Viliam_Bur comments on Stupid Questions Open Thread Round 2 - Less Wrong

15 Post author: OpenThreadGuy 20 April 2012 07:38PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (208)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Viliam_Bur 23 April 2012 11:23:33AM 0 points [-]

Also, an object distant enough on way-bigger-than-galaxy-superclaster scale can have Hubble speed more than c relative to us.

Are you sure about this? I don't understand relativity much, but I would suspect this to be another case of "by adding speeds classically, it would be greater than c, but by applying proper relativistic calculation it turns out to be always less than c".

Comment author: vi21maobk9vp 23 April 2012 06:35:04PM 1 point [-]

It looks like it is even weirder.

Proper relativistic velocity arithmetics you mention is about special relativity theory - i.e. local flat-space case. Hubble runaway speed is supposed to be about global ongoing space distortion, i.e. it is strictly about general relativity. As far as I know, it is actually measured based on impulse change in photons, but it can be theoretically defined using time needed for a lightspeed round-trip.

When this relative speed is small, everything is fine; if I understand correctly, if Hubble constant is constant in the long term and there are large enough distances in the universe, it would take ray of light exponential time (not linear) to cross distances above some threshold.

In the inflationary model of early universe, there is some strange phase where distances grow faster than light could cover them - it is possible as it is not motion of matter in space, but change of the stucture of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_model