Originally posted by swan001
reply to post by CLPrime
So, technically, nothing went faster than light speed because no matter (or antimatter) existed at that time, only an expansion field. And it all
happened in the first 10e-44 second...
Not quite. Yes, in that first fraction of a second, regions of the universe were expanding at much faster than the speed of light relative to each
other...but there are two reasons why this doesn't violate the universal speed limit.
First, this is only an apparent velocity, it's not a proper velocity. Had there been objects in the universe at this time, it would have been the
space in between those objects expanding at faster than the speed of light, not the objects themselves moving at faster than the speed of light.
Second, and most significantly, there is nothing in any part of physics that says no object can ever travel at the speed of light. What there is is
the law that information cannot travel at faster than the speed of light. Even in the case of two objects traveling at faster than the speed of light
relative to each other, it is still impossible for information between them to be transferred at faster than the speed of light.
In fact, there are objects within the observable universe now that, according to their redshift, are traveling at up to 3 times the speed of light
relative to us. No laws are violated in doing so.
Don't you find it is a bit too convenient of an explanation?
This is the theory that has been forced by the evidence as we have it today. It's not convenient if it's the only thing we know of that works.
Do you believe in that theory?
That's a whole other issue. I've only been around for a rather insignificant part of the past 13.7 billion years...so I'm not in much of a position
to say one way or the other.
We mustn't forget that expansion is assumed to take part because we observed redshift in distant galaxies and drew a formula from it. I mean,
I know about the fizeau-doppler effect, but is it possible that something else, maybe not tired light theory, maybe something entirely new could
contribute to red-shift galaxies and thus limiting the Universe's size or velocity of expansion?
It is quite possible. But until someone comes up with such an alternative, we can't really go there.
I mean, how fast does these quasar go?
As I stated above, some are going at up to 3 times the speed of light. Relative to us (apparent motion, not proper velocity).
What happens in the edge of the universe, where galaxies go to near light speed?
They're not actually traveling at near (or beyond) the speed of light. That motion is only relative to us. There really is no "edge" of the
universe out there...it just looks that way from our vantage point due to the finite speed of light.
Susskind said that the border of the universe would undergo a infinite mathematical concept (there would be no end at the end), but this energy
that near light-speed traveling galaxies emit (de Broglie's equation) would affect the very fabric of the universe, right?
As explained, nothing at the visible "edge" of the universe is actually traveling at near-light-speed. Aliens observing us from 13 billion
light-years away would see us moving away from them at near the speed of light, while, to them, their world would be standing still as Earth seems to
be to us. That's because nothing is really moving...it's space between objects that's expanding.
And BTW, is that you on your avatar.