Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

28 Jan 2014, 6:41 pm

I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).

2. Time IS NOT a constant. Gravity affects the passage of events. The higher the gravity, the slower time flows. The lower the gravity, the faster time flows.

So, is the universe expanding "faster than the speed of light" because empty space has no temporal resistance so "events" related to expansion pass insanely fast compared to "earth bound" souls and/or it's an illusion of the gravitational/temporal difference between high gravity and null gravity?

More so, if the universe was to expand faster than light, could it create a backward temporal projection? I thought the rule was FTL travel would result in a backward flow of time.

This made me think of it like this....

Consider the "big bang" happened 10,000 years ago. The universe expands at FTL speeds...backwards time warp effect. Something 10,000 years old is expelled 2.5 billion light years from us in a matter of months. It's still 10,000 years old, but displaced into the distant past. We are now seeing it 2.5 billion years later even though it came to be at the same point in time.



Dantac
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,672
Location: Florida

28 Jan 2014, 7:45 pm

It was my understanding only appears to move faster or slower due to gravity/motion because of the frames of reference.

From the frame of reference of a photon of light, traveling at C (lightspeed), its life would start and end in the same instant even though to an outside observer the little bugger traveled for several billion years until it slammed into something and died.



Willard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2008
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,647

28 Jan 2014, 8:25 pm

Frame of Reference = Relativity

Whatever you experience, that is your reality. The point of Schrodinger's Cat is that the act of observation influences outcome - observer and observed are inextricably linked.

Subatomic particles do appear to move faster than the speed of light. And since first measured, the actual speed of light itself has changed. 8O

It has been recalibrated because light moves faster now than it did pre WWII. According to JH Brennan in Time Travel, © 1997:

Quote:
By the time of Einstein's death in 1955, there were already serious problems arising around the speed of light. Scientists discovered that far from being an absolute, it actually varied. Hard though it is to believe, light actually traveled slower in 1930 than it did after World War II. The variation got so bad that physicists had to fix the speed by definition in 1972.



Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 45,646
Location: Stendec

28 Jan 2014, 8:36 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

They do if you attend their classes, lectures, and symposia on their respective subjects.

zer0netgain wrote:
1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).

[citation needed]

zer0netgain wrote:
2. Time IS NOT a constant. Gravity affects the passage of events. The higher the gravity, the slower time flows. The lower the gravity, the faster time flows.

So far ... so good ...

zer0netgain wrote:
So, is the universe expanding "faster than the speed of light" because empty space has no temporal resistance so "events" related to expansion pass insanely fast compared to "earth bound" souls and/or it's an illusion of the gravitational/temporal difference between high gravity and null gravity?

No illusion. Time does pass more slowly in gravitational fields than in a micro-gravity environment.

zer0netgain wrote:
More so, if the universe was to expand faster than light, could it create a backward temporal projection? I thought the rule was FTL travel would result in a backward flow of time.

Backward temporal projection? Projection of what? If you mean retrograde time travel, then causality prohibits the arrival of an object before its departure.

zer0netgain wrote:
This made me think of it like this....

Consider the "big bang" happened 10,000 years ago. The universe expands at FTL speeds...backwards time warp effect. Something 10,000 years old is expelled 2.5 billion light years from us in a matter of months. It's still 10,000 years old, but displaced into the distant past. We are now seeing it 2.5 billion years later even though it came to be at the same point in time.

Show the maths.



Apple_in_my_Eye
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 May 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,420
Location: in my brain

29 Jan 2014, 12:12 am

zer0netgain wrote:
1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).

It's only objects with a non-zero mass that can't reach or exceed the speed of light (requires and infinite amount of energy). I.e. the speed of propagation of a crack isn't limited. Also, if a particle does have zero mass and a non-zero momentum or energy > 0 then it MUST travel at the s.o.l.
The trouble is that going faster than the s.o.l. doesn't take you back in time, it sends you into imaginary time (square root of a negative number time) which is even weirder and regarded as a nonsense answer. (Gamma becomes imaginary, which makes t' imaginary).

Image
Image

That's the transformation of coordinates, including time (Lorentz transformation), in going from one (inertial) frame of reference to another for a stationary object.

[edit: just remembered something]

If the universe is expanding then the objects in it are slowly drifting apart. (Imagine a plate of unpopped popcorn with 2 ping pong balls in it, and then you start microwaving the popcorn -- each infinitesimal volume of space gets bigger which moves the balls apart.) If that expansion is fast enough then objects far enough apart will be effectively traveling away from each other at greater than s.o.l. At that point they're causally disconnected from each other -- they can't even exchange force particles. It would be as if they inside the event horizon of a certain radius of a black hole (but without the crushing gravity, death, etc.). If the expansion is accelerating then eventually that radius will get so small that atoms will all become separated from each other and the universe will get really boring.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

29 Jan 2014, 9:03 am

Apple_in_my_Eye wrote:
The trouble is that going faster than the s.o.l. doesn't take you back in time, it sends you into imaginary time (square root of a negative number time) which is even weirder and regarded as a nonsense answer. (Gamma becomes imaginary, which makes t' imaginary).


Well, I accept "time" as infinite in both directions. I don't see the "big bang" as the beginning of time (except in terms of measurable events). The "big bang" might be more of a "zero event" for the known universe, and if I read your explanation correct....

Galaxy A doesn't travel at SOL nor does Galaxy B, but the space between them could expand at (or perhaps beyond) SOL.

Could this send Galaxy B (farther away from the "epicenter" of the Big Bang event) backwards in time to a "pre-zero" place on the timeline?

In my mind, measurable evidence of Galaxy A would be lost as light can't catch up to Galaxy B, but Galaxy B now being in the "past" has an X year advantage of evidence of its existence reaching Galaxy A for observation from the zero event going forward...even though both galaxies were formed at the same moment.



robinb
Emu Egg
Emu Egg

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1

16 Feb 2014, 8:10 am

Where is the centre of the universe?
Wherever you are!
Practically speaking, only events that could possibly influence you exist.
Those events are bounded by a sphere around you, defined by the speed of light and the time you have left.
But what is the yardstick of time? We choose arbitrary measuring sticks from within the universe, atomic oscillations etc, but where is the absolute measure? Only planks constant seems absolute. It has distance as its dimension, but through Einsteins work, time and space can be considered different forms of the same thing for cosmological purposes.
So here we each are, at the center of our universes, with an absolute measuring unit, and a constant speed of light to use.
Now to do the sums!



krankes_hirn
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 26 Sep 2007
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 355
Location: Mexico City

16 Feb 2014, 10:36 pm

This is the kind of stuff it is very hard to discuss unless you've attended a formal lecture on physics and by the time you get to the maths behind general relativity, it gets as confusing and non-intutive as it really can get.

First of all: A lot of what is said about the uncertainty principle are mere interpretations. The only thing that is stated by the uncertainty principle in layman's terms is that at some point stuff is so small that there's no way of measuring it without messing with it somehow. Think of it as measuring a block of jello using a vernier scale, the moment you try to get a measure you squish it and deform it sou your measurement is useless. All other stuff about alternate universes and the disctinction between the observer and the measuring instruments is the result of interpretations, but it is by no means verified experimentally.

The problem with overly simplified statemets such as "Things that travel faster than light travel backwards in time" is that people that aren't familiar with all the math behind those claims and how licentius is the language being used, tend to take these loose terms at face value and make some conjectures about them.

I know these sounds really pedantic, but one really can't expect to understand all those years of research or experimentation through simplified statemets that are made to convey some of the consequences of all these complex findings to people wihtout a scientific background. If science were that trivial, there would be no need for having abunch of people with doctorates spending years of research, and having their work heavily reviewed and harshly questioned by their peers before it becomes a widely accepted claim.

So, regarding this claim I can say that

1) Never heard of universe expanding and hyperluminic (FTL) speeds.

2) FTL particles are purely theoretical. Tachyons have never been observed. Everything within the observable unvierse is travelling at or below the speed of light.

3) Estimations on the age of the universe are based on all currently know physics laws and all the observations and measurements that have been done, so any effect derived of the big bang has been taken into account.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 84
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

19 Feb 2014, 10:38 am

zer0netgain wrote:
I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).



It is space that is expanding faster than light. That is not forbidden in relativity theory.

ruveyn



DeaconBlues
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Apr 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,661
Location: Earth, mostly

19 Feb 2014, 10:12 pm

ruveyn wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).



It is space that is expanding faster than light. That is not forbidden in relativity theory.

ruveyn

In fact, that's the basis behind Alcubierre-White warp theory - an object cannot travel faster than light, but there appears to be no limit on how "fast" space itself can expand or contract. Alcubierre posited using negative energy density to create an area in which your craft sits in a bubble of flat space; the space just ahead of the ship then contracts, and the space behind expands, causing the flat-space bubble to propagate through the universe with an effective velocity greater than light. The craft itself, meanwhile, experiences no acceleration whatsoever. It doesn't move - the space around it does.

Unfortunately, Alcubierre's original theory called for a truly ridiculous amount of energy. White reworked his equations a few years back, and found a way to decrease the energy requirement to a tiny fraction of what it was. Now NASA's running experiments intended to find evidence that Alcubierre-White warps can exist; unfortunately, the only way we have right now of generating negative energy density involves the Casimir effect, so the detector has to shine a laser through a space nanometers wide. The least shaking, even someone walking by outside the room, can throw the laser off. And so far the funding isn't there to attach an experiment package to the outside of the ISS...

Other problems are that the equations imply that the wavefront will collect Hawking radiation, causing a huge release of radiation once the bubble is "popped", and that so far there appears to be no way to generate such a bubble if it doesn't exist already, nor to turn one off once it's turned on. Those, however, are engineering concerns, not theoretical ones, and can be dealt with if the theory is sound.


_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.


GivePeaceAChance
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jan 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Female
Posts: 806
Location: USA

20 Feb 2014, 5:18 am

no


_________________
?The first duty of a human being is to assume the right functional relationship to society--more briefly, to find your real job, and do it.? - Charlotte Perkins Gilman
"There never was a good war, or a bad peace." - Benjamin Franklin


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

22 Mar 2014, 5:01 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).
False.

Actually, you cannot accelerate an object past the speed of light by applying force to it.

It is quite natural that two objects can separate from each other faster than the speed of light as the result of the expansion of the space between them.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

23 Mar 2014, 9:42 am

eric76 wrote:
zer0netgain wrote:
I propose this because I notice scientists claim lots of stuff but never talk about details.

1. The "universe" supposedly is expanding faster than the speed of light (which supposedly should be impossible).
False.

Actually, you cannot accelerate an object past the speed of light by applying force to it.

It is quite natural that two objects can separate from each other faster than the speed of light as the result of the expansion of the space between them.


But does not that propose that if two galaxies are only X years old but moving apart at FTL speeds, we are erroneously attributing the age of the farther galaxy (if not the universe) by presuming the distance in light years it takes for light to reach us = age of the universe? If space can expand at FTL speed, what's to say in the vast nothingness between galaxies light isn't also traveling faster compared to where random mass is more abundant?