PDA

View Full Version : exceeding the speed of light?



PhinPhan1227
01-15-2009, 09:34 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479911,00.html

The story is about the fact that the universe is lopsided, and that this fact reveals information about the Big Bang. But there's a littl ethrow away tidbit in the illustration about the theory that in the initial expansion, the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light. My question is....how? If the speed of light is a barrier due to the exponential increase in mass as matter approaches the speed of light, how did the universe violate that barrier in its expansion? Perhaps there's a physicist among us who can expalain this to me?

LouPhinFan
01-15-2009, 10:28 AM
Well, according to Einstein it would take an infinite amount of energy to surpass the speed of light. The big bang is as close to infinite energy as there has ever been. That could be it.

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2009, 11:00 AM
Well, according to Einstein it would take an infinite amount of energy to surpass the speed of light. The big bang is as close to infinite energy as there has ever been. That could be it.

Problem is, as you approach the speed of light, you also achieve almost infinite mass. That's why it's called the event horizon. When you approach that speed you get so massive that you can't be moved.

LouPhinFan
01-15-2009, 12:00 PM
Problem is, as you approach the speed of light, you also achieve almost infinite mass. That's why it's called the event horizon. When you approach that speed you get so massive that you can't be moved.

Same principle. Right before the big bang, all matter was as close to infinite mass as there ever will be. All the mass in the universe squashed into a marble, that's pretty close to infinite mass as there ever can be...

In the end here is my feeling about "C"; every law can be broken. Even ones that are considered "constant". 186,000 miles per second is just a number.

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2009, 12:41 PM
Same principle. Right before the big bang, all matter was as close to infinite mass as there ever will be. All the mass in the universe squashed into a marble, that's pretty close to infinite mass as there ever can be...

In the end here is my feeling about "C"; every law can be broken. Even ones that are considered "constant". 186,000 miles per second is just a number.


Lol...well, if we're going with the "every law was made to be broken" argument, we're really going to piss off all the amateur phycisists on this site...sounds like fun! :up:

Tetragrammaton
01-15-2009, 12:51 PM
My astronomy teacher used to squirt us with a water gun if we asked what happened before the Big Bang. I guess it isn't so crazy anymore!

Also, this idea that the sides of the universe are inflating differently really hurts a paper I did on the Closed Universe Theory. At least they had the decency to release this after I got an A on it.

Fascinating article.

Dolphan7
01-15-2009, 02:17 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,479911,00.html

The story is about the fact that the universe is lopsided, and that this fact reveals information about the Big Bang. But there's a littl ethrow away tidbit in the illustration about the theory that in the initial expansion, the universe traveled much faster than the speed of light. My question is....how? If the speed of light is a barrier due to the exponential increase in mass as matter approaches the speed of light, how did the universe violate that barrier in its expansion? Perhaps there's a physicist among us who can expalain this to me?
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. This is really a measure of time. The problem, and maybe the answer, is that assumptions have been made that the universe is constant, or has been constant over time, and based on this it begs the questions like the one you ask. But what if the universe hasn't been constant, or isn't constant now? That would mean that time would be faster, or slower, depending on what "time" period we are in. Regarding the Big Bang, if time travels faster at the beginning, that would dictate that light would not travel at 186,000 miles per second, but at a much faster speed, covering greater distances in the same amount of time. I know it can get a little confusing, but there is a valid theory regarding this. Try reading up on Russell Humphries - Starlight and Time. Also you can check him out on youtube. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IWANMosZI

PhinPhan1227
01-15-2009, 04:43 PM
The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. This is really a measure of time. The problem, and maybe the answer, is that assumptions have been made that the universe is constant, or has been constant over time, and based on this it begs the questions like the one you ask. But what if the universe hasn't been constant, or isn't constant now? That would mean that time would be faster, or slower, depending on what "time" period we are in. Regarding the Big Bang, if time travels faster at the beginning, that would dictate that light would not travel at 186,000 miles per second, but at a much faster speed, covering greater distances in the same amount of time. I know it can get a little confusing, but there is a valid theory regarding this. Try reading up on Russell Humphries - Starlight and Time. Also you can check him out on youtube. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32IWANMosZI

Well, that kind of sends us back to the "rules are made to be broken" thing again doesn't it? "Speed" is still a measure of distance over time however, and I don't see how the constant of speed would be much changed. If you add mass at a constant rate when speed increases, that constant would have to change. And if it did, I don't see how that doesn't unbalance the other constants which make the universe possible.