Faster than the speed of light



After a weekend of great rugby (from the Welsh, the English and Australians were rather blah), I have responded to a good question posted over at The Conversation on distances in the Universe. It's a question that gets raised quite a bit and basically put it goes something like
If the Universe began 13.7 billion years ago, when the distance between any pair of points was zero, how can anything be more than 13.7 billion light years away?
The answer is the difference between local motions and global motions. Here's the response I posted

An excellent question, and one which may not make sense to start with. We know from special relativity, nothing can travel faster than light (recent neutrino claims excepted). But in reality, special relativity says that nothing can go faster than the speed of light **locally**, so in a small box, if I try and race an electron and a photon across the box, the photon will win.

With the expanding universe, the question we are asking is a little different. We are asking how fast something is moving "over there", rather than locally. It turns out that, if you crank the handle of general relativity, that something over there can be moving faster than the speed of light here. But anyone in the universe who does the local test on the speed of light, by racing photons and electrons, will always find that the photons will win.
If you think about it, what it means that, relative to the speed of light here, light out there is moving faster than the speed of light.
This is a very important point. It seems that everyone takes the statement from special relativity, namely that you can't travel fast than light, and then tries to apply it into a global picture. But that is not correct.

One key feature of the curved space-time of general relativity is that you map any patch into the flat space-time coordinates of special relativity, where you only need to worry about the physics of special relativity (and gravity vanishes). At this point, all massive objects sit within their future light-cones - which basically means their local motion is less than the speed of light.

But there is no simple way to compare a patch here to a patch there, and talking about how fast something is moving "over there" really does not have a unique answer in relativity. It depends on the coordinates you choose to us (and if something depends on coordinates, it ain't physically observable).

Here's an excellent example (taken from Tamara Davis's website).
The dotted lines are are the motions of objects. In the top one, in "physical" distance, the more distance objects are very "tilted over" and are moving faster than the speed of light locally. But then again, light out there is moving fast than the speed of light locally.

Moving down the pictures, the bottom one is in comoving coordinates, and now distant objects are stationary with respect to us. How fast a distant something is moving with respect to us depends on which coordinates you choose.

It's actually messier than that. I can chose to mix up time and space into new coordinates, and this demonstrates that superluminal verses subluminal motions get even more confusing. But I won't write about it here, but let you have some reading.

Coordinate Confusion in Conformal Cosmology

Geraint F. Lewis, Matthew J. Francis, Luke A. Barnes, J. Berian James
(Submitted on 13 Jul 2007)
A straight-forward interpretation of standard Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) cosmologies is that objects move apart due to the expansion of space, and that sufficiently distant galaxies must be receding at velocities exceeding the speed of light. Recently, however, it has been suggested that a simple transformation into conformal coordinates can remove superluminal recession velocities, and hence the concept of the expansion of space should be abandoned. This work demonstrates that such conformal transformations do not eliminate superluminal recession velocities for open or flat matter-only FRLW cosmologies, and all possess superluminal expansion. Hence, the attack on the concept of the expansion of space based on this is poorly founded. This work concludes by emphasizing that the expansion of space is perfectly valid in the general relativistic framework, however, asking the question of whether space really expands is a futile exercise.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Falling into a black hole: Just what do you see?

Image
Everyone loves black holes. Immense gravity, a one-way space-time membrane, the possibility of links to other universes. All lovely stuff. A little trawl of the internets reveals an awful lot of web pages discussing black holes, and discussions about spaghettification, firewalls, lost information, and many other things. Actually, a lot of the stuff out there on the web is nonsense, hand-waving, partly informed guesswork. And one of the questions that gets asked is "What would you see looking out into the universe?" Some (incorrectly) say that you would never cross the event horizon, a significant mis-understanding of the coordinates of relativity. Other (incorrectly) conclude from this that you actually see the entire future history of the universe play out in front of your eyes. What we have to remember, of course, is that relativity is a mathematical theory, and instead of hand waving, we can use mathematics to work out what we will see. And that's what I did. ...
Read more

Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun

Image
There was a movie, in the old days, Journey to the Far-Side of the Sun  (also known as Doppleganger) which (spoiler alert) posits that there is a mirror version of the Earth hidden on the other side of the Sun, sharing the orbit with our Earth. The idea is that this planet would always be hidden behind the Sun, and so we would not know it there there. This idea comes up a lot, over and over again. In fact, it came up again last week on twitter. But there's a problem. It assumes the Earth is on a circular orbit. I won't go into the details here, but one of the greatest insights in astronomy was the discovery of Kepler's laws of planetary motion , telling us that planets move on elliptical orbits. With this, there was the realisation that planets can't move at uniform speeds, but travel quickly when closer to the Sun, while slowing down as their orbits carry them to larger distance.  There has been a lot of work examining orbits in the Solar System, and you can  s...
Read more

Moving Charges and Magnetic Fields

Image
Still struggling with grant writing season, so another post which has resulted in my random musings about the Universe (which actually happens quite a lot). In second semester, I am teaching  electricity and magnetism to our First Year Advanced Class . I really enjoy teaching this class as the kids are on the ball and can ask some deep and meaningful questions. But the course is not ideal. Why? Because we teach from a textbook and the problem is that virtually all modern text books are almost the same. Science is trotted out in an almost historical progression. But it does not have to be taught that way. In fact, it would be great if we could start with  Hamiltonian and Lagrangian  approaches, and derive physics from a top down approach. We're told that it's mathematically too challenging, but it really isn't. In fact, I would start with a book like  The Theoretical Minimum , not some multicoloured compendium of physics. We have to work with what we have! ...
Read more