2007-03-25 05:19:10 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Physics
Firstly, you wouldn't hear it at all. Sound requires waves to travel through, which explains why astronauts use radios to communicate. The second problem is caused by the first. If there is no sound, they should not occur at the same time, even if there were sound. This is because light travels at nearly 300,000 km/s in a vaccuum. Sound does not travel in a vaccuum, but on the ground it goes approximately 1500 km/hr. This is not even near the speed of light.
2007-03-25 05:44:17 · answer #1 · answered by Ronald McDonald 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a mistake to think of hearing an explosion in space because of the lack of a medium to carry the sound.
If you ignore that problem, and you did see and hear it at the same time, considering the difference in the speed of light and sound, that means you were at the site of the explosion. And that would be your biggest, and last, mistake.
2007-03-25 16:05:05 · answer #2 · answered by sojsail 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The explosion is seen due to the release of light energy which, as you probably know is instantaneously seen.
In comparison, sound is a snail and needs air or other medium for its transmission, the sound and the sight can not occur at the same time.
The explosion would also be seen as an expanding ball of light.
2007-03-25 13:50:24 · answer #3 · answered by Norrie 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, first of all, you wouldn't hear the explosion, as there is no medium for the sound wave to be transmitted through. And secondly, if you could hear the sound, it wouldn't be traveling as fast as light, to the sound would come after the image of the explosion.
2007-03-25 12:23:37 · answer #4 · answered by iraqisax 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋