Exploring the Black Hole Horizon of Our Universe

[Arman777]

Ok..I know that at some point, from the Hubble Law , galaxies will seem to moving away from us speed of light,But actaully they can't because the space-time itself expands so it will be like a black hole horizon,which within that radius its , c/H , we can observe things etc.But out of that radius we can't see anything.And objects that getting close there will appear that they never passed the horizon.

That radius is approximatly is the age of universe and its approx. 13.7 billion light years.So even we can manage to live a billion year. we will see only 13.7 billion light year away.like whatever we do we can't see more then this...

 

[Bandersnatch]

No. Hubble radius, which is what you've described, is not a cosmic event horizon. Since the rate of expansion (the value of Hubble constant) goes down with time, we will be able to observe emission events from beyond current Hubble radius, just as today we are observing emission events from beyond past Hubble radii.

Hubble radius is a cosmic event horizon only in universes where Hubble constant doesn't change with time - i.e. in universes devoid of matter, and with only dark energy (so-called 'de Sitter universe').

Since in our universe matter is constantly diluted, and Hubble constant is asymptotically approaching a set value, in the far future it will look like a de Sitter universe. The future cosmic event horizon is approx. 17.3 Gly away.

Note that these are emission events. By the time of reception of their signals, the emitters will have receded much further away, so in a sense it is possible to see objects that are farther than the event horizon - this is what is meant when people say that the observable universe is 90 Gly across.

There should be an insight on cosmic event horizons in PF library, if you look it up.Other than that, it's true that a cosmic event horizon exists, and it is impossible to ever see beyond its maximum (future) extent.

 

[Arman777]

Hubble radius is a cosmic event horizon only in universes where Hubble constant doesn't change with time - i.e. in universes devoid of matter, and with only dark energy (so-called 'de Sitter universe').

Since in our universe matter is constantly diluted, and Hubble constant is asymptotically approaching a set value, in the far future it will look like a de Sitter universe. The future cosmic event horizon is approx. 17.3 Gly away.

I assumed H is constant for now..but I understand the idea.

Note that these are emission events. By the time of reception of their signals, the emitters will have receded much further away, so in a sense it is possible to see objects that are farther than the event horizon - this is what is meant when people say that the observable universe is 90 Gly across.

I didnt understand this.we can't see further then CMB and which its 13.7 billion ly away.I looked wiki and here says "The comoving distance from the Earth to the edge of the visible universe is about 45.7 billion light-years in any direction; this is the comoving radius of the observable universe. This is larger than the age of the universe dictated by the cosmic background radiation; see size of the universe: misconceptions for why this is possible." I looked at it but didnt understand...

and Could you give me the pf insight article url about this,I couldn't find it

Thanks

 

[Bandersnatch]

It's here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/
There's also a shorter FAQ entry:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/radius-observable-universe-light-years-greater-age/

This paper might be useful as well:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0310808.pdf
It includes very helpful lightcone graphs, if you can read them.

And for the absolute minimum, I've answered a similar question here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...way-if-the-universe-is-only-13b-years.903822/
using the 'ant on rubber band' analogy.

After reading at least some of the above, you should be able to see how this:

CMB and which its 13.7 billion ly away

is not true in any sense.

 

[bahamagreen]

Are the very distant galaxies subject to progressive relativistic contraction and time dilation with distance, or does their being comoving prevent that?

 

[Arman777]

is not true in any sense.

I understand why its bigger cause universe is also expanding,so cmbr is in 45 billion ly away ? but it happened 13,7 billion years ago ?

 

[Bandersnatch]

Are the very distant galaxies subject to progressive relativistic contraction and time dilation with distance, or does their being comoving prevent that?

Yes, the choice of comoving coordinates eliminates SR effects. The recession velocities that remain are a purely GR effect, outside the domain of applicability of SR.

I understand why its bigger cause universe is also expanding,so cmbr is in 45 billion ly away ? but it happened 13,7 billion years ago ?

If a signal was emitted from A to B, which initially are 1 Gly apart, and the distance between them kept increasing as the signal travelled, then it will take more than 1Gly/c to cover the stretching distance.

In the particular case of CMBR, it was emitted at the proper distance of ~40 Mly, and it took it 13.7 Gy to get here despite the initially close separation.

 

[Arman777]

If a signal was emitted from A to B, which initially are 1 Gly apart, and the distance between them kept increasing as the signal travelled, then it will take more than 1Gly/c to cover the stretching distance.

In the particular case of CMBR, it was emitted at the proper distance of ~40 Mly, and it took it 13.7 Gy to get here despite the initially close separation.

oh you were said this one of your posts..40 million years..

 

[Chronos]

The observable universe is unavoidably finite due to the finite speed of light. It cannot be otherwise unless it is infinitely old, or you permit the speed of light to vary [VSL]. All existing data suggests the observable universe is not infinitely old and rules out VSL theories.

 

[Bandersnatch]

@Chronos all true, but I don't see the relevance. What are you replying to?

 

[Chronos]

Addressing the question of why there must be a cosmic horizon.

 

[Bandersnatch]

But 'cosmic horizon' discussed here means 'event horizon' - the distance from which no signal can ever reach us. That is not the same as particle horizon. For example, in a non-expanding universe cosmic horizon doesn't exist, despite finite light speed, and regardless of whether or not it is eternal in the past.