How fast and far did the early Universe expand.

[Nice Squirrel]

A quasar (SDSS J0100+2802) is 12.8 billion light years away. The Universe is only 13.7 billion light years old. If the light from the quasar took 12.8 billion years to reach Earth, would that mean that the quasar was already 12.8 billion years from our reference point (Future Earth) 900 million years after the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light?

I am confuzzled.






(And yes, any answers will disprove the unrelated topic of evolution.)

 

[beero1000]

It is 12.8 billion light years from us now. Space has been expanding, so it was much closer 900 million years after the big bang.

 

[none]

yes, spacetime expanded faster than light in the early universe.
I saw a Youtube on it years ago, now I will try and relive that glory and bring it to you.
or a document...

 

[DBT]

A quasar (SDSS J0100+2802) is 12.8 billion light years away. The Universe is only 13.7 billion light years old. If the light from the quasar took 12.8 billion years to reach Earth, would that mean that the quasar was already 12.8 billion years from our reference point (Future Earth) 900 million years after the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light?

I am confuzzled.






(And yes, any answers will disprove the unrelated topic of evolution.)

I think that inflation of spacetime entails spacetime taking matter/energy for a ride, rather than matter/energy moving through space (the example of inflating a balloon covered in dots that represent stellar objects). Hence, galaxies separate FTL, like the dots on an inflating balloon, but do not exceed the speed of light travelling through space.

 

[none]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP34E-ozwEM
10m:21s
"smaller than an atom to the size of an orange in 1trillionth of a second
..
the universe was as big as the solar system 100 seconds after the big bang...."

Given the orbit of Pluto is 5,913,520,000 km...
And 300,000 km (the speed of light) multiplied by 100 seconds yields 300,000,000 km
Which means the universe expanded faster than the speed of light
I don't remember looking up much more info on the subject though.

 

[bilby]

The only way the universe could possibly have expanded faster than the speed of light would be if a talking snake had persuaded a woman to eat of the tree of knowledge.

I think that is this had occurred, we would at the very least see some record of it in the Cosmic Microwave Scriptures, Which would show the remains of fig-leaf shaped areas of space-time that separated too fast to interact with one another. These would produce characteristic 'Genesis Radiation', although the rapid cooling of the early universe would likely have caused any Genesis particles to condense into Biblions, or Testamentons at a fairly early stage, and if this occurred before the universe became transparent to visible photons, evidence for these particles may prove difficult to detect.

It is hoped that the Large Pentateuch Collider, soon to be installed at CERN, will help to determine the likelihood of this hypothesis.

 

[none]

too bad there is all these theorems and mathematical analysis that generates our current understanding of cosmology that says the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
try this link, it has got time and radius of universe real handy at intervals.
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/universe.htm
of course I would be interested in research and calculations of relevant forces and materials to support a notion that offers a better explanation.

 

[Bronzeage]

too bad there is all these theorems and mathematical analysis that generates our current understanding of cosmology that says the universe expanded faster than the speed of light.
try this link, it has got time and radius of universe real handy at intervals.
http://www.kheper.net/cosmos/universe/universe.htm
of course I would be interested in research and calculations of relevant forces and materials to support a notion that offers a better explanation.

We need to remember, the answer to life, the universe, and everything, is 42.

The question is, "What do you get when you multiply six by nine?"

There are very serious implications to this, the most serious of which is, sometimes the answer is wrong.

 

[rjh01]

A quasar (SDSS J0100+2802) is 12.8 billion light years away. The Universe is only 13.7 billion light years old. If the light from the quasar took 12.8 billion years to reach Earth, would that mean that the quasar was already 12.8 billion years from our reference point (Future Earth) 900 million years after the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light?

I am confuzzled.






(And yes, any answers will disprove the unrelated topic of evolution.)

Some of the information in the previous posts is wrong. 12.8 billion years ago, when the universe was .9 billion years old, light from the quasar was emitted. The light traveled 12.8 billion light years to reach us. The quasar is travelling away from us causing the light to be significantly red shifted.

 

[DBT]

It's not that objects travelled faster than light during inflation, but space itself expanding:

''This ultra-fast growth seems to contradict what we’ve just discussed, but it makes sense if you understand the distinction between expansion and motion. When astronomers say that the universe is expanding, they’re talking about the rather abstract concept of space-time. Basically, space-time is the three physical dimensions of our existence-length, breadth and depth-combined with the additional dimension of time; think of it as a wire grid that connects every part of the universe to every other part. When we say an object has motion, we’re referring to its change in position relative to the space-time grid. The speed of light is only a constraint for objects that exist within space-time, not for space-time itself.''

 

[ryan]

A quasar (SDSS J0100+2802) is 12.8 billion light years away. The Universe is only 13.7 billion light years old. If the light from the quasar took 12.8 billion years to reach Earth, would that mean that the quasar was already 12.8 billion years from our reference point (Future Earth) 900 million years after the Big Bang? Wouldn't that mean that the Universe expanded faster than the speed of light?

I am confuzzled.

(And yes, any answers will disprove the unrelated topic of evolution.)

Some of the information in the previous posts is wrong. 12.8 billion years ago, when the universe was .9 billion years old, light from the quasar was emitted. The light traveled 12.8 billion light years to reach us. The quasar is travelling away from us causing the light to be significantly red shifted.

What do you claim is wrong?

 

[ryan]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP34E-ozwEM
10m:21s
"smaller than an atom to the size of an orange in 1trillionth of a second
..
the universe was as big as the solar system 100 seconds after the big bang...."

Given the orbit of Pluto is 5,913,520,000 km...
And 300,000 km (the speed of light) multiplied by 100 seconds yields 300,000,000 km
Which means the universe expanded faster than the speed of light
I don't remember looking up much more info on the subject though.

And there will actually be a point in the distant future where the collective expansion of space-time will increase the distances from other galaxies so much that we will never receive any radiation from them again.

 

[Clivedurdle]

Expansion of space - OK, but what does expansion of time mean? Is time faster or slower?

 

[none]

Expansion of space - OK, but what does expansion of time mean? Is time faster or slower?

it's relative

 

[none]

I am going to go out on a limb here, and this is what I think I know and not what might be a reasonable explanation.

The universe is expanding and since it is homogenous expansion is occurring everywhere.
The expansion, from what I know, from any given point outward is cumulative meaning the spacetime closer to the observer is expanding and as you go farther away the expansion is greater because of the cumulative effect of the closer spacetime expanding in addition to the farther spacetime expansion.

From a single observation location time is slowing for locations that are farther away due to the accumulative effect of the expansion.

From any given observation location time is slowing for locations farther away but durations measured at each location depends upon the location of the observer because their location is changing at different intervals to each other. ( some places have different elapsed time depending upon where the observation is made from )

There doesn't seem to be an objective duration in existence so that is why time is relative...
Like I said this is my understanding and might not be the best answer or even a reasonable answer.

 

[ryan]

Expansion of space - OK, but what does expansion of time mean? Is time faster or slower?

When space shrinks, the dimension of time shrinks too. Near massive objects, time moves slower relative to areas with less gravity. In other words, more seconds will tick outside of strong gravity than close to stronger gravity. Or you could say that the universe speeds up where there is less gravity compared to more gravity.

 

[ryan]

I am going to go out on a limb here, and this is what I think I know and not what might be a reasonable explanation.

The universe is expanding and since it is homogenous expansion is occurring everywhere.
The expansion, from what I know, from any given point outward is cumulative meaning the spacetime closer to the observer is expanding and as you go farther away the expansion is greater because of the cumulative effect of the closer spacetime expanding in addition to the farther spacetime expansion.

From a single observation location time is slowing for locations that are farther away due to the accumulative effect of the expansion.

From any given observation location time is slowing for locations farther away but durations measured at each location depends upon the location of the observer because their location is changing at different intervals to each other. ( some places have different elapsed time depending upon where the observation is made from )

There doesn't seem to be an objective duration in existence so that is why time is relative...
Like I said this is my understanding and might not be the best answer or even a reasonable answer.

No, space-time expands much more where there is weaker gravity such as in between galaxies. Space-time does not expand in our solar system at all.

 

[none]

well, I wasn't too too sure but now I gotta ask: what is the limit for the presence of gravity to cease expansion of spacetime or space ( which ever is correct )?

 

[ryan]

well, I wasn't too too sure but now I gotta ask: what is the limit for the presence of gravity to cease expansion of spacetime or space ( which ever is correct )?

I have no idea why it chooses to expand in areas of weaker gravity. I am sure someone is going to explain it.

 

[none]

gravity choosing has something to do freewill I bet, so maybe by design we can't tell we are getting bigger :laughing-smiley-014

seriously though it is my understanding that the influence of gravity doesn't taper off to nil despite the distance of separation, that if two masses are given enough time they will eventually merge no matter how far apart.

maybe it has something to do with the Gravitational constant interfering with gravity of individual or collective masses.