FTL explosion

[Jacques]

What would happen if in let say in a supernova explosion some of the matter somehow are pushed over the speed of light.

My thinking is that to an outside observer that FTL matter will look like going back in time then instead of seeing that matter expanding we would see it contracting. Is it plausible that supernova remanant are such observationnal artifact ?

[insane_alien]

you can't really apply physics to an inherently unphysical condition.

 

i mean you come up with any answer you want with enough chin wagging as you've already decided to ignore physics in the first place.

[Jacques]

I know relativity tell us that no matter can be accelerated FTL, tachyon are hypotetical... that's why I posted in speculation.

[jackson33]

It's thought that mass of a supernova expels much or all the stars matter at about 10% of the speed of light or 30k km/s but it is also thought the temperature my reach 100B Kelvin. If you reverse "nucleosynthesis" and accept sub atomic particles, whatever called (tachyon), then 100BK, would be enough to reverse matter to what ever it was before matter. I use this scenario, when discussing SSU, or if you prefer the abundance of Hydrogen in the Universe and the its natural regeneration.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_nucleosynthesis

 

 

Is it plausible that supernova remanant are such observationnal artifact ? [/Quote]

 

Then, if I understand the question correctly and it is in speculations, this would mean YES, but not because of the speed of the expelled matter, rather from the heat developed... in my opinion.

[Bignose]

then 100BK, would be enough to reverse matter to what ever it was before matter.

 

How do you know this? How is that figure, 100BK, known? What is matter "what ever it was before matter"?

[jackson33]

A Supernova core has an temperature of about 100 billion kelvin (100 GK); 6000 times the temperature of the sun's core.

 

Supernovae are extremely bright and cause a burst of radiation that can briefly outshine an entire galaxy.

 

During this short interval, a supernova can radiate as much energy as the Sun would produce over its entire life span.

 

Some supernova are reported to have temperatures > 50 million degrees F [/Quote]

 

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_temperature_of_supernova&alreadyAsked=1&rtitle=What_is_the_temperature_of_a_nova

 

 

Supernova - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In a typical Type II supernova the newly formed neutron core has an initial temperature of about 100 billion kelvin (100 GK), 6000 times the temperature of ...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova -[/Quote]

 

If correct and as I recall hydrogen could began to form when cooled to 10BK (possibly less) followed by Helium, the core would not likely be the only place where reverse conversion takes place. At any rate, which elements, formed form solar fusion in the first place could withstand temperatures anywhere near 10BK. Since Helium can begin fusing at 100MK, at what temperature would you suggest element breakdown might occur.

 

I'm yet convinced BH's are as currently defined, or in fact even totally solids. At some point if as defined, pressures should increase temperatures especially during formation or adding large amounts of matter, discharging no telling what, sub atomic particles a possibility.

 

This is speculation and I'm not trying to demonstrate anything, other than suggesting Hydrogen and Helium, need not be limited to one lifetime, in fact have infinitesimal lifetimes.

 

What is matter "what ever it was before matter"? [/Quote]

 

What ever you think it was before the BB or BB "nucleosynthesis", since it's my opinion our elements are not indestructible and are regenerated naturally.

[Bignose]

What ever you think it was before the BB or BB "nucleosynthesis", since it's my opinion our elements are not indestructible and are regenerated naturally.

 

So, if it your own theory, then you shouldn't be answering someone else's questions with your idea unless you have definitive proof.

 

Just because a supernova is 100BK, doesn't mean that it causes matter to become whatever was before matter (still undefined). It is fine that you have these ideas, but unless there is proof for them, you really shouldn't answer someone else's threads with your answers.

 

The reasons are two fold. 1) if we want to discuss your ideas, we should have a separate thread for that. and 2) If your ideas are lacking in evidence, they really don't answer the original question.

[jackson33]

OK Bignose, lets put this in the proper perspective/order;

 

1-Jacques started a thread in 'speculations', that caught my attention and one which I've addressed elsewhere, more than a few times. He had not received a legitimate argument IMO, where I felt I could. NO ONE, I'm aware of believes matter, under any circumstance can be propelled to speed or velocities faster than light and the rule of thumb for SN is about 10% maybe 15% C.

 

2-I offered a link and information for my conclusion, but still liking the idea "Is it plausible that supernova remnant are such observationnal artifact ?" offering a different cause.

 

3-YOU then jumped in, implying my scenario "100BK" was an incorrect theory, as I felt C was to matter in the SN, BUT W/O offering evidence.

 

4-In turn I backed up my argument to YOUR post, not my personal ideas/opinion. It was you changing the diameters of the thread, not me.

 

 

The reasons are two fold. 1) if we want to discuss your ideas, we should have a separate thread for that. and 2) If your ideas are lacking in evidence, they really don't answer the original question.[/Quote]

 

1) The original question itself was not backed up and the point, under his scenario, but possibly could be with a difference cause and my post affirmed the possibility, NOT disagreeing. That to me is called constructive discussion.

 

2) As said by the author, this thread was placed in Speculation, based on the hypothetical nature of the question asked. I have no interest in arguing science with staff on this forum (exception 'Martin' or nearly all the regular posters) and have made this quite clear and have given a number of reasons, in 'suggestions', it's just not worth the effort.

 

3 not asked) If you believe the OP was correct and that complex mass could/can be (in any way) propelled to speeds anywhere near C, naturally or imposed and one of the topics (as I understand it) then please do continue along those lines. To stray off topic, I feel there is a whole other world of Science in what may exist outside our perception of C and open to any ideas.

[ajb]

What would happen if in let say in a supernova explosion some of the matter somehow are pushed over the speed of light.

My thinking is that to an outside observer that FTL matter will look like going back in time then instead of seeing that matter expanding we would see it contracting. Is it plausible that supernova remanant are such observationnal artifact ?

 

You can get apparent faster that light motion of several astronomical objects Light echoes are an example of this.

[jackson33]

Because this light has only traveled forward as well as away from the star, it produces the illusion of an echo expanding faster than the speed of light.[2] [/Quote]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo

 

ajb; It's probably my phone line connection or cheap computer, but I couldn't pull up your link. If it's not just me, here is another route and pertinent comment, from the article...

[ajb]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_echo

 

ajb; It's probably my phone line connection or cheap computer, but I couldn't pull up your link. If it's not just me, here is another route and pertinent comment, from the article...

 

It works for me. Try a websearch for "light echo" if you cannot get it to work.

[Jacques]

Light echo ! Interesting illusion!

Back on the FTL explosion topic.

First: relativity prohibit anything having mass to be accelerated to c.

photon have no mass and are created travelling at c.

Would it be possible that a process exist that create particle travelling at 2c or at something else FTL?

We don't know much about these extreme conditions 10^11 to 10^12 kelvin and extreme pressure...

[ajb]

Would it be possible that a process exist that create particle travelling at 2c or at something else FTL?

 

Not locally. You could think of situations where space-time is expanding and viewed from somewhere else a light pulse (or your space-ship!) would be travelling faster than c. This is not directly in violation with relativity as this speed is not truly a relative speed. For example due to the Hubble expansion galaxies are receding from us faster than c.

 

Other scenarios could be envisaged, such as the Alcubierre drive. However such things require exotic matter and have questions about their quantum stability.

 

Again, these do not involve local faster than light travel. Such situations are very interesting from a time travel perspective and push the boundaries of general relativity.

[michel123456]

AJB, you are an inexhaustible source of information.