Speed of light debate at work.

[videotape]

So the first light you would eventually see is when the object apprears in front of you. The light radiating from this object slowly catches up from the closest point to you slowly to the light that radiated millions of miles away, creating an illudion of it traveling back to its originalpoint in time.

Actually OP, you are absolutely correct. Touche, sir.

[Archangel2187]

"Putting aside the fact that these speeds are impossible" but yes you are correct, you'd need an infinite ammount of energy to reach the speed of light. That is according to the E =mc2 theory.

Well while that is true in theory there are many exceptions that are starting to make themselves known to us... E=MC^2 for those who don't know states that the energy required is equal to the mass of an object times the cosmological constant (aka speed of light, aka 186,000 miles per sec) squared....therefor nothing can go faster than the speed of light because the closer to the speed of light you get, the more mass you develop and therefore the more energy is required to accelerate you even faster...this keeps on increasing until you eventually become infinitely massive and therefore would require an infinite amount of energy to continue accelerating. There is of course no infinite energy source and therefore this is a no go......

Now lets look at an interesting development that leads to making this possible..you may have heard that scientist at CERN working on the LHC think they have finally discovered the fabled Higgs Boson. This has been big news recently.. but what does this mean..well for now it means that we think we have finally found the final particle that makes up the Higgs field, which is a theoretical particle field that through its interactions with all subatomic particles imparts onto them mass....We are excited because this would mean that our current understanding of physics is correct...it would complete our standard model.

But future thinkers like myself are even more excited because we see the possible applications of this discovery...Imagine now that you have discovered the particle that gives all other particles mass, now imagine that you have found a way to interact directly with that field. It could be possible to create some form of energy barrier say for example around a spaceship that would nullify or block all Higgs field interactions with matter inside the field. Now your spaceship has no mass, because the subatomic particles that make it up no longer interact with the Higgs field, and now the famous E=MC^2 no longer applies. You have built the first spaceship capable of traveling faster than light.

[Daimon]

Close but you are not seeing the source, you are seeing the light radiating from the object, which is traveling at the speed of light. This light is therefore constantly trailing BEHIND the object. So the first light you would eventually see is when the object apprears in front of you. The light radiating from this object slowly catches up from the closest point to you slowly to the light that radiated millions of miles away, creating an illudion of it traveling back to its originalpoint in time.

So if this object stopped next to you, you would see this still image standing next to you and you'd see another trail of this image going backwards to its point of origination as this light travels to reach you.

You don't see it period, if he is traveling at light speed you will not see it, with your eyes if that's what you thinking. Now, if he is faster than c in order to "detect" it, and when you do, you will receive the info from its faster speed source, hence will not appears to move back.
You can't assume light (as EM waves) is the only way to detect an object. If something goes faster than light, you can use faster methods to detect the info.

[Aideren]

Thought this was talking about the movement speed increase for Paladins in MoP lol. But I'm sure it would be impossble to see something going faster than the speed of light.

[chazus]

Travelling in the universe is just a moronic " nazi " promise to justify a useless goal.

Wow. Only two pages to hit the Godwin Limit

Anyway. I made a little diagram. Light works very similar to sound, as far as propagation goes. Assuming that he is running PAST you and not INTO you, you would see it in reverse because the newest information is closer than the original information, as such.

People need to get over the 'if he's travelling faster than light you can't see it'.

Yes, its theoretical, yes it's rhetorical. That's not an excuse to make a false statement. We're assuming you CAN see/perceive things quickly enough to allow this situation.

EDIT: Also, to the OP. You have to take into consideration how fast you can see (I'm assuming 'infinite fps') And that the guy is moving at a slow enough speed (lets say 2x or 3x) to make the example viable.

[Beavis]

This is essentially wrong, but I see your point. Lets say some object is traveling to you at a higher velocity than light, when its 10ft away from you, the light from that moment its 10ft away, but since he is moving faster than that light technically he gets to you 1st, but then when he is at 5ft the light from that instance gets to you before the light at 10ft, and so on. So you might see the object moving back because the info you get 1st is where he was last, and then you get the info where he was before then, etc. The problem is this:
1- The cap for Information speed = light speed because is the fastest thing we know
2- The new information speed is now > light, so you won't "see" the object moving back in time, because now you get info from a new faster source.

I understand your argument, but let's expand the distance to say 5ly and 10ly and lets assume the object emits light directed at the observer. If the object was traveling directly towards you and emitting photons, the photons emitted at 5ly would have to arrive prior to the photons emitted at 10ly. So, the observer would perceive the light emitted by the object moving backwards towards the point of origin, correct?

[Tradewind]

How about this for an extension of this thought experiment.

A visible object with a mass traveling faster than the speed of light and coming right towards you, you won't be alive to see it anyway. Or at the very least, you won't give a fat shit that it's somehow moving backwards because you just got hit in the face by something with an incredible amount of energy behind it.

[Deleted]

Wow. Only two pages to hit the Godwin Limit

Anyway. I made a little diagram. Light works very similar to sound, as far as propagation goes. Assuming that he is running PAST you and not INTO you, you would see it in reverse because the newest information is closer than the original information, as such.

People need to get over the 'if he's travelling faster than light you can't see it'.

Yes, its theoretical, yes it's rhetorical. That's not an excuse to make a false statement. We're assuming you CAN see/perceive things quickly enough to allow this situation.

EDIT: Also, to the OP. You have to take into consideration how fast you can see (I'm assuming 'infinite fps') And that the guy is moving at a slow enough speed (lets say 2x or 3x) to make the example viable.

Diagram explains it perfect. If only I could animate it =[. Being called a retard at work is making me want to pull my hair out as I can't find any good source to exemplify it.... Actually ideally it would be 2 x as you would see the object (or should I say the light radiated from the object) go backwards at the same speed it travelled towards you, so the trail would last the same time it took to get to you.

[chazus]

now imagine that you have found a way to interact directly with that field. It could be possible to create some form of energy barrier say for example around a spaceship that would nullify or block all Higgs field interactions with matter inside the field. Now your spaceship has no mass, because the subatomic particles that make it up no longer interact with the Higgs field, and now the famous E=MC^2 no longer applies. You have build the first spaceship capable of traveling faster than light.

This is almost verbatim of how a "Mass Effect Field" works in the game Mass Effect. It's all theoretical, and technically, likely impossible. But the imaginary concepts are there, and insanely similar.

---------- Post added 2012-07-23 at 10:16 AM ----------

Actually Ideally it would be 2 x as ou would see the object go backwards at the same speed it travelled to wards you, so the trail would last the same time it took to get to you.

The really fun part is... Does the guy go from standing still to BAM instantly 2x speed of light? Or does he get a running start, first? If he accelerates... By the time you see the 'start' of his run (which you would see last), you would start to see 'shadow selves' of him as he approached, and passed, the speed of light.

[Deleted]

The really fun part is... Does the guy go from standing still to BAM instantly 2x speed of light? Or does he get a running start, first? If he accelerates... By the time you see the 'start' of his run (which you would see last), you would start to see 'shadow selves' of him as he approached, and passed, the speed of light.

Idealy he would have to repetitively fluctuate between faster and slower than. Seeing something like that would be a proper WTF moment, you'd essentially see him running backwards and forwards in many places like the guy who linked that bullet dodging matrix screenshot.

[chazus]

Idealy he would have to repetitively fluctuate between faster and slower than. Seeing something like that would be a proper WTF moment, you'd essentially see him running backwards and forwards in many places like the guy who linked that bullet dodging matrix screenshot.

Exactly. That was me, also :P

So basically, you're correct in what you stated originally. HOWEVER, I understand your friends/colleagues saying you were wrong at first, because that was my initial reaction too, until I thought about it further. It's a problem with trying to 'explain' impossible situations, because if not explained EXACTLY correct, without diagrams or other aids, it may be misinterpretted.

It's sort of like me asking you 'exactly' how to summon a fireball with magic. Could you do it? Maybe. Would it take a lot of debate, and me telling you it's not possible, even with metaphysics and magic? Probably.

[Spl4sh3r]

OP just reading two sentences my mind made it up that I agree with you. Everyone knows how light travels. The closer the object is to you the quicker you see the light from it. It can be proven when you think of how long it takes for each objects light to travel to you. If a person travels faster (even if impossible) at each point in his path the light will reach you a tiny bit quicker then the previous point. So you have to see the closest point before you see the point furthest away which is the point the object starting moving from. That is the real theory, however you would really have to record it with some really good camera to even see it at all. With the human eye I am not even sure what you will see if something comes at you quicker than the speed of light.

[Archangel2187]

This was a great topic to start OP..I am happy that there are regular folks out there that think critically about things like this just for the shear pleasure of understanding. I am however going to raise the bar for you guys. I like your answers I like to see you all thinking, so I am going to throw in several new variables that are not being considered here and using them give you all several scenarios to think about in regards to the original question.

Scenario #1 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, but is self illuminating (produces the light itself like a star) the light you see is not light reflected form an outside source.

Scenario #2 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, it is not self illuminating, the only light available to view is light reflected from an outside source. However the E=MC^2 is false in this universe and even super massive objects can travel faster than the speed of light....The particular object traveling towards you happens to be so massive that it imparts a gravitational lensing effect onto the light from our outside source (which we will say for this scenario is you).

Scenario #3 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, it is not self illuminating, the only light available to view is light reflected from an outside source. E=MC^2 is true in this universe but the object is a super ship like the one I described in the previous post, which the makers through control of the Higgs field have created a bubble in which E=MC^2 no longer applies, it does however apply to any matter outside of the field surrounding the ship between you and it as it approaches. This theoretical field around the ship is transparent.

[Deleted]

This was a great topic to start OP..I am happy that there are regular folks out there that think critically about things like this just for the shear pleasure of understanding. I am however going to raise the bar for you guys. I like your answers I like to see you all thinking, so I am going to throw in several new variables that are not being considered here and using them give you all several scenarios to think about in regards to the original question.

Scenario #1 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, but is self illuminating (produces the light itself like a star) the light you see is not light reflected form an outside source.

Scenario #2 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, it is not self illuminating, the only light available to view is light reflected from an outside source. However the E=MC^2 is false in this universe and even super massive objects can travel faster than the speed of light....The particular object traveling towards you happens to be so massive that it imparts a gravitational lensing effect onto the light from our outside source (which we will say for this scenario is you).

Scenario #3 - The object is traveling towards you at faster than the speed of light, it is not self illuminating, the only light available to view is light reflected from an outside source. E=MC^2 is true in this universe but the object is a super ship like the one I described in the previous post, which the makers through control of the Higgs field have created a bubble in which E=MC^2 no longer applies, it does however apply to any matter outside of the field surrounding the ship between you and it as it approaches. This theoretical field around the ship is transparent.

Whilst I have an understanding sense of what you are asking I'd love to know what you think applies in these 3 cases as I have very little knowledge in physics =[

[Gheld]

I was bored at work today and talked to my colleagues about the speed of light. I thought that if something came directly towards me FASTER than the speed of light I would essentially be seeing it go backwards.

Putting aside the fact that these speeds are impossible, my colleagues (6 people) said I was talking BS. I tried reasoning with them by giving differant examples but they kept on insisting that I would see the object travel normaly after it had reached me.

I mean let's say a man traveling faster than light towards me showed a banner saying "1" for a minute and another one saying "2" for another. I am assuming that since he is traveling faster than the light off the 1st banner I'd eventually see the banner 2 first and then the 1.

Is my assumption wrong, or are my colleagues unable to understand me ?

If something was theoretically moving past you faster than the speed of light you would see..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tachyon04s.gif

Absolutely nothing as it approached you, and then as it moved away from you, you would see a 'red-shifted' and 'blue-shifted' version of it moving in opposite directions.

So you are absolutely incorrect.

[openair]

e=mc²

Travelling faster than light is only impossible with our current understanding of physics, because as you travel faster your mass increases. Ever increasing mass increases the energy needed to continue your acceleration. Becoming a feed back loop of shorts. To the point that you would have infinite mass, requiring infinite energy to continue your acceleration.

But if we could remove M(ass) from the equation, it would be far less impossible.

The Higgs Boson particle is theorized to be responsible for a field (similar to the magnetic field) that gives everything mass. If this theory is correct, and if it is possible to manipulate this field to reduce or remove an objects mass we could remove M.

Now that CERN has supposedly found the Higgs, we are one step closer to this.

[Gheld]

e=mc²

Travelling faster than light is only impossible with our current understanding of physics, because as you travel faster your mass increases. Ever increasing mass increases the energy needed to continue your acceleration. Becoming a feed back loop of shorts. To the point that you would have infinite mass, requiring infinite energy to continue your acceleration.

But if we could remove M(ass) from the equation, it would be far less impossible.

The Higgs Boson particle is theorized to be responsible for a field (similar to the magnetic field) that gives everything mass. If this theory is correct, and if it is possible to manipulate this field to reduce or remove an objects mass we could remove M.

Now that CERN has supposedly found the Higgs, we are one step closer to this.

e=mc^2 isn't even the correct equation.
You want M(2)=M(1)*(Sqrt(1-(sqrt v^2/sqrt c^2))

EDIT: Also, it's not impossible, accelerating TO or FROM the speed of light is impossible. See: Tachyon theory.

[openair]

e=mc^2 isn't even the correct equation.
You want M(2)=M(1)*(Sqrt(1-(sqrt v^2/sqrt c^2))

LOL. It's close enough for a gaming forum... And my point still stands, remove M from either.

Also the below link explains how your 'correct' equation actually simplifies to e=mc²...

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...7010850AA5T7Pd

[Puremallace]

I'm not a scientist but... there has been nothing that has been faster then the speed of light, so I don't think people will actually know the answer.

Maybe it goes slower the faster it goes, because our eyeview can't suck up many frames per second. To give a good example... a slow moving car you can see the wheels rotate, a fast moving car it looks like the wheels are going backwards.

I think the faster something goes the slower it shows us until a certain point where it just stands still.

Technically the speed of light we know today is what it is today. Shortly after the big bang light actually traveled at something faster then the speed of light. This current speed is what happened after everything cooled off.

[Deleted]

If something was theoretically moving past you faster than the speed of light you would see..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tachyon04s.gif

Absolutely nothing as it approached you, and then as it moved away from you, you would see a 'red-shifted' and 'blue-shifted' version of it moving in opposite directions.

So you are absolutely incorrect.

If one of the two events represents the sending of a signal from one location and the second event represents the reception of the same signal at another location, then as long as the signal is moving at the speed of light or slower, the mathematics of simultaneity ensures that all reference frames agree that the transmission-event happened before the reception-event.[16] However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time.

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

Thank you for your wonderfull source. Sad to see your self contradicting it with your opinion though.....

The color of the sphere you've shown becomes negative, showing that you are infact seeing an event of the front of the sphere after one of the back, or in another words, perceiving it traveling backwards.