-1
$\begingroup$

Usually when talking about material particles exceeding the speed of light they talk about being able to travel to the past and that breaking causality. There's another particular case which they don't talk about (at least in the literature used in my course).

Let's consider a stationary reference frame $\mathsf S$ and an inertial one $\mathsf S'$ travelling at velocity $v=\beta c$ wrt $\mathsf S$. Say there's an event $(t,x)=(0,0)$ and by a physical effect it causes $(\Delta t>0, \Delta x>0)$ with $U=\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta t}>c$. If we apply a boost in the $x$ direction, $\Lambda_v:\mathsf S\to\mathsf S'$, then the time interval in $\mathsf S'$ would be $$\Delta t'=\gamma_v\left[\Delta t-\beta\frac{\Delta x}{c}\right]=\gamma_v\Delta t\left[1-\beta\frac{U}{c}\right]$$ At this point they say that if $\frac{c}{U}<\beta<1$, then $\Delta t'<0$ and so, $(\Delta x,\Delta t)$ in frame of reference $\mathsf S'$ happens in the past, thus violating causality. The case they don't mention is when $U=\frac{c}{\beta}$, namely, when $\Delta t'=0$ ! Does this mean the observer in $\mathsf S'$ would see a superposition of all states of the particle travelling at speed $U$? Is there any illustrative example to understand what is going on in this case and what implications it has?

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ But traveling at a speed more than c is very easy , just fall in a black hole!If we could somehow extract information from the falling observer I think it would help us solve faster than speed of light paradoxes. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 6 at 21:03
  • $\begingroup$ It's impossible to travel faster than light, you would need an infinite amount of work to accelerate the particle up to that speed. Second, the delta notation introduces interval between events, so you are implicitly talking about two events. The change of sign means that the sequence of events can be inverted between the reference frames. $\endgroup$
    – tac
    Commented Oct 6 at 21:19
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @RootGroves it is even easier than that. Just turn in a circle and any stars you see are travelling faster than $c$ in your frame. No need for a black hole or event horizon. But note that the question isn't about faster than $c$, it is about faster than light. Nothing does that whether you are spinning or falling through an event horizon $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Oct 7 at 2:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RootGroves Nothing travels faster than light relative to particles (inertial or otherwise) in the local vicinity, not even when falling into a black hole. Nothing can overtake a light particle in the local vicinity. $\endgroup$
    – KDP
    Commented Oct 7 at 8:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @RootGroves KDP is correct. You are still missing the distinction between “faster than c” and “faster than light”. Also, the river model is very limited $\endgroup$
    – Dale
    Commented Oct 7 at 11:55

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

If $\Delta t' = 0$ then you would have instantaneous motion, or something traveling infinitely fast. Traditionally this wasn't regarded as particularly problematic, as witness e.g. science fiction stories about instantaneous teleportation or communication. Technically one could be concerned about an object being in two places at the same time, but practically this is indistinguishable from the object being at A at one time and then at its destination B a tiny increment of time later if that increment is too small to measure with available instruments.

Backwards time travel, on the other hand, is obviously problematic and hence the focus on that.

In any case this is just one reason among many why faster than light travel is regarded as impossible in mainstream physics.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Eric, you cleared up my doubts. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7 at 22:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.