[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 2.05 MB, 480x271, 1321141188001.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5251212 No.5251212 [Reply] [Original]

Now faster than light travel might not be possible, but if it were, would an object traveling faster than light be invisible?

>> No.5251228

How do you expect anyone to theoretically answer a question that's theoretically impossible?

The best you're going to get is wild guessing, so here:
Yes. No. Maybe.

>> No.5251235
File: 19 KB, 480x353, 484426_254486154661614_627213952_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5251235

>>5251228
>I cannot use logic
>How can you theoretize about imaginary numbers when it is impossible to take the root of a negative number!?

Try being more arrogant, maybe you'll become a scientist!

>> No.5251245

>>5251235
I can theorize about imaginary numbers by inventing a root to negative numbers.
Is that what you are looking for? Completely made up answers? I can do that: Yes. No. Maybe.

>> No.5251255

>>5251212
I think it would act the same way an object traveling faster than the speed of sound.
Except replace any effects on sound with effects to light.

>> No.5251257

>>5251255
yes, but you'd be wrong. Because of relativity.

>> No.5251265

>>5251257

Except that we're already ignoring relativity so he's right.

>> No.5251266

>>5251265
why are we ignoring relativity?

>> No.5251309

You can take the square root of a negative number, you just have to re-define what you mean by a number. There is no "inherent" definition of a number that makes imaginary numbers any more imaginary than the reals.

>> No.5251331

>>5251212
It's a dumb question because it contradicts the energy/momentum aspect of special relativity, but assuming we only look at this problem with kinematic equations of relativity, the answer is NO
This is because the speed of light being constant doesn't mean it is constant relative to the object it is shooting from, it is constant to all observers in all reference frames(this is why passage of time is relative to to reference frames going different velocities). So basically it doesn't matter what velocity an object is going, the light is going to be coming at you at the 3*10^8 m/s no matter what. So going faster than the speed of light would not make an object invisible.

>> No.5251333

>>5251331
but going at lightspeed would make you infinitesimally thin in the direction of motion. How can you see something with zero thickness?

>> No.5251354

>>5251266
BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THE PREMISE IS POSSIBLE

Jesus christ /sci/ is autistic.

>> No.5251363

>>5251354
why? Tachyonic matter is not inconsistent with relativity, just with observation.

>> No.5251403
File: 1.79 MB, 201x137, ohandy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5251403

>>5251354
>Jesus christ
>/sci/
>same sentence

Btw, I have no idea what's going on.

>> No.5251437

>>5251235
I don't think you understand how math works.

>> No.5251442

Well, if the object doesn't dis-constitute into light, then yeah, I'd suppose you could still see it, since it'd still interact with light.

>> No.5251446

Uh no, because it's going to fucking fast, dummy

>> No.5251465

>>5251212
no, as it moves towards you light emitted from it will be shifted to the ultraviolet end of the spectrum, as it moves away probably shifted way down to the infrared end of the spectrum

>> No.5251477

>>5251465
That's only true if it's generating it's own light. Photons interacting with it should maintain frequency and wavelength through simple reflection.

>> No.5251580

Well, you couldn't see it coming at you, but this would manifest as multiple copies rather than invisibility. If it starts out 1 light-hour away and rushes at you at 2c, stopping right in front of your face, then you will see it suddenly materialize in front of your face while a third copy appears to move backward from the object in front of your face towards the apparent original at 2c for half an hour, appearing to annihilate the original copy when it reaches it.

>> No.5251591

>>5251465
You can't analyze an FTL object like you would ordinary matter, where you can start with how it behaves in the rest frame and then do a Lorentz transform to see what happens when it's moving. An object moving FTL has no rest frame.

>> No.5251600

ITT: pseudo-intellectual faggots don't know about the Chung-Freese metric.
It IS theoretically possible, faggots, the only question is if it's practically feasible.

>> No.5251840

wouldnt something traveling at ftl go backwards in time? resulting in never popping out of existance destroying the laws of thermodynamic? destroying the matter/gravity balance of the universe since the lost matter was crucial to the stability of the universe making it implode some day in a big crunch rather than freeze from eternal expansion?

all in all ftl as we think about it is bullshit

>> No.5251854

>>5251840

FTL objects don't go back in time.

Not sure who popularized that factoid.

>> No.5251869

>>5251854
but as i approach LS time outside my faster than light rolls royce slows down. if i am at LS time is literally standing still on the outside of my orb.
now what happens when i accelerate to ftl? will i see time go backwards outside my rolls royce ftl orb?

>> No.5251885 [DELETED] 

Where is the virgin girl with sand in her vagina that sages all unsciency posts?

>> No.5251927

>submit the idea that it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light
>discover black holes; objects with mass so dense that it is impossible for light to escape their gravitational pull
>objects are travelling faster than the speed of light inside black holes but are unobservable
>but nothing can travel faster than the speed of light
>reinvent gravity to accommodate for phenomenon rather than challenging the notion that it's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light
>science

>> No.5251950

>>5251927
On that note:
>unable to calculate the speed of light to an exact
>decide it's not important and redefine the meter instead
>redefine the speed of something by redefining one of the criteria in which it is measured
>science

>> No.5251962 [DELETED] 

>>5251927
>7
>>5251950
And how about when everyone decided that einstein was wrong and all of the playing dice shit.
that was radically rad

>> No.5252335

c is odd in that velocity is relative to a point. surely if one therefore travels towards a light source, relative to you light is travelling at a velocity >c. c is the constant for maximum information transfer in the universe, yet if an object was travelling only slightly <c yet in the direction of a light source, the relative speed would be approximately 2c.

>> No.5252351

We'd be unable to see it. Because seeing is the act of light's reflection. If we are moving faster than light can reflect off of an object, its almost impossible to see.