Talk:Big bang
"distant galaxies can actually move apart faster than the speed of light"
I admit that I am not a physicist, but this really surprises me. Is this actually true?
Yes - nothing can travel "through" space faster than the speed of light. However if the space itself is expanding then two objects which are at rest (relative to their local environment) can move away from each other at speeds greatly in excess of the speed of light. To conceptualise this - imagine a balloon with dots drawn all over it. Blow up the balloon. Now none of the dots have moved relative to the balloon itself, yet they are now further apart from each other. Read Lawrence Krauss's book "The Physics of Star Trek" - he explains this beautifully (exploitation of this was the justification for how the warp drive worked) - MMGB
In the observable universe (that sphere around us of radius n light years, where n is the age of the universe in years) I do not think it is possible for two objects to recedes faster than the speed of light. Due to the initial inflation the universe is much larger than the observable universe and perhaps the example here is the relative motions of galaxies that are farther apart than n light years and so are not mutually observable -- however such objects can never be seen from each other and in generaal it is impossible for either to have any influence on the other ever (I think). --Eob
Eob - you're absolutely correct. Take Galaxy A (at the edge of our sphere of light perception, and receding at just below c, relative to us) and Galaxy B (likewise at the edge of our sphere of light perception, but diametrically opposed to Galaxy A, with the Earth at the centre of the imaginary line connecting all three). The light from Galaxy A and B is travelling at c and hence we can just perceive each. But relative to each other, they are receding at the linear addition of their recession velocities". They would not ever be able to perceive each other. Hence the "observable universe" of Galaxy A would have the earth at the extreme fringe of it (or "where the Earth was going to be when it formed" relative to their timeline) and nothing beyond it. Galaxy B would not exist, nor would it have ever existed, in their reference frame. Likewise, there is probably a Galaxy C beyond Galaxy B that we cannot perceive, and never will.
- Even if C keeps moving away from us faster than c, there is a priori no reason to assume that we will never see C. Think of the light emanating from C as an ant walking towards us on a rubber band extending from us to C. The ant is walking at speed c relative to the rubber band, the rubber band is stretched, but the ant will still reach us eventually (unless you keep stretching faster and faster, in an exponential way, which is not what galaxies do). --AxelBoldt
The definition of our "observable universe" is "all the stuff that is moving away from us at less than the speed of light, hence we can still see it. Some versions of the inflationary hypothesis speculate that we can only see 1 millionth to a billionth of the real cosmos. Not that it matters, we cannot (by definition) ever verify it one way or the other (barring the discovery of wormholes, and let's NOT go there). - MMGB
No, objects in the observable universe can be receding faster than the speed of light. It works because what we see lies in the distant past - just because the objects are too far away for light to reach us now, doesn't mean they were when the light was emitted.
- I see. But what does "now" mean? Under relativity there is no concept of simultaneity.
- Simultaneity is irrelevant - we are only considering our reference frame. "Now" means "our now".
- Given our now, it still appears to me to be impossible to talk about galaxies receding faster than the speed of light. I still think that this statement should be removed from this article, unless we have an astrophysisist in the house who can clarify this point.
Again I have to prefix this with "I am not a physicist and I don't play one on TV", but...even with the "balloon" analogy, I am having a hard time believing that it is possible for the dots on the balloon to move apart faster than the speed of light under the constraints of relativity. The fact that they are locally "at rest" doesn't really mean anything anyway, does it? After all, in Einsteinian space-time there is no absolute sense in which anything is at rest anyway.
I am not saying that it is wrong that galaxies can move apart faster than the speed of light--but it is completely alien to my (admittedly limited) understanding of relativistic physics. Egern
I'm not sure of the which is right, but perhaps this issue is being conflated with the apparent superluminal velocity of distant galaxies? [1] -- DrBob
Nah, it's quite definite that some galaxies are receding at true superluminal velocities. This works because limits on relative velocities - you're quite right that local rest doesn't come into it - only apply to objects starting at the same point in space and time. The possible paths of an object there make up a cone, called the point's future, and contain no relatively superluminal paths. In flat static spacetime all cones are oriented the same way, so the same applies, but with the expansion of the universe the cones are relatively tilted. Remember relativity is a local theory. -- Josh Grosse
Replaced the following
- Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequently, it leaves a number of tough, unanswered questions.
with
- The Big Bang Theory is now the accepted scientific view of the origin of the Universe.
because it gave the wrong impression -- no scientific theory is ever fully "proved". Statements like this just gives fodder to the creationists and their ilk. (Woops, stepping a little outside NPOV there). Perhaps the original author could elaborate on the "number of tough, unanswered questions" -- Eob
I changed the wording a bit. I'd say that the big bang model is accepted by about 98%
of the cosmologists out here, but there are a few here and there who don't accept it, and
there are a few models here and there which attempt to challenge big bang. I don't think that they will get anywhere, but they exist. I also added some text about cbr. -- Chenyu
Here is a reasonably well-written (though VERY biased) web page regarding "opposition" to the Big Bang theory. The author is well informed (which is not to say correct). Even though I personally think he's way off-target, it still merits reading and critical consideration. [2] - MMGB
For the record, the stars older than the universe thing was more or less resolved a while ago. The linked page doesn't appear that well informed, I'm sure we can do better.
- OH absolutely, but it provides a good launching point for addressing the criticisms. The pages presents an appallingly distorted view of the evidence. - MMGB
Why is this article at Big_bang rather than Big_Bang? The article itself consistently writes "Big Bang". --Zundark, 2001 Nov 20
Half an explanation - I wrote most of the article, and used "Big Bang" because that seemed proper to me. I'll ask LMS to make the call. - MMGB
Someone called for an astrophysicist?
O.K. It's possible for two galaxies to be moving with respect to each other faster
than the speed of light. Imagine a string of galaxies
A B C D E F G H I J
Now suppose that A and B are expanding from each other at 0.2c. Then A and C are going
to expanding from each other at 0.4c. A and D are going to be expanding from each other
at 0.6c. Eventually, you will have two galaxies that are expanding from each other
at more than c. Another way of thinking about this is to use the Hubble law.
velocity = Hubble constant * distance
If distance is large enough, velocity will be more than c.
This does not violate special relativity. Special relativity says that if you can
send information faster than light, then you it is possible to have a path in space
time that is a loop. This causes problems since it means that you can meet your
father and shoot him before he has kids. This isn't a problem with Hubble expansion
since if two galaxies are travelling faster than the speed of light with respect to
each other, it means that a signal from one will never reach the other.
This actually causes problems with the big bang model and is the reason that people
now believe that there was a hyper-rapid expansion of the universe at an early
stage. The problem is that if galaxies A and H can't sense information to each other
than how do galaxies A and H manage to have the same temperature and emit the same
amount of cosmic background radiation. Answer: at some distant time in the past
A and H were close to each other so that they could exchange information and end up
with the same temperature. Then there was a rapid expansion and A and H could no
longer communicate with each other. You can then play some more games and estimate
the amount of lumpiness in the cosmic background radiation.
-- Chenyu
One other nit. I get really annoyed when people say that special relativity proves
you can't travel faster than the speed of light. The situation is
1) if special relativity is correct, and
2) if it turns out that you can send information faster than the speed of light,
then
3) from someone's point of view you are sending information back in time
Sending information back in time is a bad thing since it leads to all sorts of theoretical
problems (what happens if you send a message to kill your father)? Unless we have
evidence that someone is sending messages back in time, we'd rather avoid the problemby assuming that you can't do (3). Special relativity *seems* to be a good description
of reality so we want to keep (1). That means the only thing left is to kill assumption
(2). Of course, reality might have other ideas.
One consequence of this is that you can have "things" move faster than the speed of
light, provided that those "things" don't exchange information.
But I think special relativity also says that massive objects cannot travel faster than c, since their energy approaches infinity as they reach speed c.
Also, when you say above that A and H cannot send information to each other: is that really true? Couldn't a light beam emitted from H eventually reach A, like in my "ant-on-a-rubber-band" example above? --AxelBoldt
What does it mean to have "emerged spontaneously"? I just looked up spontaneous in the dictionary and I'm not sure which definition would apply to the emergence of the universe. My guess is that, there might be a better word for what is meant here. - Tim
Claiming that the energy or mass of an object increases to infinite is a
bad way to explain special relativity. A better way is just to say that
light is always moving at the speed of light, so no matter what you do,
light is always moving at the speed of light away from you.
Similarly light is always moving from the galaxy at the speed of light, and
if that galaxies is moving away at 1.3 c, that light will never reach you.
-- Chenyu