• We hope all of you have a great holiday season and an incredible New Year. Thanks so much for being part of the Space community!

Growth of Universe during 1st few seconds

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

josh1943

Guest
i was reading <br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060316_wmap_results.html<br /><br />in the middle of the article it said that <br /><br />"During this growth spurt, a tiny region, likely no larger than a marble, grew in a trillionth of a second to become larger than the visible universe," said WMAP researcher David Spergel, also from Princeton University.<br /><br />i would like to know how this could happen. since nothing can "move" faster than light. also since this would move near the speed of light (or even faster) then wouldnt it look like it took longer to those looking at it (us).
 
N

newtonian

Guest
josh1943 - Isaiah 40:22 states the God is stretching out the heavens as a fine gauze. It should come as no surprise, therefore, if tthis stetching out has been and may be again faster than light.<br /><br />In fact, inflation theories do posit that faster than light expansion occurred early on - including the model you quote.<br /><br />There have also been recent discoveries indicating this expansion is accelerating once again to faster than light speed.<br /><br />A key to understanding how this is possible without disobeying the laws governing our universe (God does not disobey the laws he created) - you need to understand the difference between speed on (in) the fabric of space compared with the actual expansion of the fabric of space.<br /><br />Apparently, the speed limit on the fabric of space is constant (although some scientists postulate it may not be quite exactly constant, and this is the speed of light: called c - as in e=mc^2.<br /><br />However, we (scientists included) do not know what the speed limit of the expansion of the fabric of space is - but it seems to be way faster than light speed - if there is any speed limit at all.<br /><br />That is why some of our universe is beyond our visibility horizon (= our light cone). If no part of our universe ever expanded faster than light (past, present, future), then all of our universe would be within our visibility horizon - but apparently it is not.
 
H

harmonicaman

Guest
I had trouble understanding that too! Have they considered that time might have started slowly? I think there's also a perspective issue; would every point in the universe have observed inflation the same way?<br /><br />Maybe there was a trillionth of a second during inflation when time and "c" were disconnected...<br /><br />I'll bet the details of this new observation will be subject to interpretation.
 
H

h9c2

Guest
There's a difference between speed *in* the universe, and speed *of* the universe. If the universe is expanding at several orders of C, but as completely empty space, then no law is broken. <br /><br /><br />At least that's what my laymen's brain is telling me.
 
J

josh1943

Guest
Newtonian, interesting statment about the visibility horizon never really thought about that.<br /><br />H9C2 (and Newtonian), altho i see your point about expansion into nothingness how dose that fare with Einstein saying that no physical object could exceed light speed even if moving in empty space.<br /><br />besides that, apart from the leading edge of the expansion wouldnt the following material also be faster then light thus violating a law.<br /><br />also since we are observing this process wouldnt the perceved time usage be far longer for this event. since a faster object will seem to take longer from a stationary observer. ie im on a space ship going .5 light speed it takes me 5 years to go some place and back but on earth it takes 50,000 years. so infact this event they are discribing could have occured much quicker or the expantion may have been at a even higher speed.
 
P

plutocrass

Guest
In my opinion, there are two ways it makes sense. <br /><br />One way is this. What Big Bang'd was just the matter expanding into the void. <br /><br />The second way is for me to remember that we're at the limits to explain the beginning, and a new style of mathematic needs to be discovered to explain it. <br /><br />This is because I don't see how hot subatomic particles could accelerate to a velocity as to expand in 1/trillionth of a second, their mass is so low! F=MA. <br /><br />But if I accept this new presentation of the Big Bang's Smoking Gun, as it is presented in the newspapers, then I'm still at a quandry. How did this huge expanding force slow down so that the accelerating matter would be overcome by simple gravitational forces to coalesce it all together? <br /><br />Because it seems like the force of expansion would greatly outweigh any force of adhesion(gravity) and that everything when cooled should remain tiny subatomic particles that keep accelerating into an every increasingly larger expanse, ad infinitum. <br /><br />Apparently the matter is still expanding, so that means it didn't just slow down, it slowed to a precise speed that would allow coalescence and expansion at the same time. <br /> <br />Of course, it would make things much more simpler if you could find another explanation for the Doppler effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts