Seeing the Unseen: Can You View Objects at Light Speed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paradox?
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Speed Vision
AI Thread Summary
Traveling at or above the speed of light raises theoretical questions about visibility, as light from objects would not be able to catch up, making it impossible to see anything behind. The discussion emphasizes that such scenarios violate the laws of physics, making them speculative. However, approaching the speed of light with mass allows for interesting observations, such as environmental contraction and color shifts due to relativistic effects. The conversation suggests exploring special relativity for a deeper understanding of these phenomena. Ultimately, the topic remains speculative and outside the realm of established physics.
Paradox?
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
ok first, as this is my first post i have to say I am a little intimidated by the scientific detail of
most posts on this site as I am a laymen, no academic background, just very interested in science :) also as I've only just discovered this site I am very hard pressed to scroll all topics and answers so there is a possibility this has been asked/discussed before so please delete
if the case.

anyway my question is this:

if i am traveling at or over the speed of light (i know, theorticaly impossible, can of worms anyone?) and i look backwards, will i be able to see anything?

i figure no, because the light from all objects would not be able to catch up with me so i could not see anything.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can't travel faster than light so there isn't much to say about it.

I mean, you would be like going backwards in time with some kind of negative of super infinite energy and the universe would just explode or something heh.

A warning however, ideas that are speculative are not supposed to be discusses on these forums! (this keeps things on topic and relevant)
 
ok my bad i guess it was a kind of speculative question and appreciate it has no place here (though in my defence i have seen worse in my recent browsing)
 
Firstly welcome to the forums!
Paradox? said:
if i am traveling at or over the speed of light
The problem with thought experiments like this is you are basically saying "if the laws of physics didn't apply what would the laws of physics say about that?"
Paradox? said:
ok my bad i guess it was a kind of speculative question and appreciate it has no place here (though in my defence i have seen worse in my recent browsing)
If you see a post that you think violates the PF Rules please report them :smile: also if you haven't already it would be best to familiarise yourself with them too.
 
I think it is a good question, with a little modification. If, say, you have mass and you approach the speed of light (but never quite get there), it would be appropriate to ask what would your environment look like? The answer to that lies in the topic of special relativity, which you can look up on wikipedia and youtube. You might also ask how does a photon, which is massless and does travel at the speed of light, perceive its environment? I do not know if there is a meaningful answer to that, or where to find it if there is one.
 
Mr_Physicist said:
I think it is a good question, with a little modification. If, say, you have mass and you approach the speed of light (but never quite get there), it would be appropriate to ask what would your environment look like? The answer to that lies in the topic of special relativity, which you can look up on wikipedia and youtube.
If everything in your environment i.e. everything on your spaceship is at rest relative to you it looks normal. Looking outside your ship the universe seems contracted along your axis, looking ahead of you everything looks slightly blue and everything behind you looks slightly red.
Mr_Physicist said:
You might also ask how does a photon, which is massless and does travel at the speed of light, perceive its environment? I do not know if there is a meaningful answer to that, or where to find it if there is one.
See: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=511170
 
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...
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/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top