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
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Hello everyone, Consider the problem in which a car is told to travel at 30 km/h for L kilometers and then at 60 km/h for another L kilometers. Next, you are asked to determine the average speed. My question is: although we know that the average speed in this case is the harmonic mean of the two speeds, is it also possible to state that the average speed over this 2L-kilometer stretch can be obtained as a weighted average of the two speeds? Best regards, DaTario
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top