# Assume in the following scenario that it is possible to travel faster than light

Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0
Topic 192785

Lets assume in the following scenario that it is possible to travel faster than light.

Suppose there are a star traveling in a strait line with twice the speed of light, it travels in such way that the closest point to us on its path will be 1 light year.

Would it be possible for us to see the star and if so, will wee se 2 stars traveling from the closest point to us on there path, 1 light year away, and in opposite directions to each other?

Tomas

Klimax
Joined: 27 Apr 07
Posts: 87
Credit: 1,370,205
RAC: 0

### Assume in the following scenario that it is possible to travel f

Quote:

Lets assume in the following scenario that it is possible to travel faster than light.

Suppose there are a star traveling in a strait line with twice the speed of light, it travels in such way that the closest point to us on its path will be 1 light year.

Some theories says that the object would be in parallels universes,because we would get complex number as a result of Lorentz transformation in Special theory of relativity.And those universes can be anything,like different histories.
The best source for this are books by Stephen Hawking.

debugas
Joined: 11 Nov 04
Posts: 170
Credit: 77,331
RAC: 0

### yes Tomas you are right - the

yes Tomas you are right - the star would appear from nowhere at 1 l.y from you and then would seem to start moving in two opposite directions simultaniously. Dont you find it similar to the process of electron and positron appearing from nowhere and moving in opposite directions after their birth ?

one thing that puzzles me in FTL (faster than light) travel is how oscilations would be happening in such objects - let's say i have two mirrors on-board the ship that is moving at 2c and i try to send light beam between them... - i never get reflection back from rear mirror because the mirror overruns its light. In other words the rear mirror would be giving no reflection at all. Would it be showing the future ? Would i be seeing my future first and then living it later?

Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0

### I believe that most of the

I believe that most of the confusion regarding relativity is connected with the exact meaning of words and definitions. In the example with the observation of the moving star in this case an observer could say that he detected 2 stars and that one of the was assumed to move faster than light because the time observed on the star seamed to move backwards.

In the case with the detected muon at sea-level that are supposed to be indication of increased lifespan connected with the fact that they are moving with a speed close to the speed of light. Assume that they actually are moving faster than light. No matter how fast they are moving you could newer measure a shorter timespan between the cosmic ray interaction thousands of meters up and the time of detection of the muon at sea-level than it takes for the light to go the same distance but what you can measure is not necessarily the same as how it actually works.

peanut
Joined: 4 May 07
Posts: 162
Credit: 9,644,812
RAC: 0

### I wonder if dark matter could

I wonder if dark matter could be matter that is traveling faster than light relative to our reference frame.

I am not sure if that even makes sense. But this thread assumes it is possible to move faster than light with respect to some arbitrary reference frame. Could we see something that is moving faster than light? If that was possible, would what we see have greater than infinite energy if I understand E = mc*c right.

I did read the electron - positron thing. I have to let that sink in a bit. Not sure I'll ever understand any of this but it is fun thinking about it.

Simplex0
Joined: 1 Sep 05
Posts: 152
Credit: 964,726
RAC: 0

### RE: I wonder if dark matter

Message 67801 in response to message 67800

Quote:
I wonder if dark matter could be matter that is traveling faster than light relative to our reference frame.

I don't think so, this is just my speculation.
Around every object there is an information bubble who's size and volume depends on the age and speed of the object.

Scenario 1.
A stationary star that have existed for 1 year is surrounded by an information bubble with a radius of 1 light year. The star can only be observed with in this volume.

Scenario 2.
A star that moves with 2x the speed of light and have existed for 1 year is surrounded by an information bubble shaped like half sphere with a radius of 1 light year in the back end and followed by a cone with radius of 1 light year and a length of 2 light year. The star will not be observable in front of it in the direction it moves but should be able to detect from the side and behind and the observable volume is bigger in this case than in scenario 1.