Does Traveling at Light Speed Reveal More of the Universe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter kjones000
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Telescopes
kjones000
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Semi-ignorant question follows:

Ok, the theoretical maximum observable universe is limited to a number light years slightly less than the age of the universe, but as we increase in speed, the universe flattens out, so, as we approach the speed of light, do we get to see more of the universe in front of us and behind us? (Assuming that we can see gamma rays and radio waves).

If we don't get to see more, does anything interesting happen when the observable universe flattens to a Planck length? (Actually, I am expecting that we do get to see more, because a universe flatter than my anti-matter powered spaceship doesn't make much sense to me).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
kjones000 said:
Ok, the theoretical maximum observable universe is limited to a number light years slightly less than the age of the universe, but as we increase in speed, the universe flattens out, so, as we approach the speed of light, do we get to see more of the universe in front of us and behind us?

The observable universe is bounded by the opaque matter that we call the microwave background radiation. If you could see all the way to the big bang then there would be horizon effects, but moving fast wouldn't mean that you could see beyond the horizon. I think that in the moving frame of reference that time dilation would mean that you would interpret the universe as being younger, and this would compensate for your idea that you should be able to see more.

What you would actually see as you get close to the light is the light reaching you being concentrated in the forward direction, so that it looks like most of the universe is ahead of you.
 


It's important to clarify that the observable universe is limited not just by the speed of light, but also by the expansion of the universe. As the universe expands, the space between galaxies also increases, making it impossible for us to see objects beyond a certain distance. So, even if we were able to travel at the speed of light, we would still not be able to see beyond a certain point.

Additionally, the concept of the universe "flattening out" is a bit misleading. While the observable universe may appear to be flat to us, it is actually curved in a higher dimension. This is a difficult concept to grasp, but it essentially means that no matter how fast we travel, we would not be able to see more of the universe in front of us or behind us.

As for reaching the Planck length, this is the smallest possible unit of measurement and it is currently impossible for us to observe anything at this scale. So, it is unlikely that anything interesting would happen at this point in relation to our ability to see more of the universe.

In summary, the limitations on our ability to see the universe are not solely based on our speed, but also on the expansion of the universe and the fundamental properties of space and time. While it may seem intuitive that traveling faster would allow us to see more, the laws of physics suggest otherwise.
 
OK, so this has bugged me for a while about the equivalence principle and the black hole information paradox. If black holes "evaporate" via Hawking radiation, then they cannot exist forever. So, from my external perspective, watching the person fall in, they slow down, freeze, and redshift to "nothing," but never cross the event horizon. Does the equivalence principle say my perspective is valid? If it does, is it possible that that person really never crossed the event horizon? The...
ASSUMPTIONS 1. Two identical clocks A and B in the same inertial frame are stationary relative to each other a fixed distance L apart. Time passes at the same rate for both. 2. Both clocks are able to send/receive light signals and to write/read the send/receive times into signals. 3. The speed of light is anisotropic. METHOD 1. At time t[A1] and time t[B1], clock A sends a light signal to clock B. The clock B time is unknown to A. 2. Clock B receives the signal from A at time t[B2] and...
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
Back
Top