Would there theoretically be an accompanying effect to something moving beyond the speed of light?What if the speed of light were 100 times higher?How would something faster than light be affected by a black hole?What would happen if the speed of light was fundamentally faster?Is there a technological difference between going half light speed and near light speed?Localized manipulation of the speed of lightHow to prevent superluminal traveling idiots from wrecking half of the universe?
Is it really necessary to have a four hour meeting in Sprint planning?
My Project Manager does not accept carry-over in Scrum, Is that normal?
Painting a 4x6 grid with 2 colours
Performance for simple code that converts a RGB tuple to hex string
Going to France with limited French for a day
Magneto 2 How to call Helper function in observer file
Can a broken/split chain be reassembled?
Strange Sticky Substance on Digital Camera
Worms crawling under skin
Should the average user with no special access rights be worried about SMS-based 2FA being theoretically interceptable?
If the EU does not offer an extension to UK's Article 50 invocation, is the Benn Bill irrelevant?
Why does NASA publish all the results/data it gets?
Hilbert's hotel: why can't I repeat it infinitely many times?
How does IBM's 53-bit quantum computer compare to classical ones for cryptanalytic tasks?
Did Apollo carry and use WD40?
When is it acceptable to write a bad letter of recommendation?
How can this Stack Exchange site have an animated favicon?
Is "ln" (natural log) and "log" the same thing if used in this answer?
I reverse the source code, you negate the output!
Is this Portent-like spell balanced?
Is it true that, "just ten trading days represent 63 per cent of the returns of the past 50 years"?
Is it more effective to add yeast before or after kneading?
Do we know the situation in Britain before Sealion (summer 1940)?
Type_traits *_v variable template utility order fails to compile
Would there theoretically be an accompanying effect to something moving beyond the speed of light?
What if the speed of light were 100 times higher?How would something faster than light be affected by a black hole?What would happen if the speed of light was fundamentally faster?Is there a technological difference between going half light speed and near light speed?Localized manipulation of the speed of lightHow to prevent superluminal traveling idiots from wrecking half of the universe?
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
$begingroup$
I have only encountered the "Sonic Boom" a couple of times in my life, once when I was lucky enough to watch Concorde fly over my town in the late 70's.
In a story I'm writing someone claims to have encountered/observed something that travelled Faster than Light. And obviously the question is "How would they know how fast it was going?"
I would be interested to know if there is any thought or theory as to whether a vehicle or object moving faster than the speed of LIGHT would have a similar light based effect.
I assume it would create a hell of a sonic boom, but would there be a massive flash, or a mirage type bending of light as well?
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
For example purposes, let's assume the object in question would be roughly the same size as a passenger plane.
physics faster-than-light
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I have only encountered the "Sonic Boom" a couple of times in my life, once when I was lucky enough to watch Concorde fly over my town in the late 70's.
In a story I'm writing someone claims to have encountered/observed something that travelled Faster than Light. And obviously the question is "How would they know how fast it was going?"
I would be interested to know if there is any thought or theory as to whether a vehicle or object moving faster than the speed of LIGHT would have a similar light based effect.
I assume it would create a hell of a sonic boom, but would there be a massive flash, or a mirage type bending of light as well?
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
For example purposes, let's assume the object in question would be roughly the same size as a passenger plane.
physics faster-than-light
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
I have only encountered the "Sonic Boom" a couple of times in my life, once when I was lucky enough to watch Concorde fly over my town in the late 70's.
In a story I'm writing someone claims to have encountered/observed something that travelled Faster than Light. And obviously the question is "How would they know how fast it was going?"
I would be interested to know if there is any thought or theory as to whether a vehicle or object moving faster than the speed of LIGHT would have a similar light based effect.
I assume it would create a hell of a sonic boom, but would there be a massive flash, or a mirage type bending of light as well?
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
For example purposes, let's assume the object in question would be roughly the same size as a passenger plane.
physics faster-than-light
$endgroup$
I have only encountered the "Sonic Boom" a couple of times in my life, once when I was lucky enough to watch Concorde fly over my town in the late 70's.
In a story I'm writing someone claims to have encountered/observed something that travelled Faster than Light. And obviously the question is "How would they know how fast it was going?"
I would be interested to know if there is any thought or theory as to whether a vehicle or object moving faster than the speed of LIGHT would have a similar light based effect.
I assume it would create a hell of a sonic boom, but would there be a massive flash, or a mirage type bending of light as well?
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
For example purposes, let's assume the object in question would be roughly the same size as a passenger plane.
physics faster-than-light
physics faster-than-light
asked 8 hours ago
TommyTommy
1115 bronze badges
1115 bronze badges
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yep, its called Cherenkov radiation, light emitted by particles moving faster than light in their current medium. In real life this is impossible in a vacuum, but in some materials (such as water) high energy radiation can travel faster than the local speed of light. It looks a bit like this:

That's an active reactor core in a deep water tank.
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
Well, its hard to be really certain about this, because superluminal travel is problematic for many, many reasons discussed elsewhere, but here are a few thoughts.
With a ship flying towards to, as it has travelled faster than its own light, you'll be able to see the light it had emitted catching up with it. The light emitted most recently will arrive first, then light emitted earlier. This means that you'll see an "echo" of the ship shooting backwards away from you into the far distance. There's a non-FTL effect a little like this called a light echo. The "echo" will propagate pretty quickly, so I'm not sure whether you'd be able to see the effect unless the ship was travelling over a very long distance (eg. lightseconds or more).
A ship flying away from you won't show this effect, as the further away it gets the longer the light will take to reach you.
Things will probably get even weirder if you observe a flyby rather than an arrival. The first light you'll see will be from where the ship was at its closest point towards you. Then _ think you'll see the FTL-light echo receding from you, and the light of its flight away from you at the same time. If you couldn't tell front from back, it might look as if two ships appeared together and shot off in opposite directions.
Now, there are of course issues of blue- and red-shifting, but it isn't at all obvious to me that you'd see those effects on a superluminal object (inasmuch as it is possible to even have a superluminal object you could see) but as things have already tottered out over the cliff of plausibility, you could probably handwave that as you wished.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know to answer your question.
There are actually two speeds to keep track of: the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation) and the speed of causality (the fastest speed cause and effect can propagate at.) In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation (being carried by massless particles) travels at the highest possible speed, that of causality. (Relativity explains why nothing ever travels faster than causality, (FTC).)
In matter, interactions between the EM field (or, equivalently, the photons of the electromagnetic radiation) slows the effective speed of EM radiation to less than the speed of causality. (The effective speed is dependent on the details of the material medium and the wavelength of the EMR -- in water, for example, visible light travels significantly more slowly than x-rays.) The speed of causality is unaffected.
Cherenkov radiation is caused by a material particle moving FTL (though more slowly than causality) through a material medium. So Cherenkov radiation is not the answer, because the interactions between the FTL (but not FTC) particle and the material medium are themselves limited by the speed of causality. The postulated FTC particle could not interact in the same way. So whatever happens, Cherenkov radiation is not it.
What does happen? As I started this answer: There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know. The theories of Special and General Relativity describe the fundamental nature of space and time and causality and the introduction of an FTC particle simply generates contradictions with even cause and effect breaking down. This is a very strong sign that one of two things are true: (1) FTC particles are impossible or (2) Relativity is not a correct theory of nature.
In case #1, there's nothing to predict. In case #2, we know that the only theories we have that describe the world around us are wrong, so we can't expect them to make useful predictions of an FTC particle's behavior.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One effect could be the illusion that the craft is moving backward, as the light from the vehicle being close to you reaches you before the light of the vehicle being further away.
This would only happen if the vehicle was moving toward you.
Edit: thinking about it a little more, what you'd likely see is a streak flashing out from the point of closest approach in both directions, forward and back...
Another possibility would be a radiation burst followed by a radio burst, as the light is red shifted/blue shifted way out of the visible spectrum and into gamma rays as it is moving toward you, and radio waves as it is moving away from you.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The usual answer is Cherenkov radiation. This emitted when particles are travelling faster than the velocity of light in the medium they are passing through. This is often seen in nuclear reactors where the particulate radiation from fuel rods exceeds lightspeed of the medium, usually heavy-water, in which they are immersed.
Back when tachyons were the favour of the month in theoretical physics, there was a research paper that suggested that faster-than-light objects might generate a gravitational shock-wave accompanying their motion. This suggest the instruments necessary to detect a tachyonic gravitational shock-wave, would be a form of gravitational wave detector.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "579"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156630%2fwould-there-theoretically-be-an-accompanying-effect-to-something-moving-beyond-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Yep, its called Cherenkov radiation, light emitted by particles moving faster than light in their current medium. In real life this is impossible in a vacuum, but in some materials (such as water) high energy radiation can travel faster than the local speed of light. It looks a bit like this:

That's an active reactor core in a deep water tank.
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
Well, its hard to be really certain about this, because superluminal travel is problematic for many, many reasons discussed elsewhere, but here are a few thoughts.
With a ship flying towards to, as it has travelled faster than its own light, you'll be able to see the light it had emitted catching up with it. The light emitted most recently will arrive first, then light emitted earlier. This means that you'll see an "echo" of the ship shooting backwards away from you into the far distance. There's a non-FTL effect a little like this called a light echo. The "echo" will propagate pretty quickly, so I'm not sure whether you'd be able to see the effect unless the ship was travelling over a very long distance (eg. lightseconds or more).
A ship flying away from you won't show this effect, as the further away it gets the longer the light will take to reach you.
Things will probably get even weirder if you observe a flyby rather than an arrival. The first light you'll see will be from where the ship was at its closest point towards you. Then _ think you'll see the FTL-light echo receding from you, and the light of its flight away from you at the same time. If you couldn't tell front from back, it might look as if two ships appeared together and shot off in opposite directions.
Now, there are of course issues of blue- and red-shifting, but it isn't at all obvious to me that you'd see those effects on a superluminal object (inasmuch as it is possible to even have a superluminal object you could see) but as things have already tottered out over the cliff of plausibility, you could probably handwave that as you wished.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, its called Cherenkov radiation, light emitted by particles moving faster than light in their current medium. In real life this is impossible in a vacuum, but in some materials (such as water) high energy radiation can travel faster than the local speed of light. It looks a bit like this:

That's an active reactor core in a deep water tank.
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
Well, its hard to be really certain about this, because superluminal travel is problematic for many, many reasons discussed elsewhere, but here are a few thoughts.
With a ship flying towards to, as it has travelled faster than its own light, you'll be able to see the light it had emitted catching up with it. The light emitted most recently will arrive first, then light emitted earlier. This means that you'll see an "echo" of the ship shooting backwards away from you into the far distance. There's a non-FTL effect a little like this called a light echo. The "echo" will propagate pretty quickly, so I'm not sure whether you'd be able to see the effect unless the ship was travelling over a very long distance (eg. lightseconds or more).
A ship flying away from you won't show this effect, as the further away it gets the longer the light will take to reach you.
Things will probably get even weirder if you observe a flyby rather than an arrival. The first light you'll see will be from where the ship was at its closest point towards you. Then _ think you'll see the FTL-light echo receding from you, and the light of its flight away from you at the same time. If you couldn't tell front from back, it might look as if two ships appeared together and shot off in opposite directions.
Now, there are of course issues of blue- and red-shifting, but it isn't at all obvious to me that you'd see those effects on a superluminal object (inasmuch as it is possible to even have a superluminal object you could see) but as things have already tottered out over the cliff of plausibility, you could probably handwave that as you wished.
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Yep, its called Cherenkov radiation, light emitted by particles moving faster than light in their current medium. In real life this is impossible in a vacuum, but in some materials (such as water) high energy radiation can travel faster than the local speed of light. It looks a bit like this:

That's an active reactor core in a deep water tank.
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
Well, its hard to be really certain about this, because superluminal travel is problematic for many, many reasons discussed elsewhere, but here are a few thoughts.
With a ship flying towards to, as it has travelled faster than its own light, you'll be able to see the light it had emitted catching up with it. The light emitted most recently will arrive first, then light emitted earlier. This means that you'll see an "echo" of the ship shooting backwards away from you into the far distance. There's a non-FTL effect a little like this called a light echo. The "echo" will propagate pretty quickly, so I'm not sure whether you'd be able to see the effect unless the ship was travelling over a very long distance (eg. lightseconds or more).
A ship flying away from you won't show this effect, as the further away it gets the longer the light will take to reach you.
Things will probably get even weirder if you observe a flyby rather than an arrival. The first light you'll see will be from where the ship was at its closest point towards you. Then _ think you'll see the FTL-light echo receding from you, and the light of its flight away from you at the same time. If you couldn't tell front from back, it might look as if two ships appeared together and shot off in opposite directions.
Now, there are of course issues of blue- and red-shifting, but it isn't at all obvious to me that you'd see those effects on a superluminal object (inasmuch as it is possible to even have a superluminal object you could see) but as things have already tottered out over the cliff of plausibility, you could probably handwave that as you wished.
$endgroup$
Yep, its called Cherenkov radiation, light emitted by particles moving faster than light in their current medium. In real life this is impossible in a vacuum, but in some materials (such as water) high energy radiation can travel faster than the local speed of light. It looks a bit like this:

That's an active reactor core in a deep water tank.
Are there any other theoretical tell tale signs that something had travelled faster than light as opposed to just "Really really fast"?
Well, its hard to be really certain about this, because superluminal travel is problematic for many, many reasons discussed elsewhere, but here are a few thoughts.
With a ship flying towards to, as it has travelled faster than its own light, you'll be able to see the light it had emitted catching up with it. The light emitted most recently will arrive first, then light emitted earlier. This means that you'll see an "echo" of the ship shooting backwards away from you into the far distance. There's a non-FTL effect a little like this called a light echo. The "echo" will propagate pretty quickly, so I'm not sure whether you'd be able to see the effect unless the ship was travelling over a very long distance (eg. lightseconds or more).
A ship flying away from you won't show this effect, as the further away it gets the longer the light will take to reach you.
Things will probably get even weirder if you observe a flyby rather than an arrival. The first light you'll see will be from where the ship was at its closest point towards you. Then _ think you'll see the FTL-light echo receding from you, and the light of its flight away from you at the same time. If you couldn't tell front from back, it might look as if two ships appeared together and shot off in opposite directions.
Now, there are of course issues of blue- and red-shifting, but it isn't at all obvious to me that you'd see those effects on a superluminal object (inasmuch as it is possible to even have a superluminal object you could see) but as things have already tottered out over the cliff of plausibility, you could probably handwave that as you wished.
edited 7 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
Starfish PrimeStarfish Prime
14.7k31 silver badges68 bronze badges
14.7k31 silver badges68 bronze badges
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
5
5
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
Cherenkov radiation doesnt travel faster than the speed of light in a vacuum though. So thats an important distinction in case we are talkiing about a space ship observing this effect. curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/142-physics/…
$endgroup$
– Tyler S. Loeper
8 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
How about observed from the ground, and travelling at fairly high altitude in an Earth type atmosphere? Just from a perspective of whether that bluish halo would be visible at distance. I xxxxing LOVE the idea of the reverse echo! TV/Movie producers really should make more use of that idea!
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy answer updated with a few more guesses!
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Thanks very much! I'm going to possibly complicate this further and say; "Would a scenario where the object is seen to accelerate to FTL possibly see the light of the vehicle travel back towards the moving vehicle to coincide with with point at which it hits FTL?" or am I way off?
$endgroup$
– Tommy
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy I think if it is moving away from you, you don't get to see any neat effects because the light reaches you from the closest point first, making them (correctly) seem to move away from you.
$endgroup$
– Starfish Prime
5 hours ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know to answer your question.
There are actually two speeds to keep track of: the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation) and the speed of causality (the fastest speed cause and effect can propagate at.) In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation (being carried by massless particles) travels at the highest possible speed, that of causality. (Relativity explains why nothing ever travels faster than causality, (FTC).)
In matter, interactions between the EM field (or, equivalently, the photons of the electromagnetic radiation) slows the effective speed of EM radiation to less than the speed of causality. (The effective speed is dependent on the details of the material medium and the wavelength of the EMR -- in water, for example, visible light travels significantly more slowly than x-rays.) The speed of causality is unaffected.
Cherenkov radiation is caused by a material particle moving FTL (though more slowly than causality) through a material medium. So Cherenkov radiation is not the answer, because the interactions between the FTL (but not FTC) particle and the material medium are themselves limited by the speed of causality. The postulated FTC particle could not interact in the same way. So whatever happens, Cherenkov radiation is not it.
What does happen? As I started this answer: There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know. The theories of Special and General Relativity describe the fundamental nature of space and time and causality and the introduction of an FTC particle simply generates contradictions with even cause and effect breaking down. This is a very strong sign that one of two things are true: (1) FTC particles are impossible or (2) Relativity is not a correct theory of nature.
In case #1, there's nothing to predict. In case #2, we know that the only theories we have that describe the world around us are wrong, so we can't expect them to make useful predictions of an FTC particle's behavior.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know to answer your question.
There are actually two speeds to keep track of: the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation) and the speed of causality (the fastest speed cause and effect can propagate at.) In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation (being carried by massless particles) travels at the highest possible speed, that of causality. (Relativity explains why nothing ever travels faster than causality, (FTC).)
In matter, interactions between the EM field (or, equivalently, the photons of the electromagnetic radiation) slows the effective speed of EM radiation to less than the speed of causality. (The effective speed is dependent on the details of the material medium and the wavelength of the EMR -- in water, for example, visible light travels significantly more slowly than x-rays.) The speed of causality is unaffected.
Cherenkov radiation is caused by a material particle moving FTL (though more slowly than causality) through a material medium. So Cherenkov radiation is not the answer, because the interactions between the FTL (but not FTC) particle and the material medium are themselves limited by the speed of causality. The postulated FTC particle could not interact in the same way. So whatever happens, Cherenkov radiation is not it.
What does happen? As I started this answer: There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know. The theories of Special and General Relativity describe the fundamental nature of space and time and causality and the introduction of an FTC particle simply generates contradictions with even cause and effect breaking down. This is a very strong sign that one of two things are true: (1) FTC particles are impossible or (2) Relativity is not a correct theory of nature.
In case #1, there's nothing to predict. In case #2, we know that the only theories we have that describe the world around us are wrong, so we can't expect them to make useful predictions of an FTC particle's behavior.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know to answer your question.
There are actually two speeds to keep track of: the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation) and the speed of causality (the fastest speed cause and effect can propagate at.) In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation (being carried by massless particles) travels at the highest possible speed, that of causality. (Relativity explains why nothing ever travels faster than causality, (FTC).)
In matter, interactions between the EM field (or, equivalently, the photons of the electromagnetic radiation) slows the effective speed of EM radiation to less than the speed of causality. (The effective speed is dependent on the details of the material medium and the wavelength of the EMR -- in water, for example, visible light travels significantly more slowly than x-rays.) The speed of causality is unaffected.
Cherenkov radiation is caused by a material particle moving FTL (though more slowly than causality) through a material medium. So Cherenkov radiation is not the answer, because the interactions between the FTL (but not FTC) particle and the material medium are themselves limited by the speed of causality. The postulated FTC particle could not interact in the same way. So whatever happens, Cherenkov radiation is not it.
What does happen? As I started this answer: There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know. The theories of Special and General Relativity describe the fundamental nature of space and time and causality and the introduction of an FTC particle simply generates contradictions with even cause and effect breaking down. This is a very strong sign that one of two things are true: (1) FTC particles are impossible or (2) Relativity is not a correct theory of nature.
In case #1, there's nothing to predict. In case #2, we know that the only theories we have that describe the world around us are wrong, so we can't expect them to make useful predictions of an FTC particle's behavior.
$endgroup$
There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know to answer your question.
There are actually two speeds to keep track of: the speed of light (the speed of electromagnetic radiation) and the speed of causality (the fastest speed cause and effect can propagate at.) In a vacuum, electromagnetic radiation (being carried by massless particles) travels at the highest possible speed, that of causality. (Relativity explains why nothing ever travels faster than causality, (FTC).)
In matter, interactions between the EM field (or, equivalently, the photons of the electromagnetic radiation) slows the effective speed of EM radiation to less than the speed of causality. (The effective speed is dependent on the details of the material medium and the wavelength of the EMR -- in water, for example, visible light travels significantly more slowly than x-rays.) The speed of causality is unaffected.
Cherenkov radiation is caused by a material particle moving FTL (though more slowly than causality) through a material medium. So Cherenkov radiation is not the answer, because the interactions between the FTL (but not FTC) particle and the material medium are themselves limited by the speed of causality. The postulated FTC particle could not interact in the same way. So whatever happens, Cherenkov radiation is not it.
What does happen? As I started this answer: There's no way to extrapolate from the physics we know. The theories of Special and General Relativity describe the fundamental nature of space and time and causality and the introduction of an FTC particle simply generates contradictions with even cause and effect breaking down. This is a very strong sign that one of two things are true: (1) FTC particles are impossible or (2) Relativity is not a correct theory of nature.
In case #1, there's nothing to predict. In case #2, we know that the only theories we have that describe the world around us are wrong, so we can't expect them to make useful predictions of an FTC particle's behavior.
answered 7 hours ago
Mark OlsonMark Olson
12.5k1 gold badge29 silver badges49 bronze badges
12.5k1 gold badge29 silver badges49 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One effect could be the illusion that the craft is moving backward, as the light from the vehicle being close to you reaches you before the light of the vehicle being further away.
This would only happen if the vehicle was moving toward you.
Edit: thinking about it a little more, what you'd likely see is a streak flashing out from the point of closest approach in both directions, forward and back...
Another possibility would be a radiation burst followed by a radio burst, as the light is red shifted/blue shifted way out of the visible spectrum and into gamma rays as it is moving toward you, and radio waves as it is moving away from you.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One effect could be the illusion that the craft is moving backward, as the light from the vehicle being close to you reaches you before the light of the vehicle being further away.
This would only happen if the vehicle was moving toward you.
Edit: thinking about it a little more, what you'd likely see is a streak flashing out from the point of closest approach in both directions, forward and back...
Another possibility would be a radiation burst followed by a radio burst, as the light is red shifted/blue shifted way out of the visible spectrum and into gamma rays as it is moving toward you, and radio waves as it is moving away from you.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
One effect could be the illusion that the craft is moving backward, as the light from the vehicle being close to you reaches you before the light of the vehicle being further away.
This would only happen if the vehicle was moving toward you.
Edit: thinking about it a little more, what you'd likely see is a streak flashing out from the point of closest approach in both directions, forward and back...
Another possibility would be a radiation burst followed by a radio burst, as the light is red shifted/blue shifted way out of the visible spectrum and into gamma rays as it is moving toward you, and radio waves as it is moving away from you.
$endgroup$
One effect could be the illusion that the craft is moving backward, as the light from the vehicle being close to you reaches you before the light of the vehicle being further away.
This would only happen if the vehicle was moving toward you.
Edit: thinking about it a little more, what you'd likely see is a streak flashing out from the point of closest approach in both directions, forward and back...
Another possibility would be a radiation burst followed by a radio burst, as the light is red shifted/blue shifted way out of the visible spectrum and into gamma rays as it is moving toward you, and radio waves as it is moving away from you.
edited 5 hours ago
answered 8 hours ago
AndyD273AndyD273
31.8k2 gold badges61 silver badges139 bronze badges
31.8k2 gold badges61 silver badges139 bronze badges
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
As a complete buffoon regarding stuff like this, would that likely have an impact on other types of broadcast media? For instance a short interruption of local WiFi? (I'm guessing that more people these days would notice a brief Internet outage than their local radio being scrambled.)
$endgroup$
– Tommy
7 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Tommy WiFi and other radio technology are pretty dependent on what radio bands the receiver is tuned for. Just like you can't see ultraviolet light, but a bee can, because it's eyes have a receiver for it, but yours don't, so a radio (wifi, cell, or plain old music stations) can't detect a signal that is outside of it's tuned band. This signal will be very brief, and may or may not have the power to overwhelm the close signal. What would happen is a fast burst of static across a huge portion of the spectrum, and that would get peoples attention.
$endgroup$
– AndyD273
5 hours ago
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The usual answer is Cherenkov radiation. This emitted when particles are travelling faster than the velocity of light in the medium they are passing through. This is often seen in nuclear reactors where the particulate radiation from fuel rods exceeds lightspeed of the medium, usually heavy-water, in which they are immersed.
Back when tachyons were the favour of the month in theoretical physics, there was a research paper that suggested that faster-than-light objects might generate a gravitational shock-wave accompanying their motion. This suggest the instruments necessary to detect a tachyonic gravitational shock-wave, would be a form of gravitational wave detector.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The usual answer is Cherenkov radiation. This emitted when particles are travelling faster than the velocity of light in the medium they are passing through. This is often seen in nuclear reactors where the particulate radiation from fuel rods exceeds lightspeed of the medium, usually heavy-water, in which they are immersed.
Back when tachyons were the favour of the month in theoretical physics, there was a research paper that suggested that faster-than-light objects might generate a gravitational shock-wave accompanying their motion. This suggest the instruments necessary to detect a tachyonic gravitational shock-wave, would be a form of gravitational wave detector.
$endgroup$
add a comment
|
$begingroup$
The usual answer is Cherenkov radiation. This emitted when particles are travelling faster than the velocity of light in the medium they are passing through. This is often seen in nuclear reactors where the particulate radiation from fuel rods exceeds lightspeed of the medium, usually heavy-water, in which they are immersed.
Back when tachyons were the favour of the month in theoretical physics, there was a research paper that suggested that faster-than-light objects might generate a gravitational shock-wave accompanying their motion. This suggest the instruments necessary to detect a tachyonic gravitational shock-wave, would be a form of gravitational wave detector.
$endgroup$
The usual answer is Cherenkov radiation. This emitted when particles are travelling faster than the velocity of light in the medium they are passing through. This is often seen in nuclear reactors where the particulate radiation from fuel rods exceeds lightspeed of the medium, usually heavy-water, in which they are immersed.
Back when tachyons were the favour of the month in theoretical physics, there was a research paper that suggested that faster-than-light objects might generate a gravitational shock-wave accompanying their motion. This suggest the instruments necessary to detect a tachyonic gravitational shock-wave, would be a form of gravitational wave detector.
edited 7 hours ago
AlexP
47k9 gold badges108 silver badges185 bronze badges
47k9 gold badges108 silver badges185 bronze badges
answered 8 hours ago
a4androida4android
33.8k3 gold badges44 silver badges130 bronze badges
33.8k3 gold badges44 silver badges130 bronze badges
add a comment
|
add a comment
|
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f156630%2fwould-there-theoretically-be-an-accompanying-effect-to-something-moving-beyond-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Down thread people are saying Cherenkov radiation. This is produced when a charged particle moves faster than the phase velocity of light in a medium. In water, this speed is (from memory) about 0.67 of the speed of light. So no, this won't satisfy the requirements. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
$endgroup$
– puppetsock
6 hours ago
$begingroup$
Google "Tachyon theory" . TL;DR is you won't notice a thing.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Note also that it's impossible under current knowledge of physics to transit from sublight to superluminary speed. You're stuck in one condition or the other. If you make up new physics, then you can posit pretty much whatever you want.
$endgroup$
– Carl Witthoft
5 hours ago