Hypothetical spacecrafts traveling at light speed.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a hypothetical scenario involving two spacecraft traveling at the speed of light and the implications of this on the perception of light signals between them. Participants explore the theoretical aspects of light speed, reference frames, and the physical limitations imposed by relativity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question the validity of the scenario, stating that it cannot physically exist, even in principle.
  • Others suggest that if the question were rephrased to involve speeds just under the speed of light, the answer regarding the illumination of the leading spacecraft would be affirmative.
  • There is a discussion about the necessity of specifying the frame of reference when discussing the speeds of the spacecraft.
  • One participant proposes that from a third observer's perspective, both spacecraft would appear to have zero size and would not be able to see the light flash due to their relative motion.
  • Another viewpoint suggests that while information cannot travel faster than light, exploring the behavior of light in this context remains an interesting question.
  • Some participants emphasize that the constancy of the speed of light for all observers is a fundamental reason why nothing can travel at light speed.
  • There are assertions that mass is not the primary issue in discussing the speed of light, but rather the implications of relativity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally disagree on the feasibility of the scenario and the implications of light speed. While some agree on the impossibility of traveling at light speed, others explore the theoretical implications of such a situation, leading to multiple competing views.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding the scenario due to the lack of physical feasibility and the dependence on specific definitions of speed and reference frames. There are unresolved assumptions regarding the nature of light and perception in extreme conditions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring theoretical physics, particularly concepts related to relativity, light speed, and the nature of information transfer in physics.

Holocene
Messages
237
Reaction score
0
Ignoring the mass problem, imagine 2 spacecraft s are traveling at exactly the speed of light. One spacecraft directly behind the other, with only a hundred feet or so between them.

If the speed of light is always the same for any observer, is it safe to say that when the trailing spacecraft flashes a beam of light at the leading spacecraft , that an observer WOULD see the leading spacecraft as having been "illuminated"?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Holocene said:
Ignoring the mass problem, imagine 2 spacecraft s are traveling at exactly the speed of light.
You are having a question about a situation that cannot physically exist, not even in principle. So how do you expect a sensible answer?
 
MeJennifer said:
You are having a question about a situation that cannot physically exist, not even in principle. So how do you expect a sensible answer?

My apologies.
 
Agreed. Unless you're willing to rephrase your question to "Just under the speed of light" there's no way to answer. If you rephrased the question so, the answer would be 'yes'.
 
Ignoring the mass problem, imagine 2 spacecraft s are traveling at exactly the speed of light.
Also you have not said in what frame of reference they are measuring the speed. Any statement 'a is traveling at speed v' is meaningless unless it is specified what observer measures v.
 
I think that it would not be actually possible to see them as they both would have 0 size to any third observer. But I am not sure that the rule is exactly such, and if we ignore that I would say that to any third observer both travellers would seem to be completely halted. So a third observer would not be able to see the one behind doing anything to light the flash. Again, if we ignore that then anyway a third observer would not see the spacecraft in front being iluminated. The third observer would see that they both manage to catch up with all the light beams that get lighted out of their spacecraft s in the same direction that they are travelling. I.e. you yourself can not see that you catch up with a light beam when running after it but any other observer that moves with a different speed can see you doing more or less well.

I'm not an expert though.
 
Last edited:
I think I may get what you are asking and there is purpose for exploration. It is not that nothing can go faster than the speed of light ( save things with mass) which light does not. It is that INFORMATION can not travel faster than light, usually making any discussion of this type a moot point seeing as their would be no way to prove or even know that something has broken the lightspeed mark. With that said if you do want to ignore the spaceship problem and strictly discuss the behavior of light then this is a very interesting question and it is disappointing to see snappy responses to your question. If your situation were to occur the rear spaceship would impart its relative motion onto the light causing it to shift frequencies. If the spaceship in front were going slightly slower than the spaceship in the rear I believe the front ship would receive some sort of notification
 
Holocene said:
If the speed of light is always the same for any observer, is it safe to say that when the trailing spacecraft flashes a beam of light at the leading spacecraft , that an observer WOULD see the leading spacecraft as having been "illuminated"?

This, not "the mass problem," is the reason nothing can travel at c. The speed of light is the same for everyone, so there is no reference frame which travels at the same speed as light rays do, for in that frame, photons would be at rest, not traveling at c. Mass has nothing to do with it.
 
No mass has nothing to do with it and I hope Holocene understands it is only through relativity that you cannot break the speed barrier. In short light is always a constant speed and if you were driving forward and turn on your headlights they would come out, as they should. Clearly if you are traveling at x speed and your headlights are running out in front of you AND we know that light never goes faster than C It is by default or simple reasoning that you cannot break the speed barrier. Einstein says the speed of light is always the same and never faster and anytime you try light will out run you. 2nd place means you can't break the speed barrier ;)
 

Similar threads

High School Speed of light and this Accelerating Rocket scenario
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
5K
High School Could Traveling at Near-Light Speed Create Black Holes?
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
High School Light Behaviour at High Speed: Explained
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
High School Solving the twin paradox with special relativity
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
5K
Graduate Traveling near the speed of light
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
8K
Graduate What Happens When Someone Walks on a Spaceship Traveling at the Speed of Light?
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Graduate 1-Way Speed of Light
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
2K
High School General Relativity, Twins & Schopenhauer: Analyzing Timing Diff.
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
2K
Graduate Speed of Light for Bonnor Beam
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
2K
Undergrad One-Way Speed of Light: Is it Possible?
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K