If a person passes near me at Mach 2 speed would I see him?

  • Thread starter Thread starter genu6
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mach Speed
AI Thread Summary
At Mach 2, a person passing within 2-3 meters would likely appear as a brief blur, lacking significant detail due to the rapid speed. The visual processing capabilities of the brain and the optic nerves limit the ability to perceive fast-moving objects clearly. While an object the size of a person may be noticed, the details would be minimal as the visual system is not adapted to detect supersonic speeds. In a scenario where the individual travels 50 meters at this speed, the observer would only register a fleeting glimpse, approximately 15-16 centiseconds of visual information. Overall, the rapid motion would make it challenging to perceive anything beyond a vague outline.
genu6
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
If a person is moving at Mach2 (1522 mph/h , 2469.6 km/h) and he passes close by me in a radius of 2-3 meters, would I be able to see him? Please for the sake of the question, ignore sound effects, sound barrier details etc. I'm only interested in the speed and the visual part. IF yes, what exactly am I going to see? A short term blur with very little details or more like everything?

Also, if I see him at that speed, what speed do you think he's going to need to be moving at in order for me not to see him at all? (e.g. bullet)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The answer to this will be mostly determined by the rate at which the visual cortex of the brain is able process signals incoming from the optic nerves, and the speed + amount (bandwidth?), of signals that the optic nerves themselves are capable of.
I would think this could vary between different individuals, (well maybe not the signal transmission rate).
The size of the passing object makes a difference too.
It is as you say impossible to see a bullet in flight, but an aircraft traveling at the same speed would be visible.

My guess is that you would see an object the size of a person approaching, but wouldn't really register much detail at the stage of it passing by.
Our visual systems have not evolved in an environment whereby there would be an advantage in noticing supersonic objects.
However they DID evolve in an environment whereby minute movements of objects are readily seen, and that certainly would have an advantage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes genu6
Thank you, that's very informative! :)

Imagine however you are standing at the beginning of a 50 meter long street, the person travels 50 meters, steals your wallet and goes back 50 meters to exit the street, this is all happening at Mach 2, what do you think you would you see in this scenario?
 
Mach 2 is 686 meters per second, I think 50 meters would take 7.28 centiseconds. You would observe a total of 15-16 centiseconds. Jeez, I just realized how fast that is. Guess I answered my own question.
 

Thread 'Inclined treadmills and Galilean Invariance'

This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
View full post »
Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Thread 'Is 'Velocity of Transport' a Recognized Term in English Mechanics Literature?'

Here are two fragments from Banach's monograph in Mechanics I have never seen the term <<velocity of transport>> in English texts. Actually I have never seen this term being named somehow in English. This term has a name in Russian books. I looked through the original Banach's text in Polish and there is a Polish name for this term. It is a little bit surprising that the Polish name differs from the Russian one and also differs from this English translation. My question is: Is there...
View full post »

Thread 'Is calling fictitious forces "not real" just about terminology?'

Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
View full post »

Similar threads

Would I be able to see a ball passing next to me at 340m/s ?
Replies
11
Views
2K
B What sound frequencies can pass through a hole in a wall?
Replies
31
Views
3K
How fast does a human sized object need to move so I won’t see it?
Replies
17
Views
5K
I Drag equation - relative flow velocity
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Effects of time dilation for near-speed-of-light travel
2
Replies
65
Views
10K
B A scenario to help understand the twin paradox in SR
Replies
20
Views
3K
I Cat Chasing Red Dot Faster Than c: Results & Analysis
Replies
13
Views
2K
Reality check on superhero power
Replies
23
Views
3K
Plane Speed: Calculating Mach with Shockwave Delay
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Relative Simultaneity: Comparing 2 Incompatible Calculation Methods
Replies
12
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top