Basic confusion about the Big Bang and light cones

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of light cones and how they change over time. The misconception that everything was causally connected at the Big Bang is addressed and it is explained that the universe has always had a varying extent of causally connected regions. The idea that something must have traveled faster than light for this change to occur is also debunked.
  • #1
Joseph Flatt
8
4
TL;DR Summary
Was everything in the same light cone at some point, and if so, how did that cease to be the case?
I’m getting confused somewhere, and I’d be obliged if someone could pinpoint my error.

1. At or near the Big Bang, everything was so close as to be within each other’s light cones.
2. All parts of the cosmos are now outside of some other parts’ light cones.
Therefore,
3. Something traveled faster than light.

What have I missed?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
Joseph Flatt said:
Summary:: Was everything in the same light cone at some point, and if so, how did that cease to be the case?
That makes no sense. A light cone is a set of events (points in spacetime). With an emphasis on "time" in spacetime.
 
  • #3
Sorry, I’ll try again.
I suppose another way of putting it is that in the distant past everything was condensed into such a small area that every event was causally relevant to every other event (at least that’s what I assume, perhaps erroneously). This is no longer the case because every event has an absolute elsewhere. How did the latter state of affairs come from the former if nothing travels faster than light?

I hope that makes a bit more sense.
 
  • #4
Joseph Flatt said:
I suppose another way of putting it is that in the distant past everything was condensed into such a small area that every event was causally relevant to every other event (at least that’s what I assume, perhaps erroneously).
This is not correct. The universe was much denser and hotter, but not fundamentally different in terms of causality.
Joseph Flatt said:
This is no longer the case because every event has an absolute elsewhere.
As every event always has.
Joseph Flatt said:
How did the latter state of affairs come from the former if nothing travels faster than light?
The universe expanded.
 
  • #5
Joseph Flatt said:
in the distant past everything was condensed into such a small area that every event was causally relevant to every other event (at least that’s what I assume, perhaps erroneously).
Yes, this is a misconception. As you roll back the time, all casual patches shrink to zero. I.e. all light cones grow with time. At the limit of the singularity every point is causally disconnected.
Since you're familiar with light cones, take a look at the graphs below:
?hash=1dad4fbf1c8654ff8a28869743d0119b.png

All three represent the same, best-fit model of the universe (LCDM), only drawn in different coordinates. The coordinates of the one at the bottom recover the basic shape of the light cone, so that what was said above can be readily seen. Here, each point on the x-axis can be seen as a galaxy moving with the expansion, but locally stationary, and the vertical lines are their world lines. Whichever event you choose to draw a light cone from, the earlier one on the same world line will have a smaller extent.
 

Attachments

  • 1644691895610.png
    1644691895610.png
    42.5 KB · Views: 133
  • #6
PeroK said:
but not fundamentally different in terms of causality.
I don't know why you'd say that. The causal patches obviously vary with time.
 
  • #7
Thank you both for your replies. I think I now have a clearer idea of where my thinking was flawed.
 
  • #8
Bandersnatch said:
I don't know why you'd say that. The causal patches obviously vary with time.
In what way were light cones fundamentally different in the past?
 
  • #9
PeroK said:
In what way were light cones fundamentally different in the past?
In the bit you responded to the OP suggested the light cones change their extent with passing time in a particular way. Which does happen, only the change is in the opposite direction to what was imagined.
If by 'not fundamentally different in terms of causality' you meant to convey that light cones always do what light cones do, i.e. the extent of their base shrinks with time, then there's a full agreement. In which case the objection is purely pedagogical.
I.e. in the context of the question your response suggests that the causal patches somehow don't change their extent from today's.
 
  • #10
Bandersnatch said:
I.e. in the context of the question your response suggests that the causal patches somehow don't change their extent from today's.
Even though I said?

PeroK said:
A light cone is a set of events (points in spacetime). With an emphasis on "time" in spacetime.
 
  • #11
Lack of clarity is in the eye of the beholder. Let's leave it at that.
 
  • #12
Joseph Flatt said:
1. At or near the Big Bang, everything was so close as to be within each other’s light cones.
This is wrong.

Joseph Flatt said:
2. All parts of the cosmos are now outside of some other parts’ light cones.
This will be true for any pair of points in space whatever if you make your time frame short enough. If your time frame is 1 nanosecond, anything further than a foot away from you is outside your past light cone.

Joseph Flatt said:
Therefore,
3. Something traveled faster than light.
Invalid because the separation of objects caused by the expansion of the universe has nothing to do with anything traveling faster than light. "Faster than light" would mean that some object with nonzero rest mass outruns a light ray going in the same direction. And that never happens.
 
  • Like
Likes Oldman too

FAQ: Basic confusion about the Big Bang and light cones

1. What is the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory is a scientific explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. It proposes that the universe began as a singularity, a point of infinite density and temperature, and has been expanding and cooling ever since.

2. How does the Big Bang theory relate to light cones?

Light cones are a visualization tool used in the Big Bang theory to represent the boundaries of how far light can travel in a certain amount of time. They help us understand the limitations of our observations and how we can study the early universe.

3. What is the difference between space and time in the context of the Big Bang?

In the Big Bang theory, space and time are considered to be interconnected and inseparable. This means that as the universe expands, so does the fabric of space and time. The Big Bang is often described as the beginning of both space and time.

4. How does the Big Bang explain the cosmic microwave background radiation?

The cosmic microwave background radiation is a remnant of the intense heat and light that was present in the early universe. As the universe expanded and cooled, this radiation became stretched out and is now detected as microwaves. The Big Bang theory predicts the existence of this radiation and its characteristics have been confirmed by observations.

5. Is the Big Bang theory universally accepted by scientists?

Yes, the Big Bang theory is currently the most widely accepted explanation for the origin and evolution of the universe. However, it is still an active area of research and there are ongoing efforts to refine and improve the theory. Some alternative theories have been proposed, but they have not been able to explain the available evidence as well as the Big Bang theory.

Back
Top