens to Schrödinger's cat. There is no physical theory which deals with spaceships going faster than c. It is an experimental fact that spaceships cannot go faster than c.
 
Blogical said:
I agree with you Zapper Z, but the reason i asked this was they had used the scenario i posted to explain the fact that c is ultimate speed in the chapter Special relativity in the book,
"CONCEPTS OF MODERN PHYSICS"-
ARTHUR BEISER

And what's is the problem with that?

You need to understand what a "postulate" means. Einstein first made that postulate that c is the same in all reference frames. THEN he derived all the consequences of that postulate. He arrived at many predictions that have been confirmed, and it also solved for a very important problem in classical E&M, which is the non-covariant of Maxwell equations under Galilean transformation.

So the postulate that c is the limit in speed "makes sense" in the sense that it agrees with experiments!

BTW, do not bring up these "Schrödinger Cat" etc. argument just to justify what you are doing. You are doing nowhere near what is associated with these scientific arguments. You are new here. Think of the impression you are giving - a new member suddenly dictating how the forum should be run. It makes you come off to be utterly arrogant. Is this an accurate impression of you that you want us to have?

Zz.
 
  • #10
micromass said:
I don't see why you say Schrödinger's cat does not make sense?? There is a physical theory which describes what happens to Schrödinger's cat. There is no physical theory which deals with spaceships going faster than c. It is an experimental fact that spaceships cannot go faster than c.
I thought i have mis-read Schrödinger's cat!
In his opening statement at copenhagen, he began with saying "consider the hypothetical scenario............"
Leave alone that, i also believe that the equipments required for conducting this experiment is of un-imaginable precision and advanced technology!
So educate me regarding the result of this experiment if it has been already conducted!
Leave this experiment, what about the other paradoxes?
 
  • #11
Blogical said:
I thought i have mis-read Schrödinger's cat!
In his opening statement at copenhagen, he began with saying "consider the hypothetical scenario............"
Leave alone that, i also believe that the equipments required for conducting this experiment is of un-imaginable precision and advanced technology!
So educate me regarding the result of this experiment if it has been already conducted!
Leave this experiment, what about the other paradoxes?

This has nothing to do with the thread at hand. This thread was about moving faster than c, not about Schrodingers cat. I told you that the difference between Schrodingers cat and this thread was that Schrodingers cat has a physical theory which can be used to predict future events. Moving faster than c does not.

Your thread has been sufficiently answered. Do not start a new thread on this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

Undergrad Can this experiment break Lorentz symmetry?
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
2K
Undergrad Information traveling faster than light? (thought experiment)
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
High School Moving Faster Than Light: Are There Symmetrical Rules?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Stargazing Inquiry Regarding Hypothetical Faster-Than-Light Travel Scenario
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad What if particles are moving near light speed and one slows?
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Undergrad Cat Chasing Red Dot Faster Than c: Results & Analysis
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
High School Where am I wrong in this travelling faster than light Idea I've had?
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Graduate What prevents mass-less gauge bosons and gravity going faster than c?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Velocity u > c? Faster Than Light Comm?
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Undergrad Non-Inertial Relativistic Dynamics
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K