Light speed

[dustypuss]

If you could travel faster than light and then could stop instantly (with out going splat ) Could you turn around and watch your self arrive . I hope you under stand this question

[funkymoped]

without a doubt you would hear the yourself turn up.
im guessing you would see yourself arrive if you were faster than light. simply because you were moving faster than the image you left behind !
186,282 miles per second is some speed... would you get a speeding fine in space ??
:-)

[mibn2cweus]

As hard as we might try we can never be in two places at once.

By virtue of relativity, at any point of acceleration, an object is always at rest relative to itself.

In other words, "No matter how fast you go . . . there you are".

[funkymoped]

mib. taking what you said and accepting we can only be in one place at a time.
with the help of very high speed cameras, we can see a bullet leave a gun. 200 years ago that would have been seen to be impossible.
so, im thinking its all relative to our knowledge what is and isnt possible.
dusty asked if we could see ourselves arrive at the point where we came to a halt !
if we were traveling faster than light, wouldnt we leave a vision (not a solid) of ourselves behind us ??

[mastadon]

relativity is really the key. the bullet example is interesting but does not change the fact that the bullet itself has not changed its behaviour at all. it is still only in one place at a time.
as you get closer to speed of light time is also affected, this is the relative factor. so no you wouldn't be able to see yourself.

i think...

[jake-the-peg]

Actually you can travel faster than ligh. It's only the speed of light in a vacuum (186,000 miles a second) that cannot be exceded.

When light travels through a medium it is slowed down when it travels through glass it goes at only half the speed


The record is about 38mph
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=9911 1&page=1

[dustypuss]

Hi Thank you all for your answers its all as clear as mud now . to (mibn2cweus) I wish you would tell my Wife that! she always think that I should be in two places at once!.

[wildwood]

What an interesting link <jake.

Although as this question is obviously an hypothetical one we must assume that the body moves through the same medium as the light. Doesn't bear thinking about that it.

[mibn2cweus]

If you would be content with seeing an image of yourself approaching you at the speed of light . . . have a look at your reflection in a mirror. Satisfaction with what you see is optional.

[beso]

A couple of answers have stated that things can't be in two places at once. It isn't that simple. Indeed scientists have made a large ion (or at least its wave function) exist in two places a substantial distance (by atomic standards) apart.

[Bazile]

jake-the-peg

Are you saying that light travels at 186000 miles per second , BUT only in a vacuum ?

If this is the case , then do we assume that when , for example we say that a star is 1 light year away , the distance may be less than 186000 x 60x60x60x24x365 miles away , because it is not travelling in a vacuum ?

[Bazile]

That should be only 2 60's

[beso]

Space is not far off being a vacuum but Bazile does have a point. I think the odd molecule in space doesn't slow it down significantly.

Once ihteresting example of matter travelling faster than the speed of light is in the water cooled storage tanks for expended reactor rods. Neutrons are released travelling faster than the speed of light in water.

A blue glow is caused from Cherenkov radiation which is the light equivalent of a sonic boom.

[dundurn]

Read Bob Shaw's "Light of Other Days" - his 'slow glass' is just what you need!