Big Bang Blown?

[grav]

Well, I normally don't like to get into too much Big Bang bashing or anything, but I may have come up some important derivations. But first, please read through this thread and run through the calculations. I know I need to give everyone in that discussion time to look through them on that thread as well, but I'll go ahead and start this going in the meantime.

Now, the time for light to travel to us while space is expanding is t=(e^(Hd/c)-1), where H is the current value for the Hubble constant and d is the current distance to a galaxy from Earth (Hr and df). For a constant rate of expansion, T_universe=1/H, so let's find the furthest distance a galaxy can be where a pulse of light would just now be reaching us since the time of the Big Bang. That would be for t=T, so

t=T=1/H=(e^(Hd/c)-1)/H [EDIT-This should be /He. This thread is incorrect. Sorry. -grav]
1=e^(Hd/c)-1
2=e^(Hd/c)
Hd/c=e_in2
d=(c/H)e_in2

That gives us d=1.03972*10^26 meters for c=3*10^8 m/sec and H=2*10^-18 sec^-1. This value for d is the final distance travelled over that time, df, so let's find the original distance, do.

do=df/[e^(H*df/c)] and e^(H*df/c)=2, so
do=df/2=5.1986*10^26 meters

The question is, then, if all galaxies once existed at a singularity (or close to it), then how can galaxies at the furthest distances have started out at only half that distance, far from a singularity? Also, how can we observe galaxies much further than this if the light would have taken more time to reach us than the age of the universe? The only answer I can think of is that the expansion model is either incorrect or in need of some tremendous alterations. Is the Big Bang model blown?

[Nicolas]

The way I understood it, the physics as we know them and as you applied, were not valid in the first time after the big bang. Only when things settled (for very small values of settling), physics became the way we know them. I'm no expert though.

[grav]

The way I understood it, the physics as we know them and as you applied, were not valid in the first time after the big bang. Only when things settled (for very small values of settling), physics became the way we know them. I'm no expert though.

I am finding it for the maximum distance that can be derived during the entire time for expansion, using the model for constant expansion as it now stands. To say that physics changes somewhere along the way would require another cosmological model altogether, dramatically different than the one I am using, that explains how this comes about.

[Nicolas]

The way I understood it, the physics as we know them and as you applied, were not valid in the first time after the big bang. Only when things settled (for very small values of settling), physics became the way we know them. I'm no expert though.

Can anyone who has read up on BBT give info on this?

[grav]

I just realized something. df/do=e^(Hd/c) is the same as that for tired light theory, as in my own cosmological model, since the wavelengths of light will also expand in proportion to space while in transit, so w_o/w_e=df/do=e^(Hd/c). So the two theories are now mathematically the same in that respect. Also, since the redshifts are in proportion to e^(Hd/c)-1 instead of directly with Hd/c-1, so that it is not directly proportional to the distance after all, then this would account for an apparent acceleration of the expansion either way, when measured in respect to the ratio of redshift to distance. In addition to this, expansion theory works out for the observed redshift according to these calculations. z=1 means the wavelength has doubled, so the size of the universe should have doubled as well. In my first post in this thread, we found that light that has been travelling for the entire age of the universe would have come from when the universe was half as large and distances half as great, for a redshift of z=1. Since the current distance would then be (c/H)e_in2 at the "edge" of the observable universe, where we would then observe a redshift of z=1, this agrees with expansion theory, but not with Big Bang theory, which says it originated at a singularity. There are still two big problems that I see with expansion theory, however. One, we should never see a redshift greater than z=1, except where peculiar radial velocities are concerned, since that would require a time of transit for light greater than the age of the universe. And two, if the light from a galaxy at (c/H)e_in2, the edge of the observable universe, originated at half that distance, then the universe must have been half its size when it began to expand. But in twice the present age of the universe, the same galaxy will exist at that same edge, since it will have travelled with the expansion, but we would say then that the expansion started at half that distance as well, which would place it back at its present size before expansion took place to begin with, at T=0. So regardless of whether or not physics has changed somewhere along the line, with the present rate of expansion, and in twice the present age of the universe, we should be saying that the universe was the present size at T=0, which would obviously be incorrect.

[Nereid]

Can anyone who has read up on BBT give info on this?

The further back in time = the closer you get to t=0, the less precise the physics we know today, here on the Earth, is, in terms of describing the state of the universe at that (early) time.

For example, the era of nucleosynthesis is pretty well constrained, because this density/energy regime is well understood in terms of nuclear physics (both theoretical and experimental). At the time when densities and energies were so high that the universe was a quark-gluon soup (a different kind of plasma), many details are vague (the nature of this kind of plasma is only now being explored in experiments). Beyond the energy of the CERN, Fermilab, etc accelerators, we have only the standard model (of particle physics) - a theory - to guide us, and that is already known to be incomplete.

The limit is the Planck regime - where the mutual inconsistency of GR and quantum theory is overwhelming. In this regime, each of these highly successful theories, applied on its own, produces results that are nonsense in terms of the other. So unless and until there is a theory which replaces one or the other (or both), we can say nothing about physics in this regime (except, of course, to speculate - string theory for example).

[Cougar]

The only answer I can think of is that the expansion model is either incorrect or in need of some tremendous alterations.

No other possible answers cross your mind?

[grav]

No other possible answers cross your mind?

Well, the gravity of a limited mass in a limited space would help matters some, but still shouldn't change things all that much. Besides, the expansion is actually supposed to be accelerating, not decreasing, and there is only one cosmological model I can think of to explain redshifts in that regard, but I won't go there. What do you have in mind?

[grav]

...and it is turtles all the way down.

Yes. That seems just as likely.

[grav]

Well, the gravity of a limited mass in a limited space would help matters some, but still shouldn't change things all that much. Besides, the expansion is actually supposed to be accelerating, not decreasing, and there is only one cosmological model I can think of to explain redshifts in that regard, but I won't go there. What do you have in mind?

Actually, scratch that. I just realized even gravity would have no affect on the universe as a whole. If the universe has no definable boundaries, then it has no definable center, which I think we can all agree, so each galaxy has no definable direction in which to "fall". I know people like to think outside the box with this, but for galaxies that exist within it, there is no outside, and there is no center, and so they will only be pulled in every direction at once, or not at all, which amounts to equilibrium for gravity either way.

[heusdens]

Actually, scratch that. I just realized even gravity would have no affect on the universe as a whole. If the universe has no definable boundaries, then it has no definable center, which I think we can all agree, so each galaxy has no definable direction in which to "fall". I know people like to think outside the box with this, but for galaxies that exist within it, there is no outside, and there is no center, and so they will only be pulled in every direction at once, or not at all, which amounts to equilibrium for gravity either way.

It supposedly is not. Either expanding or contracting, but no equilibrium.

[Jerry]

The current expansion model assumes space itself is expanding - the space between the galaxies, not the distance traveled in fixed space. This means the total distance can be much greater than the light-time limited velocity. Yes, this not logical to many of us, and it does violate conservation of energy, and it does require an inflationary episode that is not understood by anyone, and is now sprinkled with equally mysterious dark matter and dark energy, so we have one universe and three mysteries. But we are absolutely certain about how it all started...and it is turtles all the way down.

[brodix]

Is redshift due to recession or optics? Whether or not we understand the properties completely, the optical solution would provide a far, far less complicated model.

Big Bang adherents like to point out what it explains, but Inflation and dark energy are both very significant patches designed to cover divergences between theory and observation.

I would still like to see an explanation for why C doesn't increase proportionally to the expansion of space and why this wouldn't imply a pre-existing dimension of space, which would contradict BBT.

[Thanatos]

You've mostly answered your own question grav. Cosmological redshift stretches space, along with the wavelengths of light passing through that space. In that sense, light speeds up as space expands. We can detect CMB photons, which are older than any galaxy could be. The observational limit of our universe has always been the surface of last scattering, so far as photons are concerned. Neutrinos, however, are another story. In principle, we should be able to detect them back to the first second after the big bang.

[brodix]

You've mostly answered your own question grav. Cosmological redshift stretches space, along with the wavelengths of light passing through that space. In that sense, light speeds up as space expands. We can detect CMB photons, which are older than any galaxy could be. The observational limit of our universe has always been the surface of last scattering, so far as photons are concerned. Neutrinos, however, are another story. In principle, we should be able to detect them back to the first second after the big bang.

If light is speeding up proportional to the expansion of the universe, does that mean that at the singularity, the speed of light was zero?

If light is speeding up as space expands, why is it redshifted? It would seem that redshift is the tension between a constant speed of light crossing an increasing distance.

[Squashed]

...

If light is speeding up as space expands, why is it redshifted? It would seem that redshift is the tension between a constant speed of light crossing an increasing distance.

That is the million dollar question!!! If the speed of light varies with the age of the universe then nothing would change due to the age/expansion state of the universe.

The universe would actually appear to be growing smaller as we look deeper into the past because our meterstick grows proportionately with respect to the varying speed of light.

[Nereid]

That is the million dollar question!!! If the speed of light varies with the age of the universe then nothing would change due to the age/expansion state of the universe.

The universe would actually appear to be growing smaller as we look deeper into the past because our meterstick grows proportionately with respect to the varying speed of light.

Nonsense.

A varying speed of light (in the sense that you mean it here) is incompatible with GR, so the second paragraph is meaningless (all the terms in it have meaning only within a theory that contains the relevant components of relativity).

If you zero-out one part of relativity, you cannot use the rest of it to ask meaningful questions (without at least stating very clearly just how internal consistency is attained ... and showing that consistency, quantitatively).

[Squashed]

Nonsense.

A varying speed of light (in the sense that you mean it here) is incompatible with GR, ...

That's what I thought but then I read Bob Angstrom's post which seemed like it was accepted or at least not challenged so that is where the thoughts of my post originated.

[brodix]

A varying speed of light (in the sense that you mean it here) is incompatible with GR, so the second paragraph is meaningless (all the terms in it have meaning only within a theory that contains the relevant components of relativity).

That's the meaning of my question as to why doesn't C increase as space expands. The fact that C remains constant means it is measuring a stable dimension of space, yet the assumption that space is expanding is based on the observation that the spectrum of light is redshifted. There are two large problems this raises for BBT. If this is an expansion in space, not of space, observations of consistant redshift in all directions would mean we are at the center of the observable universe. Also it would make Inflation unfeasible, because pre-existing space would be subject to quantum phenomena and the pressure wave would be overwhelming. This would make non-inflationary expansion more complicated as well.

However, without a theory that is at least as good as GR (in terms of being validated, experimentally and observationally) there is no way to answer any of them.

Do you have such a theory (in the scientific sense) that you would like to put on the table, for us to challenge?

I did put it forward in the, Question: Why doesn't C increase thread, but I'll repeat the basic premise.
The original impetus for this was in considering that Omega=1. It seemed that if observed expansion was evenly balanced by the effect of gravity on space, then it seemed likely these were opposite effects. While gravity causes our ability to measure space to contract, it does so against a stable abstract. We know it bends light because we compare it against this
Euclian dimension. It is a lensing effect. So if expansion is the opposite, then it is an opposing lensing effect. Redshift, as it is observed, is clear evidence of this. Whatever direction we look, space is curved away from us, so that everything appears to be flying directly away from us and the further light travels, the more it is curved, so that the faster its source appears to be flying away from us.
The question is what causes this opposing curvature. It seems the likely candidate is light itself. Gravity causes mass to collapse into its well and compresses it to the point it ignites and radiates back out. So mass goes the direction of gravity, but radiation goes the other direction. Every point in space is crossed by radiation from every direction. Could these intersecting waves cause interference patterns, like waves crossing on the water combine, creating larger waves, so that any one wave seems to be bent and crossing more space then it should?

[Bob Angstrom]

Nonsense.

A varying speed of light (in the sense that you mean it here) is incompatible with GR, so the second paragraph is meaningless (all the terms in it have meaning only within a theory that contains the relevant components of relativity).

If you zero-out one part of relativity, you cannot use the rest of it to ask meaningful questions (without at least stating very clearly just how internal consistency is attained ... and showing that consistency, quantitatively).

Einstein’s GR only insists that the speed of light be the same in every inertial frame of reference but the universe is not a single inertial reference frame so this restriction of GR does not apply. If the speed of light could not vary, it would be impossible for a beam of light to curve in the vacuum of space and there would be no such thing as gravitational lensing. Or if the speed of light could not accelerate to keep pace with the expansion of space, then old light would appear to travel slower than new light. Light from the distant past gains energy as it accelerates while simultaneously losing energy by redshifting so the total energy is conserved.

For the sake of simplicity, we can say that the rate of time (how fast the clock ticks) has remained the same throughout the ages while space expands. This is a common assumption when we say that space is expanding. If space is expanding and time is unchanging, then the speed of light must accelerate as space expands. We can designate either time or the speed of light as absolutes but the essential thing to remember is that they can not BOTH be constants within the same model.

[Nereid]

If light is speeding up proportional to the expansion of the universe, does that mean that at the singularity, the speed of light was zero?

If light is speeding up as space expands, why is it redshifted? It would seem that redshift is the tension between a constant speed of light crossing an increasing distance.

All good questions.

However, without a theory that is at least as good as GR (in terms of being validated, experimentally and observationally) there is no way to answer any of them.

Do you have such a theory (in the scientific sense) that you would like to put on the table, for us to challenge?

[grav]

You've mostly answered your own question grav. Cosmological redshift stretches space, along with the wavelengths of light passing through that space. In that sense, light speeds up as space expands. We can detect CMB photons, which are older than any galaxy could be. The observational limit of our universe has always been the surface of last scattering, so far as photons are concerned. Neutrinos, however, are another story. In principle, we should be able to detect them back to the first second after the big bang.

Yeah, what Brodix said. Also, if light speeds up, starting off very slowly, then the observable universe should be even smaller than what we actually observe, since the light will not have reached us within a time of T=1/H. If it slows down, beginning with some very high value, then the current distance to galaxies would be even closer to their observed distance for when the light was emitted. And I am considering the effect as seen from the surface of last scattering. The fact that we believe we are receiving light from a time before the galaxies formed has nothing to do with the age of the universe itself, as measured by 1/H. The fact that we observe redshifts greater than z=1, however, should indicate a static universe, so that we could detect light as far back in time as our telescopes allow, since there would then be no expansion or T=0 to limit us.

[Grey]

The question is, then, if all galaxies once existed at a singularity (or close to it), then how can galaxies at the furthest distances have started out at only half that distance, far from a singularity? Also, how can we observe galaxies much further than this if the light would have taken more time to reach us than the age of the universe? The only answer I can think of is that the expansion model is either incorrect or in need of some tremendous alterations. Is the Big Bang model blown?

Well, I still expect that the answer is c: there's a problem with your math. But regardless of the math, this statement is inaccurate. The farthest back that we can currently detect is the CMB, which is still 300,000 years after the big bang. Any galaxies that we can see formed somewhat after that. So there's no expectation at all that any galaxies that we can see now should have had a remarkably small initial distance.

[grav]

Originally Posted by grav
Speed is relative....

Except for the speed of light.

The speed of light is only c relative to an observer in a local frame.

Originally Posted by grav
The two galaxies are considered to be stationary to each other, but the distance between them is expanding with time.

Well, then they're not "stationary" relative to each other.

They are stationary in respect to each other in space, or to space itself, but the space is expanding. Otherwise, they would simply be moving through space, not with it.

Originally Posted by grav
In other words, a pulse of light is travelling between two stationary galaxies at a constant rate of speed, but the distance scales are increasing in the meantime...

Why put yourself through this?

For fun, I guess. Why work on puzzles that don't mean anything when I've got the whole universe to explore? Besides, maybe something will come of all of this one day, and I can leave my mark on science.

[grav]

Moderators,

Could you please go ahead and tack on the thread "Expansion and the speed of light" to the end of this one? I'm about to refer to some things in it that were commented on in this thread, so it would probably be best to keep it all in one place after all, before I end up jumping back and forth between them. I will just point to it in my original post here as a rewrite and work from there. Thank you.

[brodix]

They are stationary in respect to each other in space, or to space itself, but the space is expanding. Otherwise, they would simply be moving through space, not with it.

What we refer to as space is our ability to measure it, which means the matter and energy defining it. Galaxies are pulling mass in and radiating energy out in a convective cycle, so when we measure the amount of energy beteen these two galaxies, it is increasing, but the mass is decreasing. The trick will be to find the condension state where those strings forming photons turn into the ones forming electrons and all the quarks, etc. which make up the nucleus.

[brodix]

And then there is Inflation Theory, which says that everything inflated to many times its visible size a moment after the singularity.

Reminds me of reading about how Aurther Anderson managed Enron's books. The figures don't match? Hey, no problem. We just add an extra corporate entity, or two.

[dirty_g]

Didnt a guy called Linde and his Son and another guy Mezhlumian challenge the whole hubble constant rate? Due to some chinese observations made back in the mid to late 90's?? I remember reading about it. Something to do with the Hubble constant may not actually really be constant but different for galaxies at different distances from us. Never really looked into it much more than that.

[RussT]

Didnt a guy called Linde and his Son and another guy Mezhlumian challenge the whole hubble constant rate? Due to some chinese observations made back in the mid to late 90's?? I remember reading about it. Something to do with the Hubble constant may not actually really be constant but different for galaxies at different distances from us. Never really looked into it much more than that.

Well here is one way this could certainly be true.

Since we 'see' the expansion in the Voids between galaxy Clusters, what if all of those Voids, since there are large size differences, between 10Mpc and 25Mpc spherical diameter, are expanding at different rates, the biggest expanding the fastest.

This suggests that could be true also.

http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-re.../pr-10-96.html
Scroll down.

[brodix]

By all coherant logic, the redshifting of the light spectrum should mean that the source is receding, otherwise the speed of this light would be slowing in the vacuum of intergalactic space. We accept that gravity compresses our measure of space and it can be measured by the curvature of light passing through gravitational fields. Why is it so difficult to consider that radiation is having the opposite effect and expanding our measure of space? Since this effect wouldn't draw the light toward, or away from any particular location, it wouldn't curve beams of light, but it would create the effect of expanding space. This lensing effect would exactly explain why all other galaxies are redshifted directly away from us. The reason why space is expanding, but the universe is not is because gravity is balancing this expansion of energy by contracting mass. Therefore Omega=1, not by coincidence, or the anthropic principle, but because they are opposite sides of the same cycle.