Yes and no...
Something can't actually move faster than the speed of light. However, perspective can make it appear that something is travelling faster than the speed of light.
Let's say someone travels away from the Earth at 80% the speed of light towards alpha centauri which is 4.2 or so lightyears away. It would take them 5.25 years to reach it at this speed. However, due to length contraction (because of is very high speed), The distance they appear to travel from their own perspective is only 60% of that, or 2.52 light years, which takes them 3.15 years to travel. From their perspective, they travel 4.2 light years in 3.15 years, which would seem to be 1.333 times the speed of light. As such, Earth would appear to move away from them faster than the speed of light. However this is just an observational trick of time dilation and length contraction. On Earth, the ship would really arrive 5.25 years later. From Earth's perspective they only flew at 0.8 c.
If they fly back at the same speed, a similar thing will occur. It will appear they reached Earth in 3.15 years, whereas Earth will see them take 5.25 years to get back. In essence, while 10.5 years have passed on Earth, the people on the ship will have only experienced the passage of 6.3 years.
2007-02-26 11:51:28
·
answer #1
·
answered by Arkalius 5
·
3⤊
1⤋
Nothing moves at a speed faster than the speed of light.
Objects which have mass cannot move at any speed
which comes close to the speed of light.
2007-02-26 10:52:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by zahbudar 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
there was a time when man thought nothing could move faster than a fleeing antelope until some one had the bright idea to throw a sharpened stick at it. then he thought nothing could go faster than him on a horse but of course along came the car, then the aeroplane. then they thought nothing could go faster than the speed of sound and we all know what happened to that idea, so with that assumption in mind why not. if man ever learns to travel at the speed of light all he has to do is lean out the window and chuck out a sharpened stick.
2007-02-27 10:52:39
·
answer #3
·
answered by james m 1
·
1⤊
1⤋
that is not conceivable for an merchandise to go by area such that it strikes faraway from yet another merchandise at more desirable than the speed of sunshine. This all of us know from experimental confirmation of Einstein's Relativity concept. besides the undeniable fact that, the universe itself is increasing at an ever increasing cost. 2 gadgets might want to correctly be "pushed" aside by increasing area at swifter than the speed of sunshine. those gadgets are not transferring by area, they are being carried alongside by increasing area. truly, the further away an merchandise is from us, the swifter it strikes faraway from us (see the wikipedia article on the Accelerating Universe).
2016-10-17 09:12:07
·
answer #4
·
answered by forker 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Where do these people come from??? There is no 'time machine' effect because time isn't involved, there is no friction to be concerned about either...
Yes, things can move faster than the speed of light; but they aren't large 'objects'. Electrons can be made to move faster than the speed of light in a particle accelerator when using a dielectric medium. This type of radiation, known as Cherenkov radiation gives an awesome blue color when the particle exceeds the speed of light. Check it out sometime, it's my fave color...
2007-02-26 10:13:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by annoyed_with_the_other_answers 3
·
0⤊
4⤋
Nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
Because it is a time restriction no technology will ever do it.
2007-02-26 11:35:49
·
answer #6
·
answered by Billy Butthead 7
·
1⤊
2⤋
I agree with "annoyed..." because even though the speed of light is incredibly fast (186,000 miles per second to be exact) it is possible for "somethings" to travel faster than the speed of light. But according to Einstein's equation- E=mc- it is almost impossible for an object to travel faster than the speed of light because of its mass. To travel an object needs energy and an object of greater mass needs greater force/energy. In fact, just to reach the speed of light it would take a tremendous amount of energy without taking account for its mass/weight. Light of course has practically no mass nor weight so therefore it takes less energy for it to reach the speed of light.
But if you meant any "object" including the elements...then yes it is possible for it to travel faster than the speed of light....and it has already been done by scientists with speed accelerators.
2007-02-26 12:26:04
·
answer #7
·
answered by Empress Amethyst 2
·
0⤊
3⤋
Dangerous question, bound to get a whole lot of half-baked answers!
Why?
Because the 'speed of light' means nothing until you specify the medium (presumably in vacuum) (yes, look up Cherenkov radiation to see how >c is possible in non-vacuum) and the frame of reference you're asking about.
EXAMPLE:
Many active distant galaxies expel 'superluminal blobs' from their central regions.. brightened regions that move faster than the speed of light... AS WE SEE THEM in OUR frame of reference! They are not moving >c(0) in THEIR F.O.R., but.....
(you get the idea...)
Conclusion:
When it comes to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, just don't go there unless your brain is both a) extremely adept at grasping Hawking-level physics and b) obsessive enough to care - lol ;) :]
2007-02-26 14:16:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by Stargazer 3
·
1⤊
2⤋
Yes. Take for instance people who study astronomy and women. Women tend to flock away from them Space Geeks "faster than the speed of light"
2007-02-26 10:07:51
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
Absolutely! Even though light has no absolute speed (see articles below)
there are many particles, some of them with negative mass or no mass at all, that can travel many times the speed of 'light'.
http://www.primidi.com/2005/08/20.html
http://physicsweb.org/articles/news/9/8/13/1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Particles traveling Faster than light: Tachyons
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light
2007-02-26 13:30:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Ammy 6
·
1⤊
3⤋