What would You see at Light Speed– The Actual view at the Light Speed

In this video, it is explained what you would see at the speed of light. It is a wide concept that the stars would look like glowing dust particles, moving backward to the observer moving at the speed of light. But actually, at the speed of light, the observer would not observe anything. In this video, has been stimulated that what you would actually see when moving to the moon, planets & stars at light speed in real-time.

NHN New Horizon
-----------------------------------

----------------------------------------
#newhorizon #science #space

[thesilverrook]

Don't forget, those time scales only apply to OUTSIDE observers.
If YOU are moving at light speed, from YOUR perspective, you will reach the destination INSTANTLY. Immediately. You won't experience traveling for 8 minutes, etc.

Even if we figure out how to achieve luminal or superluminal travel, time dilation is a MAJOR problem to overcome... because there would be no point in traveling at those speeds if nothing meaningful can be achieved in real-time for outside observers.

[左idari]

I think you took a wrong turn at albuquerque. Instead of arriving at Uranus, you arrived at Ganymede.

[amtoo]

There are some problems here:
1. At the speed of light the distance to the destination becomes zero no matter if it is even in some other galaxy. This means that the time taken is nothing at light speed or a little bit more if you go slower. You really don't have to wait 8.5 minutes to get from the Earth to the sun - that is an observer's timeline, not a traveller's timeline.
2. The light gets blueshifted - yes, but the human eye still has the same colour range from red to ultraviolet so you still see all the colours from red to ultraviolet. It is just different things not have those colours. For example the cosmic background radiation will eventually be seen as red light if you go really fast, and if you go a bit faster than that, it will become blue.

[zsomborkatonka]

This looked like Star Wars hyperspace jump

[sachith]

Good video. But when travelling at light speed, we don't feel the time passing. So the quoted times are relative to Earth observer. Not to traveller.

[kathyhawk]

You would see the most strangest things ever.

[lucasbeer]

Actually at the speed of light there's no space and time. So it's travelling without moving for a person who's 'travelling at the speed of light'.

[raytracer]

Actually, from the perspective of the light speed traveller, the journey to any location in the universe would seem instantaneous.
It has to do with space time relativity - at the speed of light the time just stops completely.

[cookbake]

I think it would be cool if you could do a video that shows this better from the perspective of someone standing on the bridge of a star ship where they can turn around and look not just to the front, but to the side and to the rear.

Consider a spaceship traveling towards the center of the Andromeda galaxy at ~99.99% the speed of light. Time would be passing ~70.1545 times slower but to those on the ship time would seem normal. All the light coming from the direction of the Andromeda galaxy would be significantly shifted to higher frequencies, which means that any UV light shifts to x-rays, x-rays shift to gamma rays, gamma rays would be shifted to really high gamma rays, and visible light would be shifted to soft x-rays. That would probably be impossible to shield from and kill any life on the ship, but we will ignore that problem for the moment. Any light coming from the opposite direction of travel would be shifted to slower frequencies, visible light would all be shifted down to microwave frequencies. Visible light coming from perpendicular to the direction of travel would also be shifted down into microwave frequencies.
To give a better understanding of this, if you were standing on the ship traveling at 99.99% the speed of light, at:

> 0° looking forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would be shifted to (2.708 to 4.989 nm). This is soft x-ray range.

> 9.651° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would remain the same, thus as you looked away from the direction of travel the visible light range would shift back down to normal range reaching no change at this angle, but as you continue to look further away from the angle of travel the visible light range shifts to lower values.

> 15° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would shifted to (910.99 to 1, 678.1 nm)

> 30° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would shifted to (3, 574 to 6, 583 nm)

> 60° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would shifted to (13, 330 to 24, 557 nm)

> 90° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would shifted to (26, 658 to 49, 108 nm)

> 180° from forward the normal visible light range of (380 to 700 nm) would shifted to (53, 315 to 98, 211 nm)

Of course we would not see stars zooming by and we would get that widening of the field of view you mentioned, but as that that cone angle began forming where inside that cone angle the light frequencies were shifted upwards and outside the cone angle the light frequencies were shifted downwards, I don't think it would look quite like you showed.

Of course, maybe I am not understanding it right. But I have been trying to understand it correctly and from what I understand you are showing it close to what it should look like, but still missing some very important points of what it would look like.

I would really like to see something showing what it should really look like from the perspective of someone standing on the bridge of a star ship where they can turn around and look not just to the front, but to the side and to the rear while travelling at 99.99% the speed of light... as well as some other fractions of the speed of light.

[edwinacaparelli]

I know that the planets are different distances depending on where they are in their orbits as relative to us but I'm almost positive that that planet that was 3 minutes away from us was not Uranus.

[ruanharmse]

K but why is Uranus closer to earth than mars...

[sli-fox]

Cool, but if your ship isn’t moving when warping space and space is moving around you? How would that look?

[BackTheBlueTillItHappensToYou]

But with time dilation, at light speed, you wouldn't wait those time periods, right? You'd simply just be there, instantly, if you traveled at light speed. It's only earth's view of you that would experience the alotted time lapses.

[Finnigan]

Space has lower resolution than what I expected

[yoongiseclipse]

I am Inlove with space and how everything works. It’s just so amazing how lightspeed is so cool! When an asteroid really far away passes by us, it takes even years for us to see it! Maybe even more than Centuries! I’m so amazed!

[atothetop]

There is no ‘view’ because the time it takes a photon to get from point A to point B is 0 from its perspective. So for example you would not experience 8.5 minutes of nothing before getting there. It would simply be instantaneous.

The 8.5 mins is what your travel would look like to an outside observer, at a stationary position relative to you.

[MoonChild-]

Can someone explain how while accelerating to the speed of light stars would go further away, and we still get there. ???

[senzubeanmedic]

so... it takes 3 minutes for light to get to Uranus but 8 minutes to the sun and 13 minutes to Mars...?

[s.a.m]

So if we can travel at speed of light, how we manage to pass through another space object (meteor, stars, planet, etc) ?

[sparrow]

I'm pretty sure u might still see things but only infront of u and theyd likely be rather distorted