What would Han Solo really see from the Millennium Falcon?


Recommended Posts

What would Han Solo really see from the Millennium Falcon?

1532627_20130115120319.gif

Physics students calculate what travelling close to the speed of light would really look like

Physics students have found that the depiction of hyperspace in Star Wars is light years away from how it would appear in reality.

A group of final year masters students from our Department of Physics and Astronomy published studies of this year?s Journal of Physics Special Topics.

In the Star Wars films, every star in the sky is seen to stretch before the characters? eyes as the hyperdrive is engaged.

The four students - Riley Connors, Katie Dexter, Joshua Argyle, and Cameron Scoular ? have shown that this would not be the case.

They have shown that the crew would actually see a central disc of bright light.

image

There would be no sign of stars because of the Doppler effect - the same effect which causes the siren of an ambulance to become higher in pitch as it comes towards you.

Doppler blue shift is a phenomenon caused by a source of electromagnetic radiation ? including visible light - moving towards an observer.

The effect means that the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation will be shortened.

From the Millennium Falcon crew?s point of view, the wavelength of the light from stars will decrease and ?shift? out of the visible spectrum into the X-ray range.

They would simply see a central disc of bright light as Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is shifted into the visible spectrum.

Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is radiation left behind from the Big Bang, and is spread across the universe fairly uniformly.

So we can expect another George Lucas remastered remaster of the original? :p

Edit: The same effect was also used in Star Trek, but not mentioned :( oh well :p

  • Like 2

So we can expect another George Lucas remastered remaster of the original? :p

Edit: The same effect was also used in Star Trek, but not mentioned :( oh well :p

[geek mode]

Star Trek is different, as explained in the Star Trek Technical Manual.

When in a warp bubble, there is no interaction of visible light between real space and warp space. Because of this, all you see with the naked eye is a blank void. Early warp flights were forced to drop out of warp space frequently to check their position and correct course. Later on, sub space sensors were developed to detect space outside the warp bubble, and the ship computer uses this data to provide a corrected visual display for those on board.

IIRC, even the windows are fitted with little projectors so the crew gets something to look at.

[/geek mode]

It never made sense. Think about it, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from the Sun. Even if you were traveling at the speed of light, it's not like you'd be flying past multiple stars in seconds, as the movie depicted.

If warp speed wants to sell itself I suggest it goes hollywood, no one is going to get excited about seeing that near monochromatic view. Projectors on the windows of our warp vessel post haste!

It never made sense. Think about it, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from the Sun. Even if you were traveling at the speed of light, it's not like you'd be flying past multiple stars in seconds, as the movie depicted.

That's a good point.

I personally prefer the depiction of hyper-speed travel in space as seen in the beginning of the original the Planet of the Apes. It looks closer to being real as you've described it.

So we can expect another George Lucas remastered remaster of the original? :p

Please no :laugh: but I think we are safe since he sold his company with all the rights to Walt Disney last year.

It never made sense. Think about it, Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years from the Sun. Even if you were traveling at the speed of light, it's not like you'd be flying past multiple stars in seconds, as the movie depicted.

When you move at the speed of light i think the distance is contracted. Not sure but i think the 4.37 light years away is calculated using the distance at a normal speed. At the speed of light it would not take as much time to get there. Not sure but that's something i recall from school lol being in the late 30 my meromy could be failing tough.

When you move at the speed of light i think the distance is contracted. Not sure but i think the 4.37 light years away is calculated using the distance at a normal speed. At the speed of light it would not take as much time to get there. Not sure but that's something i recall from school lol being in the late 30 my meromy could be failing tough.

Well, there would be the doppler shift, as noted in the article. To put it in a different perspective, at the speed of light, it would take you somewhere between 4 and 20 minutes to get to Mars (depending on where it is relative to Earth). Say it takes 12 minutes, and in that time you haven't even left our own solar system. Heck, you haven't even gone that far in our own solar system.

So, to pass that many points of light that quickly, you're clearly at FTL travel, at which point you're probably going to move in some way that is beyond the visible spectrum (for humans).

Well, there would be the doppler shift, as noted in the article. To put it in a different perspective, at the speed of light, it would take you somewhere between 4 and 20 minutes to get to Mars (depending on where it is relative to Earth). Say it takes 12 minutes, and in that time you haven't even left our own solar system. Heck, you haven't even gone that far in our own solar system.

So, to pass that many points of light that quickly, you're clearly at FTL travel, at which point you're probably going to move in some way that is beyond the visible spectrum (for humans).

Does this doppler shift still apply at FTL speeds?

Does this doppler shift still apply at FTL speeds?

Well, uh, find something traveling faster than light and ask it. :laugh:

Every theory I've read of FTL travel involves some space-time manipulation, at which point the object traveling FTL probably wouldn't be visible to an external observer, and I imagine the same would be true for the passengers doing the traveling.

Well, uh, find something traveling faster than light and ask it. :laugh:

Every theory I've read of FTL travel involves some space-time manipulation, at which point the object traveling FTL probably wouldn't be visible to an external observer, and I imagine the same would be true for the passengers doing the traveling.

And that's the thing. This article makes no sense because it's trying to apply the rules of physics to something that's clearly FTL travel. Immersion restored.

That's a good point.

I personally prefer the depiction of hyper-speed travel in space as seen in the beginning of the original the Planet of the Apes. It looks closer to being real as you've described it.

I just liked the way he smoked a cigar before putting on a nicotine patch and then shooting up. No wonder he saw all those lights :)

And that's the thing. This article makes no sense because it's trying to apply the rules of physics to something that's clearly FTL travel. Immersion restored.

Well, yeah, I mean there's no reason to worry about it. The bigger issue of the Star Wars hyperdrive is that a ship coming out of it would probably emit a bubble of energy strong enough to blow up a Death Star all by itself.

So we can expect another George Lucas remastered remaster of the original? :p

Edit: The same effect was also used in Star Trek, but not mentioned :( oh well :p

Please no :laugh: but I think we are safe since he sold his company with all the rights to Walt Disney last year.

Read a little more into the sale, he owns $2 billion in stock in the company, which I believe makes him one of the top/major share holders, so he still has a lot of say so in what Disney does with the Lucas branded divisions.

but they didn't answer the question 'what happens when you're traveling at faster than the speed of light, and you turn the headlights on?'

Don't worry no one will see you coming. ;)

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Didn’t Dbrand once complain that Casetify was ripping off their designs a well? seems pretty bad of them to try and get around Valve’s copyright this way with that in mind.
    • Dbrand thought they could get away with this Steam Machine case, Valve disagreed by David Uzondu Image via Dbrand Dbrand has cancelled its highly anticipated Companion Cube enclosure for the Valve Steam Machine, which it teased back in November of last year with a concept render and sign-up page, because it did not ask Valve for permission first before manufacturing the case. According to Dbrand, it took the "backwards approach" of building the product first before asking for permission from the copyright holder. Seven months of work went into the project, requiring over a thousand engineering hours from the design team. Workers developed forty-four sets of injection molding tools, making a unique mold for each sub-component of the crate. When the Companion Cube went live on Monday last week, it, according to Dbrand, quickly became the second-fastest-selling product in the company's fifteen-year history, racking up orders for hundreds of thousands of units. Customers eagerly bought the $129.95 deluxe edition or the bare-bones $99.95 version, which the manufacturer cheekily branded as the "Poverty Cube". It was around this time that the legal eagles at Valve descended on the accessory maker with a formal demand. The developer pointed out that the iconic block design remains protected intellectual property from the game Portal, so unlicensed sales had to stop. Dbrand said that all its pleas to salvage the project with the Valve team, including proposals to run a properly licensed release under official terms "with their blessing", fell on deaf ears, so it had no choice but to obey and remove every trace of the product from the internet. If you bought the enclosure, the company said that banks will process your refund by the end of this week, but if it still hasn't arrived in your account by then, you should not hesitate to contact support. The Steam Machine itself is a high-performance console that Valve designed directly to bring PC gaming into the living room. It was announced on 12th November 2025 (the same day Dbrand announced the Cube) and runs on the Linux-based SteamOS, the same OS that powers the Steam Deck. As for the price, due to the shortage of memory and storage chips, the hardware cost landed much higher than people were expecting, starting at $1,049 for the 512 model (without a controller) or $1,128 with the new gamepad. The premium 2 TB model pushes those prices even higher, selling at $1,349 for the standalone console and hitting $1,428 if you want the bundle.
    • It's listed #399.99 on Amazon, per your link. It's not $299.99.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      Almohandis went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Apprentice
      jahara21 went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      534
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      264
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      148
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      97
    5. 5
      macoman
      58
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!