When people talk about the current size of the observable universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the observable universe, specifically addressing how its size is defined in relation to the distances of the furthest objects observed. Participants explore the implications of light travel time, the scale factor, and the effects of cosmic expansion on these distances.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question whether the size of the observable universe refers to the distance of objects when they emitted light or their current distance.
  • Others suggest that to determine how far objects were when their light was emitted, one must consider their present distance and apply a scale factor related to redshift.
  • There is a discussion about how the observable universe can appear larger than twice the age of the universe, with some attributing this to the expansion of space as described by general relativity.
  • One participant expresses confusion about the apparent contradiction of the observable universe's size exceeding twice the age of the universe, which is clarified through the understanding of current distances versus past distances.
  • Another participant asserts that in special relativity, the distance of observable objects should not exceed twice the age of the universe, while acknowledging the allowance for faster-than-light expansion in general relativity.
  • There is a challenge regarding whether the observable universe could still be larger than twice the age even without faster-than-light expansion, leading to further clarification on the relationship between emitted light distances and current distances.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of special relativity versus general relativity regarding the observable universe's size, indicating that multiple competing perspectives remain unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of distance in cosmology, the role of the scale factor, and the unresolved nature of how light travel time interacts with the expansion of the universe.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those exploring cosmology, the implications of general and special relativity, and the nature of the observable universe.

TobyC
Messages
87
Reaction score
0
Could I just quickly derail this thread and ask that frequently asked question?

When people talk about the current size of the observable universe, are they talking about how far away the furthest objects were when they emitted their light? Or how far away the furthest objects will be now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


TobyC said:
Could I just quickly derail this thread and ask that frequently asked question?

When people talk about the current size of the observable universe, are they talking about how far away the furthest objects were when they emitted their light? Or how far away the furthest objects will be now?
How far the furthest objects that we could potentially see (at some point in their past) are at the present cosmological time. To figure out how far they were when the light was emitted, you have to take their present distance and multiply by the "scale factor" which is a function of redshift, see here.
 


JesseM said:
How far the furthest objects that we could potentially see (at some point in their past) are at the present cosmological time. To figure out how far they were when the light was emitted, you have to take their present distance and multiply by the "scale factor" which is a function of redshift, see here.

Great thanks, I was confused by how the observable universe could be bigger than the age, but this explains it :smile:
 


TobyC said:
Great thanks, I was confused by how the observable universe could be bigger than the age, but this explains it :smile:
Well, in special relativity it wouldn't make sense for the radius of the observable universe to be more than twice the age * c, since we'd just now be seeing the light from something that was 13.7 billion light years away 13.7 billion years ago, and even if that object was moving away from us arbitrarily close to the speed of light it could not have traveled more than an additional 13.7 billion light years in that time. So if you think in those terms, a radius of 46 billion light years should be impossible! But in general relativity it is quite possible for the proper distance to a galaxy to increase faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space, see the discussion in the third paragraph in this section of the wiki "comoving distance" article.
 


JesseM said:
Well, in special relativity it wouldn't make sense for the radius of the observable universe to be more than twice the age * c, since we'd just now be seeing the light from something that was 13.7 billion light years away 13.7 billion years ago, and even if that object was moving away from us arbitrarily close to the speed of light it could not have traveled more than an additional 13.7 billion light years in that time. So if you think in those terms, a radius of 46 billion light years should be impossible! But in general relativity it is quite possible for the proper distance to a galaxy to increase faster than the speed of light due to the expansion of space, see the discussion in the third paragraph in this section of the wiki "comoving distance" article.

Yeah I'm ok with distances increasing faster than the speed of light, I can understand how that's allowed by general relativity, it's just I still couldn't understand how the observable universe could be bigger in size than twice the age until what you said about the radius being the distance of the further objects now rather than the distance when they emitted the light. Which makes sense really, I just hadn't thought about it properly before.

Just out of interest, in an expanding universe wouldn't the observable universe still be bigger than twice the age even if the distances weren't increasing faster than the speed of light? Because the furthest object will be further away 'now' than when it emitted the light.
 


TobyC said:
Yeah I'm ok with distances increasing faster than the speed of light, I can understand how that's allowed by general relativity, it's just I still couldn't understand how the observable universe could be bigger in size than twice the age until what you said about the radius being the distance of the further objects now rather than the distance when they emitted the light.
When I said that in SR objects shouldn't be at a distance of more than twice the age, I was talking about their distance now, not the distance when they emitted the light. In SR it would be impossible for us to be seeing light from any objects whose distance now is more than twice the age.
TobyC said:
Just out of interest, in an expanding universe wouldn't the observable universe still be bigger than twice the age even if the distances weren't increasing faster than the speed of light? Because the furthest object will be further away 'now' than when it emitted the light.
No it couldn't, that was my point. In SR, if we can see the light from an object today, then the distance when it emitted that light can't have been more than 13.7 billion light-years away in a universe only 13.7 billion years old (if it emitted light from greater than that distance, the light wouldn't have had time to reach us by today). So if it was receding at just under the speed of light, its distance today could have increased by no more than an additional 13.7 billion light years, giving a maximum distance today of 13.7 billion + 13.7 billion light years, i.e. twice the age * c.
 
it is simply how far into the past we can observe.
 

Similar threads

Undergrad The Boundary of the Observable Universe
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
7K
High School How do Black Holes Grow? A Far-Away Observer's Perspective
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
6K
Undergrad What Are the Limits of the Universe According to Cosmologists?
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
4K
Undergrad Does the past of an observer still actually exist in their "now"?
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
6K
Undergrad 2 objects of enormous volume each in relative motion very close to c
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
High School Trying to understand what "time" is (layperson)
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
Undergrad Follow-up Einstein Definition of Simultaneity for Langevin Observers
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
High School Detecting cosmological redshift in an empty part of the Universe
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Undergrad Doppler like effect affecting observed time for a moving object
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Undergrad Time Dilation, Length Contraction & Massive Bodies
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K