Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Expansion Greater than Light Speed?

  1. Apr 26, 2004 #1
    Does anyone know whether the expansion of the universe ever exceeded the speed of light taking the early accelerated phase into consideration?

    If not then the early photons must have bounded back and forth within the boundary of the early universe and a few or maybe many of all photons we are seeing now are rebounded photons.
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 26, 2004 #2

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, some galaxies appear to be recedinig at >C.
    Even a finite universe need not have boundaries. There wouldn't be any bouncing - no edge to bounce off of.
     
  4. Apr 26, 2004 #3

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    confirming what russ says,
    most of the galaxies in the observable universe have redshifts z
    greater than 2
    (indeed one has been observed with z = 10, much more distant!)

    and when we look at a galaxy with z = 2 or bigger

    we are looking at an object which was already receding from us at a speed greater
    than c
    at the very moment when it emitted the light which we are now receiving
    so we witness it in the act
    of receding faster than c

    that might also be true for z = 1.9, or z = 1.8
    I would have to use a calculator to be sure
    but certainly it is true for z = 2 and bigger.

    At first sight it seems paradoxical and some essays have been written
    to help people assimilate this, but it is a standard fact, just mindboggling when you first encounter it
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  5. Apr 26, 2004 #4

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    I just used Morgan's calculator
    with Hubble parameter = 71
    and darkenergy 0.73
    and matter 0.27
    and
    it said z = 1.7 implies the object was
    receding at speed 1.02 c
    that is just a little faster than light
    so to a good approximation the cutoff is z = 1.7

    using the present best estimates for the cosmological parameters
    anything we see with redshift greater than 1.7
    was already receding from us faster than light
    when it emitted the very light which we are now receiving

    Morgan's calculator
    http://www.earth.uni.edu/~morgan/ajjar/Cosmology/cosmos.html
    is in the links in the reference sticky at the General Astronomy forum.

    This thread could as well be in General Astronomy
    instead of Theory Development. When I responded I didnt realize it was
    in Theory Development. We've had similar questions there
     
    Last edited: Apr 26, 2004
  6. Apr 26, 2004 #5

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

  7. Apr 26, 2004 #6

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The second paragraph does not necessarily follow from the first. If the universe never expanded at a speed exceeding light-speed, it could still expand at light speed. Keep in mind that the "expansion of the universe" simply means, "how far stuff has gotten". So, for as long as there has been light, and that light has been traveling outward, the universe has been expanding at least at the speed of light.
     
  8. Apr 26, 2004 #7
    Inflation theory was thought up to explain, among other things, how regions separated
    by distances greater than light can have possibly travelled, seem so alike- the idea being that if light couldn't bounce around and smooth things out , the faster than light stretching of space-time itself could.But what if there are particles out in space moving faster than light-most of the mass of the universe is still unaccounted for.
     
  9. Apr 26, 2004 #8
    Is this a stupid question? But if some of these galaxies are really receding beyond light would their relativistic mass be more than infinite?
     
  10. Apr 26, 2004 #9

    DrChinese

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Not a stupid question at all. But read the Lineweaver reference first and save yourself a lot of grief.
     
  11. Apr 26, 2004 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    ...short answer: no, because expansion isn't motion. The galaxies aren't necessarily moving, but rather the space between them is expanding.
     
  12. Apr 27, 2004 #11
    ...short answer: no, because expansion isn't motion. The galaxies aren't necessarily moving, but rather the space between them is expanding

    But if that space is made of mass there is a relativistic mass problem!
     
  13. Apr 27, 2004 #12
    Thanks. It also dawn on me after I posted the "stupid" (not thinking) question that the galaxies were in a rest frame of their own and that it is the space that is expanding. But as kurious pointed out, if mass is attributed to space, then again the relativistic mass increase would be a problem.

    Are modern theories trying to explain exotic matter, dark matter and dark energy to the mass property of space?
     
  14. Apr 27, 2004 #13
    Theorists are saying that dark energy 's density stays the same as space expands.
    Normal energy like the cosmic microwave background gets less dense according to
    1/ r^4. Dark matter is not thought to be a property of space but rather some exotic particles like axions or maybe even large accumulations of neutrinos.I have a problem with dark matter hypotheses: why doesn't it block our view of some stars and why don't we suddenly see new stars if dark matter moves around a bit, as it must surely do?
     
  15. Apr 27, 2004 #14
    What I am trying to do in my own research is to show that the mass we commonly used to know about can be splitted into two kinds of mass. The potential and the kinetic. The potential is the same as inertial and gravitational mass. And the kinetic mass has more to do with the true meaning of energy and momentum. There are logical distinctions between them. Their combination gave us the experimentally detectable mass.

    When the potential mass and kinetic mass of a particle are equal then the experimental mass is zero (e.g. the mass of photon). With this idea in mind, we can say that the potential and kinetic mass of space are also equal so that the experimental (detectable) mass of space is also zero.

    The W's and Z's bosons in the electroweak theory are all kinetic mass. And the mass responsible for gravity is the potential mass. The mass inside black holes and singularities are dominated by potential mass.

    The universal expansion of space is the constant process of separation between potential and kinetic mass. All the potential mass are trying to get together, forming black holes, galaxies, stars, and planets while the kinetic mass spreadout uniformly causing the phenomenon of expansion in order to keep the detectable mass of space at the constant value of zero.
     
  16. Apr 27, 2004 #15

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    "space" itself is not a substance with mass.
     
  17. Apr 27, 2004 #16
    potential and kinetic energy

    space" itself is not a substance with mass

    Then what is it? What if the 10^120 Joules /m^3 of vacuum energy is Antonio's two cancelling mass types?
    I thought of something similar a few weeks ago-the idea being that vacuum particles appear when positive energy moves away from a cloud of negative energy and then the particles disappear again by re-entering the cloud.
     
  18. Apr 27, 2004 #17
    Space is the seat where the potential and kinetic mass are exactly equal. I think, it is the same as saying the potential and kinetic energy are also equal. When the potential and kinetic energy are exactly equal, the Lagrangian at the point of spacetime is zero.

    When the Lagrangian is exactly zero, the Hamiltonian is just the sum of the products of generalized space dimension (position coordinates) and the generalized momenta.
     
  19. Apr 27, 2004 #18
    The time independent Hamiltonian (Lagrangian=0) is equivalent to the quantum uncertainty condition of [itex] \Delta \psi \Delta \phi \geq \frac{h}{2 \pi} [/itex].
     
  20. Apr 27, 2004 #19
    The zero mass of a photon is at rest mass. Since a photon cannot be at rest, it cannot be compared to the zero mass of space.
     
  21. Apr 27, 2004 #20
    if we take the point of view of the photon in vacuum, one photon can never overtake any other photons from the same source and along the same straight line (geodesic). So all photons from the same source appear motionless with respect to each other if the are along the same geodesic line. But can photons from a different source, or photon from same source but different direction, always appear to be traveling at light speed or less?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Expansion Greater than Light Speed?
Loading...