Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This question already has an answer here:

The light would take 93 billion years to reach the edge of universe but nothing can travel faster than the speed of light not even the big bang?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by DavePhD, user6972, Kyle Kanos, Brandon Enright, John Rennie May 10 at 6:25

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

    
The big bang is a moment in time. NOT a point in space nor something that could travel –  Jim May 9 at 18:04
    
Space can expand faster than speed of light, the light we see from supposedly cosmic horizon had been left so back in time that it has been possible for it to reach us (remember it was all at one point at one time). –  Rijul Gupta May 9 at 18:04
1  
@rijulgupta saying it was all one point is misleading. There may have been no proper distance between places, but everything was still spatially separated. Sort of like a sphere with zero radius. No distance between points, but they're at different angular coordinates, so not the same points –  Jim May 9 at 18:08
    
@Jim : I would rather not discuss the singularity of big bang or the time of which even scientists just hypothesize, I have read many theories one of which have claims that everything was one dense point sometime, another says it all expanded from a large sphere or some other shape which makes it look like exploded from a point and some even say that we are inside a black hole. It's best to leave it alone for now! –  Rijul Gupta May 9 at 18:14
1  
Possible duplicate: physics.stackexchange.com/q/26549/2451 and links therein. –  Qmechanic May 9 at 18:25
add comment

1 Answer 1

The big bang happened everywhere, simultaneously. It wasn't an explosion happening in one place. Everything is expanding away from everything else.

share|improve this answer
3  
That does not answer the question! Please explain to OP why we can see a cosmic horizon so old in time that it should not have been possible to see! –  Rijul Gupta May 9 at 18:05
1  
@rijulgupta because the universe was smaller then - it does perfectly answer the question –  Martin Beckett May 9 at 18:15
    
To those who know about it already it is very evident from just saying that things were condense and close at one point, I intended to say that the answer is not good enough for someone who has no such knowledge and the answer should explain how things were close when they released light and then got far away to present state. Wait, I just explained it all :P –  Rijul Gupta May 9 at 18:17
1  
@rijulgupta: it explains it perfectly well. The cosmological horizon is not an edge of the universe. The big bang is not an explosion whose shockwave is the cosmological horizon. The things have close to nothing to do with each other. –  Jerry Schirmer May 9 at 21:15
    
Please read the question again @Jerry, this answer talks about only the big bang while the question is about how can we see so far as we seem to see –  Rijul Gupta May 10 at 2:49
show 1 more comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.