Expansion of the universe and Einstein

I always been interested in everything that happens outside our earth, and in special outside our solar system.
Last couple of weeks I been binge watching a lot of documentaries regarding the subjects, and all of a sudden a question popped up in my mind.

Einstein's E = mc2 predicts nothing that has mass can travel faster than the speed of light

The universe is/contains mass, so how come the equation does not count in the case of the expansion of the universe.

Either Einstein is wrong, or there's something I overlooked, anyone knows how this is possible?

originally posted by: HellaKitty
I always been interested in everything that happens outside our earth, and in special outside our solar system.
Last couple of weeks I been binge watching a lot of documentaries regarding the subjects, and all of a sudden a question popped up in my mind.

Einstein's E = mc2 predicts nothing that has mass can travel faster than the speed of light

The universe is/contains mass, so how come the equation does not count in the case of the expansion of the universe.

Either Einstein is wrong, or there's something I overlooked, anyone knows how this is possible?

The universe expands only when our minds allow it too. Think about it.

I'm gonna take a stab at this I may be wrong but I'll have a go. I'm guessing that as the universe started as a singularity which is where einsteins laws break down if I am correct. I'm guessing that these laws must have been broken in the early days of the universe which was the part where faster than light 'inflation' I beleieve it is called happened. At present I don't think the universe is currently expanding ftl.
As I said above I may be completely wrong but that's how I see it.
Revan

a reply to: HellaKitty

I can't give a proper answer, but inflation/expansion of the universe is about space itself expanding. So I don't think the mass of any objects would matter in that case. The pieces of mass didn't really travel away from each other, it's more like the space between them grew. But I could be wrong.

a reply to: musicismagic

I think I am missing the point you are trying to make..
Science proves the expansion

a reply to: HellaKitty

Thinking about these ideas is almost enough to make a person’s head go pop like a mini Big Bang on our shoulders.

Does this explanation help?

To answer the broader question in detail, we need to specify what we mean by the universe "expanding faster than the speed of light." The universe is not a collection of galaxies sitting in space, all moving away from a central point. Instead, a more appropriate analogy is to think of the universe as a giant blob of dough with raisins spread throughout it (the raisins represent galaxies; the dough represents space). When the dough is placed in an oven, it begins to expand, or, more accurately, to stretch, keeping the same proportions as it had before but with all the distances between galaxies getting bigger as time goes on.

Is the universe expanding faster than the speed of light?

I like his 'dough' analogy, but there's an interview with Lawrence Krauss which probably makes more sense to more people. It was on the Joe Rogan Show ages ago and he uses surfers on the sea instead:



All of this is made more sticky because we're *ruled* by Einstein's 'special relativity' around our galaxy. Distant galaxies fall under 'general relativity' which means light itself can travel faster or slower. Isn't that a bang on the head? Some are speculating that the multiverse needn't be separated by 'membranes (branes)' or dimensions. They are talking about multiple 'universes' occupying parts of a larger universe and separated by epic gulfs of empty space.

a reply to: Revan2

There is proof the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and we know for a fact it is at ftl speed at the moment because we get no light from past the observable universe

Inside a singularity there's nothing and everything, even the rules so none can apply inside one I suppose

a reply to: Kandinsky

I was just looking at this post, it explains expansion and the moving of galaxies ftl in an easy to understand way
What it does not explain is the speed at which the universe is expanding though.

originally posted by: HellaKitty
I always been interested in everything that happens outside our earth, and in special outside our solar system.
Last couple of weeks I been binge watching a lot of documentaries regarding the subjects, and all of a sudden a question popped up in my mind.

Einstein's E = mc2 predicts nothing that has mass can travel faster than the speed of light

The universe is/contains mass, so how come the equation does not count in the case of the expansion of the universe.

Either Einstein is wrong, or there's something I overlooked, anyone knows how this is possible?

The universe is expanding. But motion is relative to the observer. For anyone on any galaxy, all the other galaxies are moving away from their system. Galaxies themselves aren't expanding, it's the intergalactic space between them that is.
The further away those galaxies are, the greater the speed they seem to be moving.

So there is no motion or movement of mass to worry about. If there is any intergalactic gas of hydrogen, those atoms aren't moving.

But since the apparent rate of motion is proportional to distance in light years, at some distance, you reach and exceed the speed of light. So we can't see anything beyond that distance. Then as we look further away in distance, the earlier the lifetime of the universe. Up to the theoretical point of the "big bang", around 13-15 billion years ago.

It's the space itself that expands. There's no rules against that. The best example to illustrate that is a rising piece of dough with raisins in it. The raisins don't actually move through the dough, but the expanding dough makes the raisins move away from each other.

Beyond and humans ability to grasp .
OOOO my head my head .
It expands much father it will pop like a zit .

Energy = mass, times the speed of light squared.

Everything was energy for a long time, till it slowed down and coalesced into mass. Until then, mass didn't exist. It was energy. And the more things slowed down, the more complex mass became.

Ask Higgs why it slowed down, though...

originally posted by: wildespace
It's the space itself that expands. There's no rules against that. The best example to illustrate that is a rising piece of dough with raisins in it. The raisins don't actually move through the dough, but the expanding dough makes the raisins move away from each other.

Expanding dough with raisins in it, doesn't explain initial expansion. Where nothing existed. It does explain, or at least give argument to, the expanding universe. the more the dough expands, the more we will be less and less coherent, which is a scary thought.

But the initial 'bang' was an instant dispersion of energy, not matter, not mass. no raisins. everything was too chaotic for any mass to form. For all we know the dough was created at the same time, the empty space.. and it stretching slowed the energy down enough to form particles, which became matter, mass..

The one thing I think that has existed before the big bang, before anything, is gravity. A force that exists within any dimension/universe. the one thing that is a constant. Even more so than light. Light obeys gravity. Yet gravity is only ever detected by it's interaction on an object. I permeates all dimensions, all 'stuff'. like the canvas on an artists easel.

Every point in the universe is a central point of expansion. Everything expands away from everything else. Yes, the relative speed between points on each side of the universe would exceed the speed of light, but the objects themselves, from their own expansion perspective, never exceed the speed of light. It is the old dots on the balloon example, as it blows up, every dot expands equally away from it's neighbor. Another good example is a set of 10-point dividers. As you open them, each point expands equally away from its neighbor, but if you look at point number 1 vs point number 10, the rate of expansion is 10 fold relative to each.

a reply to: HellaKitty

Either Einstein is wrong, or there's something I overlooked, anyone knows how this is possible?

I think you got the apparent contradiction correct. I too have puzzled over the theory of an expanding Universe. I believe the concept is that empty space, not mass, is expanding faster than the speed of light yet how does empty space accelerate mass?

First off space is not empty, it contains particles most of which are charged which is considered plasma. Mass, galaxies and such, is thought to be accelerating away from other mass which requires a force. This hypothetical force that is theorized to accelerate galaxies away from each other faster than the speed of light does appear to violate relativity. I have listen to many people much smarter than I on the subject attempt to explain how this is not a relativistic violation yet I still remain perplexed.

There is another explanation you may have overlooked. The Universe is not expanding as the theory purports.
I believe the expansion theory is based on Quasars and their observed redshift. QSO's have very high redshifts, meaning they are thought to be very far away and accelerating very fast. Redshift, or the Hubble constant, has been used to determine an objects distance and velocity. This works yet there remains the possibility that an unknown factor causes light to shift towards the red end of the spectrum. There have been many observations that show our understanding of redshift as a constant might be incorrect.

Redshift

Halton Christian Arp was the pioneer of these observations and there is much to learn about this astronomer, his observations and his theories.
His web site seems to be up again, I could not find it for quite some time.

HaltonArp

The video below, an hour long, is of Arp explaining his observations, the apparent contradiction you have discovered and his theory on the subject. I have read all of his books, watched just about every video online I can find of him and read all the articles on his web site. Most astronomers and cosmologists seem to refuse to consider his work yet they accept, almost as fact, what Arp, and myself, think is 'unbelievable'. It is an interesting road to follow if you have the time and are interested.

a reply to: HellaKitty

Possibly overlooked the existence of dark matter/energy, which comprises the other 95% of the universe. That explains the expansion to a fashion.

a reply to: badw0lf

The one thing I think that has existed before the big bang, before anything, is gravity.

The problem with this idea is the event horizon of the theoretical Universal singularity. How does mass escape this point? It is explained, if I understand it correctly, that the force of gravity did not exist in the early Universe during and some time after the big bang. The problem with this is what then caused the singularity in the first place? A Universal singularity, black hole, without gravity? What then would be the force that caused the big bang? Personally I lean towards the idea that the big bang never happened.

I know, more videos...arugh. However there are several books written by astronomers, cosmologists and physicists on the subject some of whom are in the video series I just linked.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: HellaKitty

Possibly overlooked the existence of dark matter/energy, which comprises the other 95% of the universe. That explains the expansion to a fashion.

If dark energy is a force that accelerates mass faster than 'C' then how does this not violate relativity?

a reply to: Devino

Space and time are not independent but are related by light speed. Spacetime relates distance to time by a constant locally.

It's a mistake to think of the expansion as being in 3 dimensions as that would certainly be inconsistent with the 4 dimensional world suggested by relativity.

Relativity and the expansion of the universe are perfectly compatible.

originally posted by: Devino

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: HellaKitty

Possibly overlooked the existence of dark matter/energy, which comprises the other 95% of the universe. That explains the expansion to a fashion.

If dark energy is a force that accelerates mass faster than 'C' then how does this not violate relativity?

This was exactly my point when I mentioned "The universe is/contains mass, so how come the equation does not count in the case of the expansion of the universe? " in the original post


I have seen some reactions saying everything moves away, this is not true.
Andromeda is moving towards the Milky way which indicates there's holes in the theory (yes, I know gravitational forces play a part in this)