If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Astronomy
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 09:24 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default How did mass travel faster than light?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory

Tensor and Van and I began began another discussion in the dark energy thread about the expansion of spacetime. Cougar mentioned it as well. I'm specifically curious about the presumed size of the physical (mass) universe and how that relates to General Relativity and the absolute speed of objects with mass.

As I understand BB theory, there is a presumption of gravitational force (associated with mass in GR) at the moment preceding the singularity. This would seem to suggest the presence of mass, and therefore the presence of the tensor fields of GR. In GR however, nothing with mass can travel faster than light, and in no way could the tensor fields ever "expand" faster than light because objects with mass cannot travel faster than light. I'm therefore very puzzled how the universe can be larger than 27.4 billion light years across if the universe in only 13.7 billion years old. What am I missing that allows any object that contain mass to travel faster than light?

Last edited by ManInTheMirror : 05-January-2007 at 10:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 09:36 PM
eburacum45's Avatar
eburacum45 eburacum45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: old york
Posts: 4,469
Default

Space between objects expands. This gives the illusion of movement.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 09:45 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Define "space" for me in some physically tangible way that relates to GR or QM. how does this expansion affect the expansion of the tensor fields of "spacetime" (as separate from "space")?
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 09:45 PM
hhEb09'1's Avatar
hhEb09'1 hhEb09'1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC USA
Posts: 7,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror View Post
I'm therefore very puzzled how the universe can be larger than 27.4 light years across if the universe in only 13.7 billion years old. What am I missing that allows any object that contain mass to travel faster than light?
27.4 billion light years across

Here's an article by the BA's friend, Robert Roy Britt, that addresses that very question.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 10:02 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
27.4 billion light years across

Here's an article by the BA's friend, Robert Roy Britt, that addresses that very question.
Gah! I'll go fix it.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 11:07 PM
Bogie's Avatar
Bogie Bogie is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,340
Default

Just an idea, but as far as I know there is no reason that space cannot expand faster than the speed of light. If the big bang created space or if an equivalent event in existing space emerged as a ball of energy without mass, then the superluminal expansion in the first picoseconds could have occurred. After that inflationary epoch, matter could have formed from the energy density.

In this scenario matter would not have to travel faster than the speed of light, and yet would still be evenly distributed across the entire expanding ball after it forms.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 11:29 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bogie View Post
Just an idea, but as far as I know there is no reason that space cannot expand faster than the speed of light. If the big bang created space or if an equivalent event in existing space emerged as a ball of energy without mass, then the superluminal expansion in the first picoseconds could have occurred. After that inflationary epoch, matter could have formed from the energy density.

In this scenario matter would not have to travel faster than the speed of light, and yet would still be evenly distributed across the entire expanding ball after it forms.
I'm very unclear what you are describing when you use the term "space" in terms of "expanding faster than light". If by "space", you are defining some sort of mental concept about a "pure vacuum" devoid of all mass has no speed limit, sure, I'll buy that idea, but I don't see how that idea applies here.

As far as I know, there was never a "time" when "spacetime" (space with particles of mass) did not exist. I say this because the BB theory itself talks about gravitational fields being present throughout the process. "Space" in the sense of a "pure vacuum" may never have existed for all I know. We however are describing the "expansion" of particles with mass, not what can and cannot happen in a "pure vacuum". I really don't understand what you mean when you say "space" is "expanding".

What exactly is expanding if not the mass particles within the tensor field of spacetime?

Last edited by ManInTheMirror : 06-January-2007 at 12:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-January-2007, 11:32 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
27.4 billion light years across

Here's an article by the BA's friend, Robert Roy Britt, that addresses that very question.
Is there a mathematical presentation of this idea that you would recommend? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea, and I'm hoping a mathematical presentation of the idea might answer some of my questions for me.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 12:04 AM
Tim Thompson's Avatar
Tim Thompson Tim Thompson is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,152
Lightbulb Suggested Reading

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 12:07 AM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Thanks Tim. You've certainly provided me with a lot of reading material recently.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 01:45 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,582
Default Curious

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror View Post
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang_Theory

Tensor and Van and I began began another discussion in the dark energy thread about the expansion of spacetime. Cougar mentioned it as well. I'm specifically curious about the presumed size of the physical (mass) universe and how that relates to General Relativity and the absolute speed of objects with mass.

As I understand BB theory, there is a presumption of gravitational force (associated with mass in GR) at the moment preceding the singularity. This would seem to suggest the presence of mass, and therefore the presence of the tensor fields of GR. In GR however, nothing with mass can travel faster than light, and in no way could the tensor fields ever "expand" faster than light because objects with mass cannot travel faster than light. I'm therefore very puzzled how the universe can be larger than 27.4 billion light years across if the universe in only 13.7 billion years old. What am I missing that allows any object that contain mass to travel faster than light?
I'm curious, MITM, why did you start this thread in the ATM section?

As far as I can see, it's a simple question about mainstream physics, well-suited for BAUT's Q&A section (this OP contains no ATM claims, proposals, etc ... as far as I can see).
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 01:52 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,582
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitino View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Which is a nice word salad, but as science it is about as close to nonsense as one can get ... if the universe obeys GR, then "a burst of energy from prior conditions" is gibberish (a GR universe contains all the mass-energy and nothing but the mass-energy of the universe).
So, according to BB, all started with a single point that encapsulates ALL necessary energy to create all matter found in these milions of bilions of galaxies !!!
Hard to accept, unless space-t expansion is creating matter or matter is self-creating, or ... perhaps matter is contra intuitive !!!
You've completely lost me I'm afraid ... would you mind explaining what this post of yours has to do with modern (mainstream) cosmology, or GR?

Or, perhaps, you are presenting an ATM idea, dressed up in words that have a slightly-less-than-random relationship with modern physics?

Or maybe you are simply (very) confused about what the concordance model in cosmology (a.k.a. "BB") actually is? Is so, why not start a thread in the Q&A section? Perhaps something like "according to the Big Bang Theory, the universe started with a single point that encapsulates ALL necessary energy to create all matter found in these milions of bilions of galaxies - is this an accurate summary of modern cosmology?" or "according to the Big Bang Theory, is space-time expansion creating matter? or is matter self-creating?"
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 06-January-2007, 08:35 PM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
I'm curious, MITM, why did you start this thread in the ATM section?
That's actually a very good question. I suppose I could have started the conversation anywhere. I guess in the back of my mind I suspected that when it came to identifying the actual "cause" of the expansion of "space" (whatever that is), it was going to sound something like:

It is profoundly impossible for the ad hoc "invisible cheeseburger force" to not exist, if we assume the validity of the expansion of space for the simple reason that "invisible cheeseburger forces" are, by definition, the cause of that effect.

I've not had time to really give Tim's first reference a thorough read through, but already I see things headed in that direction. I'll comment more when I've been through the paper, and I have a better idea of how the expansion of "space" (whatever that is) presumably affects real life "spacetime" according to these papers. Are the spaces inside of atoms "expanding" too, or is this a special "peek-a-boo" force that is shy around science labs like DE?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 12:37 AM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
Ok Tim, I need a hand here with a concept/statement that I simply can't make heads or tails of from a physics point of view.

Quote:
The general relativistic interpretation of the expansion interprets cosmological redshifts as an indication of velocity since the proper distance between comoving objects increases. However, the velocity is due to the rate of expansion of space, not movement through space, and therefore cannot be calculated with the special relativistic Doppler shift formula. Hubble & Humason’s calculation of velocity therefore should not be given special relativistic corrections at high redshift, contrary to their suggestion [App. B: 16].
From a QM and GR perspective, I have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about "space" somehow "expanding". Spacetime can "expand" as the particles of mass expand, but the term "space" here has no clear meaning in terms of GR, QM or particle physics. What exactly does that mean? Does the space between subatomic particles expand? Does the earth expand, or does this expansion take place only where we can't test it? How does this author know that the velocity is due to the rate of the expansion of space? Can you define the term "space" here in a way that relates to GR or QM? What is "expanding" exactly?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 12:39 AM
hhEb09'1's Avatar
hhEb09'1 hhEb09'1 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: NC USA
Posts: 7,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror View Post
That's actually a very good question. I suppose I could have started the conversation anywhere. I guess in the back of my mind I suspected that when it came to identifying the actual "cause" of the expansion of "space" (whatever that is), it was going to sound something like:

It is profoundly impossible for the ad hoc "invisible cheeseburger force" to not exist, if we assume the validity of the expansion of space for the simple reason that "invisible cheeseburger forces" are, by definition, the cause of that effect.
Mods! I think we need a Food Forum
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 12:44 AM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hhEb09'1 View Post
Mods! I think we need a Food Forum
Can I play the role of Rachael Ray?
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 01:09 AM
Sam5 Sam5 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 5,178
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ManInTheMirror View Post
Ok Tim, I need a hand here with a concept/statement that I simply can't make heads or tails of from a physics point of view.



From a QM and GR perspective, I have no idea what they are talking about when they talk about "space" somehow "expanding".
They are trying to salvage the "limiting speed" hypothesis of SR theory.
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 01:24 AM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam5 View Post
They are trying to salvage the "limiting speed" hypothesis of SR theory.
No, I am trying to precisely define what it is that is "expanding" in any physical sense. The term "space" is pretty vague. Does that mean the space inside the atoms are all expanding too?
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 01:37 AM
eburacum45's Avatar
eburacum45 eburacum45 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: old york
Posts: 4,469
Default

I am not a cosmologist, so I can only give you the dumbed down version;
yes, the space inside our local group of galaxies is expanding, and the space inside the Earth, and inside atoms; but the expansion is very weak, so cannot overcome the forces which hold those objects together. Gravity, nuclear forces, and so on make sure that these objects do not expand in the same way that the Universe as a whole does.

I beleive that the expansion does actualy inflate atoms, the Earth, and the Local group slightly, so that they are larger than they would be if expansion didn't exist;but I don't think that has been measured (as far as I know). It is an incredibly small expansion on the scale of anything we can directly measure.
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2007, 01:43 AM
ManInTheMirror ManInTheMirror is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 827
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eburacum45 View Post
I am not a cosmologist, so I can only give you the dumbed down version;
yes, the space inside our local group of galaxies is expanding, and the space inside the Earth, and inside atoms; but the expansion is very weak, so cannot overcome the forces which hold those objects together. Gravity, nuclear forces, and so on make sure that these objects do not