Does the Universe travel at the speed of light?

[invisi]

The Universe was unlimited space, with nothing in it, before the Big Bang. If my theory (I think someone might have made this theory before me so it might not be mine) is correct and matter, after the big bung travelled at C the speed of light. Then the Big Bang was very tiny probably the size of a house or even smaller, because when travelling at the speed of light matter increases in size. So if that theory is true then out side the Universe, time is travelling much slower (or actually stopped) than here on earth or in any other place. So if we manage to travel at C, then we will be in the time line of the outer Universe. Maybe that’s what happens in black hole, they make things stop travelling, at the speed of light (C).

 

[alokmohan]

Big bang has a singularity at center 10 to the power minus 33 .So it does not match with your theory.

 

[invisi]

And you know that how?

 

[derekmcd]

"<i>The Universe was unlimited space, with nothing in it, before the Big Bang.</i>"<br /><br />We know absolutely nothing when discussing the state of the Universe prior to the big bang. Some folks go so far as to consider it irrelevant because it is unknowable. We simply don't even know if it is knowable.<br /><br />"<i>If my theory (I think someone might have made this theory before me so it might not be mine) is correct and matter, after the big bung travelled at C the speed of light.</i><br /><br />You might be referring to something similar to the Inflationary Epoch. This is when the visible universe expanded at rates far greater than the speed of light. However, I don't believe there was any physical matter at that time. It was energy and the fundamental forces separated. So, yeah... I think someone made that theory before you <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />.<br /><br />"<i>Then the Big Bang was very tiny probably the size of a house or even smaller, because when travelling at the speed of light matter increases in size.</i>"<br /><br />Well... matter doesn't really increase in size. It's the mass that is increased. Mass, however is only increased during acceleration approaching the speed of light. Upon achieving the speed of light, the objects mass would be infinite, thus theoretically impossible. Keep in mind, the matter in the universe is not travelling at or beyond the speed of light through space... it is the metric expansion of spacetime itself that is increasing the distance between objects such as galaxies at or greater than the speed of light. The objects themselves do not have velocities carrying them at or greater than C. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

In relativistic theory, objects travelling at c are massless, and timeless (a photon does not age).<br />So the entire universe cannot travel at c. Unless you meant "close to c?

 

[invisi]

So the only thing that travels Close to C is a Black hole, so in other words if you believe in God, God made all the Universe for nothing, well not for us Humans that is, and seems that God doesn't intend on us to leave earth, well the solar system... <br />Well maybe God indened it for us when we where imortal

 

[h2ouniverse]

1) Huh? I do not see the connection with belief in God. He may create whatever He wants, in whichever form. And even in all possible forms. May I suggest you wonder who you are, I mean how you define yourself. When dealing with the notion of spacetime you have to consider "You" as at least the concatenation of organism states/mind states experienced from your point of view from birth to death (or even beyond, depending on your beliefs). That does not prevent any philosophical view of "You" as an agent or a transformation force, with a meaningful life . Keep also in mind that if you are a believer, you have to assume that nothing commands God, including time (for what "time" means) and so that God is timeless. And therefore a closed spacetime is not a meaningless universe.<br />2) well, may be we are after all in a giant black hole. Some consider the bigbang as a singularity. <br />3) I was just recalling Relativity theory. As for my personal opinion, space and time are illusions and the universe is configurational, not topological as in Einstein's view. But unless one comes with a theory as good as relativity to explain large scale behaviour of the universe, I do not think we are for now in a position to ignore Einstein's theory.<br />4) where I join a part of your intuition is for the fact that the universe might be "rotating", and so there might be a privileged direction of space. To be seen.<br />5) a black hole does not travel close to c. In its own referential it does not travel at all (by definition). In ours, it has a finite c/(c-v) ratio. I said the opposite: in Relativity only a massless (zero mass) object appears as travelling exactly at c, as viewed by other's referential. That is the case for photons.<br /><br />Best regards.

 

[yevaud]

<i>Does the Universe travel at the speed of light?</i><br /><br />With respect to what? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> The Universe was unlimited space, with nothing in it, before the Big Bang. </font><br /><br />Actually, according to the big bang model, there was no space before the big bang. Space began at the time of the big bang. By 'space' I mean the empty blackness that all the galaxies appear to be sailing through. Of course, the galaxies are sailing through space, because space is expanding and pushing them apart. <br /><br />Many people think that empty space has always been here, and the material universe popped into existence as a bang, although it is not thought to be this way with current theories. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

That's not exactly accurate. The current model of the expansion of the universe implies or indicates superluminal recessional velocities with respect to individual fixed points like our particular observational point here on Earth.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow">So the only thing that travels Close to C is a Black hole</font><br /><br />Relative to our perspective, the central massive BH at the center of our galaxy "moves" very little. If anything from our POV, it "wobbles" like our Sun does (due to gravity interactions between the Sun and the planets) moving around the relative center of gravity of the galaxy.<br /><br />In fact, to get a little weirder, the CMBH is moving at all possible velocities as I type this. Relative to the Andromeda Galaxy, it's moving at a particular velocity that's blue shifted. With respect to the Virgo Cluster of galaxies, it's "moving" at a different blue shifted velocity.<br /><br />With respect to most of the observable Universe, it's "moving" at tens or hundreds of billions of unique red shifted velocities from the perspective of each individual red shifted galaxy out there.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

But recession velocities are a mind construction, assuming as a thought experiment that instant travel is possible. Recession velocities are qualified as supraluminal but in fact it is what we call "space" that is expanding, not the objects that are traveling. As I posted on another thread, the only meaningful definition of distance or time between A and B, hence speed of A vs B, is related to the minimum amount of energy needed to commonalize the referentials of A and B, including making parallel all 4 directions of spacetime. IMO you cannot define a distance or a relative speed if you cannot have interaction.<br />And interaction includes the (timeless) photons connecting A to B, the potential gravitons if they exist, and the other force carriers.<br />

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> But recession velocities are a mind construction, assuming as a thought experiment that instant travel is possible. </font><br /><br />Actually, instant travel might not be science-fiction to some scientists. And to rephrase my sentence, instant travel from how we see it is most likely impossible, but multiple positioning might exist. Many physicists now theorize that particles exist in very strange ways when we observe them on more quantum levels. Basically, a theory that relates to a particle's superposition, suggests that the same particle can exist in an almost infinite amount of places throughout the universe. This has to depend on many factors, one of which is that the particle exists in multiple dimensions or parallel universes.<br /><br />This is how I would say that instant travel of an object, although on a quantum scale, seems to happen across vast distances of space.<br /><br />Here is a very basic definition of Superpositioning. It doesn't relate directly to this thread, but I find it to be interesting stuff.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition<br /><br />Very hypothetically speaking, lets say you have a large glowing ball that represents a small quantum particle. If you squeeze the ball it will flash. You then notice that it's twin will flash at the exact time that you are squeezing the one in your hand. However, it isn't its twin, it is the same exact particle that you hold in your hand, and it exists across billions of lightyears of space from where you are. <br /><br />This is a sort of a vague idea of how superpositioning can work. One reason why this occurs might be proof of the universe beginning from a single point. Although the particle now appears to be in multiple places at the same time, it once existed all in the same place, before the big bang. <br /><br />This might be evidence that the universe is constructed of deeper dimensions <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

Recessional velocities are a very real, very observable, and very confirmable things.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Recession velocities are qualified as supraluminal but in fact it is what we call "space" that is expanding, not the objects that are traveling</font><br /><br />Regardless of reason, the farthest galaxies we can observe are receding from us at significant percentages of <i>c</i>.<br /><br />To me, that implies a force acting from "outside" 4 dimensional space-time. That's trying to be explained by "dark energy" and "dark matter", which I find very inelegant. But I'm not a physicist.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

Not only are they receding, they are receding at an accelerated rate. That's where dark energy enters the picture. I, too, am not a big fan of dark energy. Of course, there nothing to really be a fan about. It's just a name applied to a mysterious 'something'. As for accelerated expansion, what I find really odd is that the most distance galaxies will eventually 'dissappear'. I doubt this is an effect we can currently observe, but am curious what the effect would appear like to us observing here on earth. Would the observed galaxy simply blink out or would it fade? Im guessing there would be a few factors involved such as size and angle of our view. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[a_lost_packet_]

<font color="orange">Does the Universe travel at the speed of light?</font><br /><br /><font color="yellow">Yevaud - With respect to what?</font><br /><br />Hammer meet nail.<br /><br />You win the internet.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="1">I put on my robe and wizard hat...</font> </div>

 

[nova_explored]

how does that recession work again? in theory.<br /><br />is it a light barrier? or is it theorized that the curvature of the universe itself holds a threshold for viewers depending on their viewpoint. much like a ship crossing over the horizon.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

The way I understand it that if two object have a great enough distance between them, the metric expansion of space creates an ever increasing distance that will eventually out pace the speed of light. When this happens, the said object will be beyond our visible 'event horizon'.<br /><br />It can be difficult to expain when trying to avoid terms like speed or velocity as these have nothing to do with it. Even if all objects in the universe have zero inertial velocity (meaning their coordinates are static), the distance between the coordinates would still be increasing <b><i>and</i></b> accelerating.<br /><br />It is theorized that all currently visible objects that are outside our local gravitational well will succumb to this effect.<br /><br />I don't believe it has anything to do with the curvature of spacetime. As far as we can tell, there is no curvature. That is to say, based on the small sample that we have the ability to observe, there is none. Or, it is so small as to be currently undetectable.<br /><br />If there is curvature to space, that would mean if we could travel far enough, fast enough in a straigh line, we would end up where the journey began. Not really analogous to the curvature of the earth. If you shine a powerful enough flashlight, it will not travel around the earth and hit you in the back of the head <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Actually, we <b> can </b> see objects that have superluminal recession speeds due to the expansion of space.<br /><br />So far, we have observed over 1000 galaxies which are receding from us faster than light. Okay, now you are wondering how we could see them if they are receding faster than light, aren't you?<br /><br />Well, how it works is like this:<br /><br />Early in the history of the universe the expansion rate was a lot faster than it is now, and the rate was decelerating. So let's imagine a galaxy 13 billion years ago that was 2 billion light years away from us when it emitted the light we see now. (Some of the most distant galaxies we see have an <i> angular </i> diameter that shows they were around 2 billion light years away when they emitted the light we see).<br /><br />The light left that galaxy, and started moving across space, towards the place where our galaxy formed. As the light made it's journey, space was expanding but decelerating. So, the space the light had already passed through had expanded faster, and the space the light was about to travel through would be expanding slower.<br /><br />The source galaxy would be expanding away from that light faster than our galaxy is expanding away from it, and the light continues to make its way towards us, eventually arriving after 13 billion years.<br /><br />So 13 billion years later, the light arrives here. The light took 13 billion years to cross what was originally 2 billion light years in distance. That light has been "stretched" by the expansion of space during the time it was travelling, and we can measure the amount of "stretching" by measuring the light's cosmological redshift, which gives us an estimate of how much space has expanded during the light's journey.<br /><br />Using that measurement of cosmological redshift we estimate that the galaxy is now something over 30 billion light years away. So the galaxy has receded from us by over 28 billion light years, in only 13 billion years, meaning it has rec <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

Right. But...<br />When I said we cannot know, this is because you can only refer to a point in spacetime "in our past" when you deal with receeding galaxies. IMO the only thing you can state is that the matter that emitted those photons is no longer in our causality cone. And as Weeman pointed out, even that may not mean that much (see EPR paradox).<br />Some estimate that there is as much as 10^10000 times our universes out there. Most of it has never been in our causality cone and that is not an issue. <br />Receeding galaxies labeled as traveling faster than c are like group phase speeds formally larget than c. As long as there is no interaction, there is no meaning for a notion of distance, relative time lapse or speed.<br />Just remember that when you consider interaction with an object that has not its time axis aligned with yours (what we call a non-null speed v) time is compressed by a factor of sqrt(1-(v/c)²). <br />So if you consider a real speed higher than c, be prepared for imaginary time compression factor...<br /><br />Regards.

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> It is theorized that all currently visible objects that are outside our local gravitational well will succumb to this effect. </font><br /><br />Yes, supposedly in something between 100 and 500 billion years time, only objects within our local cluster of gravity bound galaxies will be visible, if the acceleration of the expansion continues.<br /><br />And it also throws up the possibility that the universe as we know it might in the far distant future end up in a state where atoms themselves are ripped apart by the expansion, in a process called the "Big Rip".<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Of course, I cannot disagree with anything you have said. We cannot <i> know </i> that a galaxy is 30 billion light years away.<br /><br />I should qualify my post by saying that we can <i> consider </i> objects to have superluminal speeds due <i> only </i> to the metric expansion of space. Nothing has travelled faster than light, but the space in between objects seems to have increased over time in a manner that would put those objects further away from us than light could have travelled in the same time. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Our light cone is always getting larger, and we will continue to see more new data about the objects we can see until the acceleration of the expansion "overtakes" the light from those objects, pushing that light away from us faster than our cone is increasing. By then objects that are within our cone will be moving out of it, and eventually there will be nothing outside our local gravity bound system within our light cone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[h2ouniverse]

I think we agree.<br /><br />No such frightening thing as a time expressed as a complex number. Damned Lorentz <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" />

 

[alokmohan]

There is so straight answer ,no it is not?

 

[alokmohan]

There is absolute horizon of universe,that moves.