Big bang surpasses speed of light

I was reading 'A Short History Of Everything' by Bill Bryson, and he talks about the big bang

as he describes what most physists believe about the early stages of the big bang i was confuzed byt the information, reading it twice, thrice,. . .etc.
Quote:
''The Whole episode may have lasted no more than 10-30 seconds - thats one million million million million millionths of a second - but it changed the universe from something you can hold in your hand to something at least 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger. Inflastion theory explains the ripples and eddies that make our universe possible. . . '

this would have to mean (unless my calculations are incorrect) that this surpases the speed of light (299 792 458 m / s) or (17987547.48 km/min)

-Graham

well, the big bang has continued until this very day. the universe is still expanding, isn't it ??

yeah,
i'm refering mostly to the intial few seconds of the big bang

Well junior...

I guess that all depends on how big you hand is...

That's a given, but the effects are not noticeable, because of relative velocity. Big Bang surpasses speed of light because of the infinite mass involved in the prediction, portrayed as a point mass, and the force of gravity between holding the point mass together.

Light is just a byproduct of a chemical reaction. There are millions of other elements out there that combine to give a different byproduct that have speeds that excel beyond that of light, some of which invisible to the naked eye.

but i had always heard that the speed of light was the fatest thing possible

also i calculated the speed of inflation, it is :
1e54 * y = size of object after a second
(let y equal the size of the object before the second)

I think you have to look at "special relativity," because of the high gravitational force present at the time of the big bang.

do a google on special relativity.

i belive the universe is still expanding and it will continue to do so

Is anyone here a physicist? I have a hard time understanding how all existing matter could fit into the size of a fist without every atom being utterly obliterated. I doubt atoms themselves could fit into a space that small even if there was no space at all between them.

Also theres the matter of objects transferring from above speed of light to below speed of light which is theorhetically impossible.

Originally posted by perseus
Is anyone here a physicist? I have a hard time understanding how all existing matter could fit into the size of a fist without every atom being utterly obliterated. I doubt atoms themselves could fit into a space that small even if there was no space at all between them.
Also theres the matter of objects transferring from above speed of light to below speed of light which is theorhetically impossible.

Well I'm not a physist but I hope I can help. There is in theory one particle that travels faster than light in a vacuum, and that is the Tachyon predicted by String Theory(See the Elegant Universe). String Theory(or M-Theory) say the universe is a vast membrane or brane that is just 1 layer in a vast multi-verse of Branes. M-Theory say that the Big Bang was caused by two Brane colliding in a higher dimension than our own and that the Big Bang didn't happen once, but it happens all the time ever 100-200 trillion years or somthing like that.

Has anyone ever theorized that their is an electrical
spectrum that accompanies the gravitational mass
of the Universe? I am also not a physist but it stands
to reason that any mass generates an electromagnetic
field that in turn attract and repels like masses
respectively.

If that were to be the case then it stands to reason
that a black hole could be a gravitational "short circuit"
between two opposed universes?

just wondering?

Originally posted by junior_smith
but i had always heard that the speed of light was the fatest thing possible

also i calculated the speed of inflation, it is :
1e54 * y = size of object after a second
(let y equal the size of the object before the second)

I think its more that the speed of light is the fastest speed that we know of. Who is saying its the limit of speed?

Soul Reaper: Not all mass generates an electromagnetic field. Take the neutron for example.

The speed of light is simply a barrier that objects cannot cross(as far as we know) so something faster than the speed of light cannot slow down to slower than speed of light, and will LOSE energy as it speeds up AS it travels backwards in time. These type of particles are called tachyons.

A black hole to my knowledge doesnt contain atoms(because they can be broken down), nor did the start of the big bang. Shortly after the big bang there was a soup of energy from which particles starting being created. Probably tons we don't know about, but including quarks(what neutrons and protons are made from) and other exotic particles. It's known as quark-gluon plasma.

A black hole is basically something of zero volume and infinite density, which makes it a point in space that can hold theoretically an infinite amount of energy. But i have no idea how it all works INSIDE a black hole for obvious reasons.

Also Iv'e always wondered, if you could get an object with mass, to a very close to the speed of light, is it possible, since it gains mass as it speeds up and energy for it to reach a critical amount and turn into a black hole?(because its gravity would increase as it speeds up right? due to mass and energy increasement) - Answer this question -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The speed of light is only the limit for objects and information. Space can expand faster than the speed of light because it is not an object and doesn't transfer information faster than the speed of light.

There were no atoms in the first seconds after the big bang and there are none in a black hole. Chemistry is sometimes simplified by saying that atoms cannot be destroyed. The truth is that they are made up from different smaller particles, protons, electrons and neutrons. Under extreme conditions the atom falls apart. In a black hole in the protons and electrons are pushed together and form neutrons. But even the neutron degeneracy is not enough to stop the collapse and the neutron are pushed together into something different. If I remember correctly that is a quark-gluon plasma.

The big bang was exactly the reverse. Quark-gluon plasma condensed into the first particles and these formed the first hydrogen, helium and lithium.

Asclepius, the speed of light is the limit due to special relativity. We notice in particle accelerators that the relativistic mass of particles increases when they move faster relative to the observer. This increase becomes infinite at the speed of light. Maybe there's a way to circumvent this problem, but the current theories forbid anything crossing the barrier of the speed of light.

Quicksilver, the answer is that doesn't happen. In the paragraph I made the distinction between the relativistic mass and the invariant mass. Not the relativistic mass, the one that changes with speed, is used in the stress-energy tensor, but the invariant mass. Adding in momentum, it becomes a bit more complicated, but this site also tries to answer the question.

Before the big bang it was jsut a pile of masss in a ball the size of ur palm, the entire universe in the size of ur fist.... Anyways...Basically the biggest black hole possible....

Gravity effects things at the speed of light. Becasue gravity is effected at teh speed of light. Sucha stake away the sun, we wont notice the gravity gon euntil 8 mins afer it's gone....same as light...

For something to escape out of the biggest black hole, it has to be going faster than the speed of gravity....thus faster than the speed of light.




BTW..... If a black hole has so much gravity that light cannot escape it.....meaning light cannot escape it....., what if 2 black holes collide? They pull themselves closer and closer faster and faster, towards each other faster than the speed of light The energy released when they collide would be enormous wouldn't that impact possibly project mass faster than the speed of light and the speed of gravity out into the universe? Couldn't we have exploding black holes?

Couldn't there of been 2 huge black holes b4 the big bang, both half the universe, coming together, colliding, and then exploding due to the tremendous amount of energy released.

E=MC^2

;P

Originally posted by quiksilver
Soul Reaper: Not all mass generates an electromagnetic field. Take the neutron for example.

You are correct in that regard, but I believe there is sufficient
mass in different spots in the Universe to create black holes.........


The speed of light is simply a barrier that objects cannot cross(as far as we know) so something faster than the speed of light cannot slow down to slower than speed of light, and will LOSE energy as it speeds up AS it travels backwards in time. These type of particles are called tachyons.
A black hole to my knowledge doesnt contain atoms(because they can be broken down), nor did the start of the big bang. Shortly after the big bang there was a soup of energy from which particles starting being created. Probably tons we don't know about, but including quarks(what neutrons and protons are made from) and other exotic particles. It's known as quark-gluon plasma.

A black hole is basically something of zero volume and infinite density, which makes it a point in space that can hold theoretically an infinite amount of energy. But i have no idea how it all works INSIDE a black hole for obvious reasons.

Also Iv'e always wondered, if you could get an object with mass, to a very close to the speed of light, is it possible, since it gains mass as it speeds up and energy for it to reach a critical amount and turn into a black hole?(because its gravity would increase as it speeds up right? due to mass and energy increasement) - Answer this question -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you can get mass up to the speed of light, I would think it
would gain mass according to the amount of gravitational pull
exerted by that mass.......and the amount of debris that it
actually captures.

Wouldn't that mass slow down as it took on more mass?

the mass wouldn't slow down, just time around it. It's all relative to others time though....ut time dont stop buddy nor would it affect it.

Here's another thought, what caused the Big Bang? Could this be creation? This would help to solve the issue of how long the Big Bang (the big part of it) really lasted. Is the Big Bang the "thought" of God that created the universe. This is the only thing that I know of that could exceed the speed of light. Two thoughts support that notion: 1) God exists beyong the realm of time and space. Consequently, the speed of light ceases to be a barrier and is just a limitation found in the created universe. 2) People who have had a near death experience claim that they were given a complete knowledge and understanding of, well, everything. They also report that this is an infused knowledge rather than something learned over time. Infused implies an instantaneous event which is perfectly consistent with the Big Bang.

Considering that there was not necessarily any light until the big bang, the expansion theory may be plausible as there was no dimensional relativity at the space-time "interval-space." Relativity is an anthropomorphized concept if you will, it is integral to consciousness, our very participation in the Universe. It would seem that since black holes have neither matter nor antimatter in conventional theoretical measurements that physics is also outside the span, as questions of "size, mass, velecity," and other things bring more questions than answers.

i have a question or two.

if the universe is indeed infinite, how can it expand? to say it expands implies it has a border. how can something be infinite yet have a border? in order for it to expand, soemthing else has to give way, in other words, something else has to shrink. ebb and flow, expand and contract.

things within the universe can move around and even from a central point (which again, implies the universe is not infinite if everythngi has a start so it too must have an end) but, things can expand from a point within the universe, giving us the impression the entire universe is expanding when only a part of it is. some parts may be moving away from others which i wont disagree with, things move all the time. since we have no way of knowing if the entire unverse is expanding we are assuming it is based on what we see happening, but what we see isnt everythnig there is. i guess thats why its still a theory...


but i do wonder if maybe this "big bang" is maybe a byproduct of something similar to a hypernova, at least in concept and theory if not in scale exactly. what if this isnt the only "big bang"??? i ask this because we barely understand the KNOWN part of the universe that we can see.

of course i find the very idea that everything came from nothing and before all of this nothing existed to be disturbing to say the least, it all had to come from somewhere...right?