Terminal Velocity: Speed Beyond the Universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter drakken1985
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of terminal velocity in relation to the expanding universe, emphasizing that the expansion refers to space itself rather than the movement of mass. It highlights that there is no known maximum expansion rate, especially since the universe's expansion is accelerating, as described by the Hubble Constant. The inflationary period after the Big Bang saw space expand faster than light, challenging traditional notions of static space-time. Some participants express confusion about instantaneous gravity and quantum phenomena, suggesting they might imply faster-than-light communication, which is contested by others. Overall, the conversation reflects ongoing debates about the nature of the universe's expansion and the limits of current scientific understanding.
drakken1985
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
Granted, the universe is expanding, granted the rate or speed is ever increasing, but what is the terminal velocity, knowing that anything with mass can not reach the speed of light?
 
Space news on Phys.org
The 'expansion of the universe' refers to the expansion is of space itself and not the motion of masses (e.g., galaxies) within the universe. Perhaps someone can correct me here, but I don't think there is a known maximum expansion rate (considering we only recently discovered that the expansion is accelerating). During the inflationary period immediately following the Big Bang event, space expanded much faster than the speed of light. The current expansion rate is expressed by the Hubble Constant.
 
I think you're right

Phobos said:
The 'expansion of the universe' refers to the expansion is of space itself and not the motion of masses (e.g., galaxies) within the universe. Perhaps someone can correct me here, but I don't think there is a known maximum expansion rate (considering we only recently discovered that the expansion is accelerating). During the inflationary period immediately following the Big Bang event, space expanded much faster than the speed of light. The current expansion rate is expressed by the Hubble Constant.

I'm no expert, just an amateur that watches shows like Nova and reads posts like this, but when I was 12 years old (and I'm on;y 33), people were still fiddling with the idea that the space-time was static except for warping caused by gravity, there were still people arguing that Black Holes don't exists, and many people thought the universe expanding or collapsing was only an expression of inertia vs. gravity.

Then Hawking started talking about the space-time structure changing, and more recently, that the universe is actually expanding, which if true is proof that the "fabric" of the universe is expanding, not just the matter within it, 'cause matter don't just accelerate for no good reason.

I doen't know of any reason to say that no-matter realities, such as changes in the space-time curvature are limited to the speed of light. To the contrary, the force gravity seems to instantaneous (correct me if I'm wrong) and this mind boggling "sppoky action at a distance" of quantum physics seems to transmit "information" faster than the speed of light over, supposedly, infinite distance (I still think they need to stop calling it "information" which makes it sound like the electrons are talking to each other)
 
string querry said:
I doen't know of any reason to say that no-matter realities, such as changes in the space-time curvature are limited to the speed of light. To the contrary, the force gravity seems to instantaneous (correct me if I'm wrong) and this mind boggling "sppoky action at a distance" of quantum physics seems to transmit "information" faster than the speed of light over, supposedly, infinite distance (I still think they need to stop calling it "information" which makes it sound like the electrons are talking to each other)

These are not correct. Current theories on gravity does not make it instantaneous. The EPR-type experiment has been exhaustively discussed in the QM forum and has been clearly described to not transmit information faster than the speed of light.

Please do a search in the relevant forums to correct your understanding on these.

Zz.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
Back
Top