When the speed of an object becomes equal to the speed of light

Sreeja Mobin
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Dear friends,

When the speed of an object becomes equal to the speed of light, its mass becomes infinity. Then can it be possible to an object to be invisible?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Sreeja Mobin said:
Dear friends,

When the speed of an object becomes equal to the speed of light, its mass becomes infinity. Then can it be possible to an object to be invisible?

As the first statement describes an impossible situation, the question is meaningless.
 


Jonathan Scott said:
As the first statement describes an impossible situation, the question is meaningless.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachyon

don't be so hastey to belittle people's questions.
 


Johnathan's answer is fine. It's short, but completely correct. I don't see how it belittles anyone.

Tachyon's don't travel at the speed of light. Only massless particles do. Tachyon speeds are always >c, never =c.
 


It is not "belittling" to tell someone they have made a mistake.
 


Sreeja...I can think of several situations of interest:

As noted by others, An "object" with non zero rest mass cannot attain the speed of light as it would take infinite energy to accelerate it to "c"...but other situations arise:

Photons (with apparently zero rest mass) travel at the speed of light and the visible portion of the spectrum IS still detectable by the human eye. So we know of at least one case where light speed does NOT make an entity invisible.

In cosmology distant objects (masses) may be receding at greater than the speed of light from our reference frame here on earth. This is due in part to the expansion of space itself. Those are generally NOT visible to us because light from them never reaches us...distance grows faster than the speed of light. For more on this, one simple explanation is that the "Hubble bubble" limit defines our cosmological horizon...at about 15B years...

Wikipedia talks about the Bubble bubble, Hubble limit and other cosmological horizons.
 
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Thread 'Dirac's integral for the energy-momentum of the gravitational field'
See Dirac's brief treatment of the energy-momentum pseudo-tensor in the attached picture. Dirac is presumably integrating eq. (31.2) over the 4D "hypercylinder" defined by ##T_1 \le x^0 \le T_2## and ##\mathbf{|x|} \le R##, where ##R## is sufficiently large to include all the matter-energy fields in the system. Then \begin{align} 0 &= \int_V \left[ ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g}\, \right]_{,\nu} d^4 x = \int_{\partial V} ({t_\mu}^\nu + T_\mu^\nu)\sqrt{-g} \, dS_\nu \nonumber\\ &= \left(...
In Philippe G. Ciarlet's book 'An introduction to differential geometry', He gives the integrability conditions of the differential equations like this: $$ \partial_{i} F_{lj}=L^p_{ij} F_{lp},\,\,\,F_{ij}(x_0)=F^0_{ij}. $$ The integrability conditions for the existence of a global solution ##F_{lj}## is: $$ R^i_{jkl}\equiv\partial_k L^i_{jl}-\partial_l L^i_{jk}+L^h_{jl} L^i_{hk}-L^h_{jk} L^i_{hl}=0 $$ Then from the equation: $$\nabla_b e_a= \Gamma^c_{ab} e_c$$ Using cartesian basis ## e_I...

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
93
Views
5K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
356
Replies
25
Views
2K
Replies
72
Views
3K
Replies
42
Views
680
Back
Top