Can matter  move faster than the speed of light outside the event horizon of a black hole?
915960
According to Einstein's relativity, for matter (..mass) to move AT the speed of light would require infinite energy to gain that speed, and the mass would increase to infinity, both things being impossible.
920733
Steven Hawking has recently changed his view that no "information" could escape a black hole.  Current thinking is that as matter falls into a black hole, some radiation / information escapes across the event horizon.  So according to current thinking black holes are not completely "black"
661081
A black hole is a concentration of mass great enough that the force of gravity prevents anything past its event horizon from escaping it except through quantum tunnelling behaviour (known as Hawking Radiation). The gravitational field is so strong that the escape velocity past its event horizon exceeds the speed of light. This implies that nothing, not even light, inside the event horizon can escape its gravity. It is, however, theorized that wormholes can provide an exit path for energy or matter. The term "black hole" is widespread, even though it does not refer to a hole in the usual sense, but rather a region of space from which nothing can return.
545641
Yes, sort of.\n\nTake into account first the exisistance and concept of a Black Hole, where not even light can escape.\n\nNext you must conceptualize light particles on a quantum level. Then in order for the pull of black hole to attract light, light being the ultimate speed then we can say on a quantum level there exist enegry that moves faster than light.\n\ni could be wrong.
811313
I believe it is expanding.  The speed og light, c, is the cosmic speed limit for objects or radiation within spacetime.  Spacetime itself can (hypothetically) expand faster than c, though what the limit to this might be I don't know.  Special relativity is not violated since there is no object being accelerated.
148002
It's technically impossible for something with mass (like a spacecraft) to go the speed of light in our universe under the laws of physics.  As something approaches the speed of light, it gains mass.  In theory, if something were to actually go the speed of light, it would have infinite mass, which is impossible.  \n\nOf course, no one can say for sure.  Science fiction on television and in books have gotten around these rules by using wormholes, subspace, etc., none of which are known to actually exist.
1177822
The speed of light *in a vacuum* is constant. Light does slow down as it passes through a transparent medium, like glass or air.\n\nA black hole does not affect the speed of light. But the escape velocity of a black hole is greater than the speed of light, so once a photon enters a black hole's "event horizon," it will never come out.
448057
There are many theories regarding this subject. One being that there are "white holes" opposite the black holes, in other universes, or other parts of this one out of which the matter shoots.  But the most likely is that it gets added to the mass of the black hole, making it even more massive and dense.  So in essence it doesn't "go" anywhere, it crosses the event horizon, becomes squished and spaghettified by the immense gravity and simply becomes part of the black hole.\n-Duo
944482
The acceleration due to gravity of a black hole depends on the mass of the black hole.  Each black hole has its own mass, and this determines the strength of gravity at a given distance.  It is a bit inaccurate to say that "the gravitational pull is greater than the speed of light."  It is better to say that the escape velocity is greater than the speed of light, within a certain radius called the event horizon.
1035592
You're question is worded strangely.\n\nModern physics suggest that time does not, as we commonly percieve it to, progress steadily forward from one moment to another. The reason is that there is no plausable mechanism to show how one "moment" is suddenly lit up and set aside as being "now". Furthermore, special relativity shows us that two different observers who are moving relative to one another would disagree about what events constitute a "now". \n\nSo the idea of stopping something that isn't moving in the first place is rather presumptuous.\n\nHowever, throwing caution to the wind, there is every reson to believe that time stops for a weightless particle moving at the speed of light, and that time stops within the event horizon of a black hole. For whatever those observations are worth... there they are.\n\nHope that helps.\n\nEdit - S_k_Latif, please either more thoroughly research and understand the topics you reply to, or do not reply to them at all. There is no good reason to spread faulty or innacurate information. What you just said makes exactly zero sense. Just being honset.
957183
supposedly mass of matter increases with speed, so yes it will remain matter
1042298
No it can't.\n\nLaser light goes at exactly the speed of light.
799784
In theory, yes.  Because the light particles that were traveling slower than you would have been slower.  Very good question.  However, speeding past the speed of light would mean the fundamentals of E = Mc^2, would cease to make sense.
109643
No you can not.\nNothing can travel faster than light. Not even light itself.\n\nIf you think that light is a wave (like a wave on the ocean) Imagine that you were riding one wave and were trying to make a new wave from your position (with equal frequenzy ofcours). The new wave would not have twize the speed as the one you were riding, it would have the same speed as the one you ride (try in the bathroom and you will see).\n\nMy point with this explanation is that the light from the back of your car will never reatch the mirror. I think your mirror would seem black, because no light would reatch it. The lightwave from the back of your car would be "flying" towards the mirror in the same speed that the mirror would fly from it. :)
563154
There are things that can move faster than the speed of light, but they can't carry information faster than the speeed of light.  For example if you shine a spotlight on a distant mountain and then spin the light around so that the spot moves really fast you can easily get a situation where that spot of light goes faster than the speed of light.\n\nBut I think you were referring to particles that move faster than light maybe?  It was conjectured that a particle called a "tachyon" could go faster than light.  But these particles have never been detected, although serious efforts have been made to do so.  \n\nIn the real world if you keep adding energy to a particle, its speed will keep increasing, but it can never hit the speed of light.  Then again, maybe there can be some mechanism whereby matter could be made to "jump" to a speed higher than the speed of light without ever going *at* the speed of light?  I think nobody knows a way to do this, and it may also be impossible.  New physics would need to be discovered!
262909
Not quite exactly right, Flavio.  \n\nTrue the speed limit for an object moving in space is the speed of light in a vacuum, but a number of proposed methods for "warp" type travel have been developed which don't violate general relativity.  A few years back a physicist named Alcubierre (I think I have the spelling right) produced a solution for Einstein's equations of spacetime which would allow a warped region of space to move arbitrarily fast relative to surrounding space.  Within this warp there can be a region of flat spacetime which would be carried along with the warp.  I've read his paper on it and it's very clever from a mathematical and theoretical point of view, but it's completely impractical given our level of technology, and it also makes some assumptions about things that we simply don't know whether or not they're possible.   Unfortunately, Alcubierre's solution requires tremendous amounts of both positive and negative mass.  "Negative mass" could also be provided by something like dark energy, but then there's the question of what exactly that is.  Its gravitational effects are seen in the universe, but the identity isn't known, and nor is it known how to vary it.  Dark energy could be the result of the zero point density, or it could be a phenomenon that is variable, in which case it's often called "quintessence".  Heim theory, one of the more unusual approaches to a grand unified theory, uses a quintessence instead of a fixed dark energy density, and furthermore predicts the density of quintessence will be related to rapidly moving strong magnetic fields.  \n\nSo, general relativity does allow for a "warp drive" solution, but the spaceship being moved isn't actually moving at above the speed of light but rather is being carried along by the expansion and contraction of spacetime in the warp.  Relativity says that no object with a rest mass can exceed the speed of light (things with no rest mass, like photons, must move at the speed of light in order to exist), but spacetime isn't an object nor does it have an inherent mass.   So, yes, it's hypothetically possible at this point, but there are a whole lot of things we'd need to understand in order to even begin to think about how to engineer such a system, and additional knowledge about phenomena like dark energy may show that it can't be done.  Right now it's still a plausible idea, but this may only be because we don't know enough yet.
25993
No.  No terrestrial object can travel at the speed of light.  If you were traveling at the speed of light you would literally dissentigrate from the millions of pounds of air resistance pinning you down.