I have spent much of my free thinking time on this subject; it is one of the reasons I found this forum, and though I am not a huge intelligence I think I have some good thoughts on it.
I too wondered how the expansion of the universe could have expanded from essentially a zero point to a place billions of light years across in a matter of moments given what we think we know about speed 'o light (S'oL) and physics.
Firstly I supposed that there were two ways to view it (or more) and that one was conventional, the other was imaginative and freed from some or all of the rules we have "invented" to describe reality as we observe it.
In an inviolable S'oL universe the only way I can think that expansion was able to break the speed limit was that in that pre-universe there was no space/time, the S'oL is no more complicated than determining the time of a car trip; distance/time=speed. Or, speedXtime=distance, etc. The universe could not have expanded to it's current size at the S'oL in the number of years we think it has been traveling, even if we assume that the universe actually does have an outer edge that "traveled away from the center where we presume the "explosion" of the BB happened. So, there is space/time inside the universe where we are, but none outside of it so that the issue of the calcs above is moot outside the universe. You can even say that for all intents there IS no outside because physics as we experience it would not exist there if there is an outside.
But, inside our universe the laws of physics which impose this S'oL limit were not effective till the universe cooled to the point where plasma formed anyway so expansion was not limited. That however in a BIG BANG (BB) theory where all creation and expansion was simultaneous should have resulted in a hollow shell of a universe where all observable matter was on the "skin" of the bubble. That would certainly change the way we think of the current form of the universe, it's age and why we think we see it the way we do.
What got me thinking of this was that I have read that no matter which direction you point a telescope you see roughly the same thing, the early universe, light that has traveled for billions of years. And, that would mean that we are in the center, or near center of a universe that is not a shell but a blob filled throughout. Up, down, NESW, polar or equatorial, no matter which way we look we see light that is some 13-15 billion years old. If we were on the surface of a "shell" universe ala the balloon theory the only way this could happen is if we were seeing light that has traveled all the way around the surface on it's course back to where it started and we are seeing it at some point on that journey, even as we send out radiation and it travels that same surface to one day come back on it's journey.
To my mind the universe has to have a diameter that is twice the measured size, if the OLDEST light came from a point in the proximity of the BB then it would have traveled just as far from the center on all "sides." So we say the universe is 14 billion years old/across, but that is the radius not the diameter. If light is 14 billion years old that would make the universe 28 billion light years across in total (at least) but in the initial expansion not limited to S'oL it could have been infinitely larger than that before light started to form.
Another consideration for me was that according to Einstein mass and energy are just different expressions of the same thing, they are equal, or maybe a better way to say it is that they are unified. So the seed, the nucleus of the universe, the thing that was to be the source of the BB was cold (metaphorically speaking, cold actually would have no meaning in that context), condensed energy of infinite density. All matter is a form of energy, just as ice is a form of water. The value of that energy content in matter is described as E=MC ^2. A very large number, but that number appears to be constant in our universe, it may not always have been so. If there is no S'oL limit in the pre-universe then the value of C is infinite, thus infinite energy in the kernel of BB mass.
We are told that as we approach the S'oL the energy required to go faster keeps growing until at the S'oL it is infinite, that does not mean 186,282.397 miles per second is the absolute limit, just that we reach infinite energy input to grow speed at that point. So, since there is no amount beyond infinite there can be no speed beyond the number given.
Relativity also is interpreted so that as we approach the S'oL time slows for us, relative to time on the starting point, Earth in our case. At the point where we reach infinite input of energy to go faster if that could be done, the S'oL, time for the traveler relative to Earth would stop. Cease to exist. This is some hard assed concept to wrap your mind around. It would mean that there was no coming back because time would have ended and you would be beyond the relative physics of the Earth.
And yet there is precedent for this being done, all light is doing it at all times. That means from our point of view that light is outside of time, it has infinite energy because at some point the energy input to boost it to the S'oL had to have happened. We should not be able to SEE light, to observe something that is traveling at that high speed outside of time should be impossible for those captured in time. From the point of view of light our universe must have ceased to be because we are in time while it has reached the point where time no longer exists. This is a conundrum that means the laws of physics we apply today are incomplete.
It could be explained by saying that light is traveling at the maximum input of energy that it was imbued with, propelled by the BB, that is next to infinite but not totally infinite. That the real S'oL is just a bit higher than the number given above, that would allow for time to move from the point of view of light that we could then experience and observe.
It would also explain how stars like ours can issue light. In order to propel light from the sun to the Earth and beyond at the S'oL, the sun would have to be providing the mass/energy of light we so enjoy at the beach (I think the question of whether light has mass is still unsettled in theoretical physics) with infinite energy according to relativity. If light from our sun is traveling at the S'oL then it has to have infinite energy and that had to be FROM somewhere. We understand that the sun has a LOT of energy, but not infinite energy.
Is relativity wrong? If so, is our ability to think out the true nature of the universe intrinsically limited so that we cannot figure out the real reality of the universe?
One thing for sure is that all thought about size, speed, time, and the origin of the universe is tied inextricably. UNLESS... I have thought that it is possible that we only perceive the universe as a sequential flow of "time," a series of events that flow in one direction because without this self imposed sequence we call time all events, all imagination, all consciousness and experience, it would all happen simultaneously, no beginning, no middle, no end. "Forever" and never at the same time. See? Even our language is formed around this ability to break reality into packaged units that can be experienced in a flow, there was no other way to my mind to put that last concept.
What if there is no such thing as time? Suppose it is something we have made up in order to be able to experience? If you took all colors and mixed them you would lose their unique beauty, their individuality as it were. So you separate them in order to see the blues, or the yellows. Suppose that is what we have done with the creation of time? If so it would tend to support the theory that we ARE god (for lack of a better word), all of one thing. That might help to explain why we subtly perceive a higher power/ability, being. Because we ARE that power/being. It would explain why we instinctively believe there is a eternity, eternal "soul."
Well, these are just some of the ideas I have toyed with, since there is no real answer in this realm while we are restricted to space/time it helps me get to sleep at night.
Let me know if you think this is all pedestrian, I assure you it is not so in my head, but if it seems that way to you then I will have to work on my descriptive powers. I suppose that is why we come to a forum about word craft yes?
Tweet This Topic
Edited by: 
