It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

# 92 billion light-years in diameter and only 13.7 billion years old????

page: 14
42
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 06:49 PM

Do to gravitational lensing we know light doesn't change speed traveling through curved space if it did we wouldn't notice and to us light would act diffrent. We would see the dufrence from say the surface if the earth and orbit. We would also see the difrence in stars.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:11 PM
Regarding the question posed by the title of the thread, I’ll go ahead and take a shot at it. PhatDamage asked:

How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?

Currently accepted estimates of the age of the universe indicate approx 13.8 billion years. Also widely accepted, and verified countless times experimentally, is that the universal speed limit through the vacuum of space is the speed of light. This, in turn, leads to the common misconception that the radius of the observable universe must be 13.8 billion light-years. This makes perfect sense assuming we live in a flat, static universe. In actuality, though, spacetime is anything but flat or static. Rather, we are part of an expanding universe. Spacetime is continually expanding at an accelerating rate. Therefore, distance obtained by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe is not physically meaningful.

The observable universe (aka visible) includes all the baryonic matter that we’re receiving light or other signals from. Taking the above into account, current estimates are that signals being received on Earth today include matter which is today actually about 46 billion ly from us, or 46 Gly. In other words, the known universe spans approx 92 Gly. It’s the "proper distance", in a freeze-frame sense, that if you could pause the expansion process to give yourself time to send a radar beep, it would take 46 billion years from today to reach that most distant material/object.

So, that 46 Gly is about how far away the matter actually is today that in early times emitted the cosmic microwave background radiation that we are now detecting. So we are in effect LOOKING AT matter that is now 46+ Gly from here, but as it appeared 13.8 billion years ago as a hot gas.

That actual distance is called the "particle horizon" to distinguish it from "cosmic event horizon". The cosmic event horizon is only about 16 Gly. It’s the proper distance today of the most distant galaxy we could expect to reach with a signal we send TODAY. Beyond that point the recession speed, due to expansion (not motion thru space), is already upwards of several times the speed of light, and so our signal would never reach it. Conversely, if an event takes place today in a galaxy that is beyond the 16 Gly cosmic event horizon, say an exploding star, we will never see it no matter how long we wait. Only if it’s LESS than 16 Gly from us (today, freeze-frame i.e. proper distance) will it eventually be visible to us here on Earth.

One interesting consequence of the expansion is that most of the objects we can see today are well beyond today's cosmic event horizon. That is, most of the galaxies we observe today are actually more than 16 Gly distant from us; what we are observing is the galaxies as they once were. Therefore, although we are theoretically able to observe all the matter ever created within our universe, we just can’t see it as it exists TODAY. It’s likely to have remanifested itself into countless other forms.

What lies beyond that is purely speculative, and currently beyond our ability to know. Fun to think about, though.

Cheers!!

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:13 PM
I'm sure we all can agree that 'time' is nothing more than an abstract measurement of the duration of an event. Time has no independent reality of its own...it is nothing more than an abstract ruler by which we don't measure time but the length of duration of an event. An event can be anything, such as the decay of a single atom or the turning of an entire galaxy, but so we are able to measure it, the measurement must be comprised of two vectors, that of length and motion. An arcsecond is one sixtieth of an arcminute. Do you actually think you are measuring 'time' by such units? No. You are measuring the duration of events.

Let's talk about 'space'. Can and does space bend under gravitational influence or is it curved by massive objects such as a planet or a star? To be honest, it depends on the meaning you give to the term 'space'. Space is immaterial, a void of absolutely nothing. Space itself cannot interact with anything and there is nothing that can interact with space. For instance, during a solar eclipse, stars hidden by the body of the sun can be seen due to the apparent action of the sun's mass curving space and causing light from the occluded stars behind the sun to curve towards earth. This begs the question what is actually being made to curve? Is it space that is really being curved, or is it actually just the light rays?

I myself lean towards the latter. So. Here we have two distinct abstractions...space and time, and we treat them both as having independent realities of their own. This is the same as saying that a millimetre or a centimetre exists, but they don't do they, because they are nothing more than abstract units of measurement. We use them as a means to reduce varying sizes of scale down to understandable and useful values. If something is truly immaterial, it has no property by which you can interact with it, none at all. So, if both space and time are immaterial abstractions, how can either be interacted with so that one or both can be curved or be influenced by anything, when neither have any kind of property by which they can be interacted with?

Okay. The furthest objects we can see (apparently) are objects whose light is alleged to have travelled 13.5 billion years. In between those objects and our planet is 13.5 billion years of space which contains incalculable amounts of galaxy clusters and stars and planets and planetary debris all in circular motion and at different rates of speed. Are we to believe that the light rays from those dim objects 13.5 billion years away have not encountered any of the objects I have listed? That from that object to earth, the light rays have had a clear run and not encountered even as much as dust particles?

I believe in science. I believe it is very good at measuring things. The pinch of salt I take with science are its interpretations and claims, many of which are so outlandish that they are neither logical or rational.
edit on 26/12/15 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:15 PM

That from that object to earth, the light rays have had a clear run and not encountered even as much as dust particles?

Photons you mean. If a photon hits something, it doesn't reach us. If it doesn't, it does. Doesn't really affect much other than making some distant galaxies harder to see than others. But various wavelengths of light are affected to greater and lesser degrees. For example there are stars and galaxies which cannot be seen by visible light because of the dust and gas that lie in the way. Those same galaxies can show brilliantly in infrared.
www.ipac.caltech.edu...
edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:23 PM
Phage:

Photons you mean. If a photon hits something, it doesn't reach us. If it doesn't, it does. Doesn't really affect much other than making some distant galaxies harder to see than others.

Yes, Phage, I do mean photons, and of course, if they encounter densities of matter in space those photons don't reach us. If photons from such distances travel to our planet and the object is just a pin prick in the darkness, how are we able to see it if those photons encountered debris of some form, or other star light.

I know you are better than this Phage, you are more rational than this to simply seek to explain away the issue in this way.

Wavelength of light is not the issue. We are still talking about photons travelling through space and not encountering a single piece of anything that can impede the photon's travel any further. I just find it hard to accept.
edit on 26/12/15 by elysiumfire because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:27 PM

originally posted by: Phage

Since time doesn't pass at a uniform rate across a gravitational gradient, light isn't either. So the thing you're using to measure those distances may as well be about as fixed and steady as a block of jello.

The very theory which explains why time is relative, explains that the speed of light is not.

perspective again.

a black hole is believed to be such a powerful gravitational mass that not even light can "Escape" it's pull. if gravitation can reverse the actual directional flow of light. then it is possible to use gravitation to make light bend back in on itself and make a closed loop. now to us the external observer, we see the loop. but the light is travelling along that tangent, so for the observer inside the loop looking at light under the conditions set by that gravitational field... they will think theyre seeing in a straight line.

further to this, if extreme gravitation can reverse the directional flow of light, could a suitably weaker gravitational force slow it down in it's escape attempt? in the game of rock paper scissors.. gravity, that is to say, the force of attraction, bends light as it pleases.. but we perceive a straight line.

gravitation affects everything down to what we see through our eyes. changes in gravitational force can thus change our perception or how things appear to us.

light is also known to slow down when passing through certain mediums. in a refractive medium light is unable to travel through at a steady speed and has one speed within the medium and another speed outside the medium for the one beam of light. other mediums out in space can also affect the speed of light. with gravitation wrapping it around on us if we got caught in a bubble we'd never get out. and apparently, thats sort of the case.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:31 PM

how are we able to see it if those photons encountered debris of some form, or other star light.
Like I said. In that case, we can't.

I know you are better than this Phage, you are more rational than this to simply seek to explain away the issue in this way.
It is not an issue, unless you think that space has a lot more stuff that interacts with light than it does. It's mostly empty, you know.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:39 PM
Phage:

It is not an issue, unless you think that space has a lot more stuff that interacts with light than it does.

Okay. Let me put it another way, even though I have already stated it. 13.5 billion years worth of space between us and the farthest object we have observed. Somehow, that narrow beam of photons has travelled unimpeded for 13.5 billion years without encountering anything or by being curved by densities in space? I just think it suspect, but not entirely impossible.

Perhaps, in conjunction with my whole post, the issue becomes ever more suspect?

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:43 PM

Somehow, that narrow beam of photons has travelled unimpeded for 13.5 billion years without encountering anything or by being curved by densities in space?

First, it is not a narrow beam, it is an ever expanding field of radiation (see the inverse squared law).
Second, it is not just "densities" which can refract light. Gravity does it too. A beautiful demonstration of that:

Those arcs are galaxies, the light from which has been bent by passing around other galaxies.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:45 PM
That's a question to which Id always just given my own answer that made sense to me. Having no knowledge of science though, it looks like I was probably wrong but like always, I can't follow the explanation as clearly as some people in here to be able to make sense of it but yea it doesn't seem to match mine.

First, is what I'm reading here in this thread different hypotheses or is there indeed an accepted definitive answer to the question stated by the OP? If the answer is still up for debate, could the answer be as simple as one of the reasons that a simpleton like I am came up with?

1. Nothing can exceed light-speed through space. But nothing is moving through space, instead space fabric is expanding and moving through the thing known by many words I've heard (not sure which one is the scientific term)- oblivion, void, emptiness, etc. And there is no reason something can't travel as fast as it pleases through oblivion which is free of the physical limits inside the universe?

2. Or could black holes and portals act as drains which space pours into then on the other side of the universe, continue flowing out like a faucet so like Plinko on the Price is Right, a chip can go from the very center of the board and as it drops, cover any and every path until filling every slot at the bottom just as space could expand into countless portals which creates countless other exit portals that make space not expand exactly in circle (which I know does create some paradoxes and holes in this theory we can't yet explain like why things at the edges aren't traveling at the expected velocity and trajectory) but instead space expands like putting a faucet of ink at top of a Plinko board which allows expansion at random that eventually fills itself in?

Again, I haven't the background to expect I could possibly come up with any relevant ideas in my brainstorming so apologies for sticking my nose into your conversation. Just because I'm not an expert on scientific matters doesn't make it impossible for me to enjoy the puzzle of life, of the universe and its origins, of consciousness, or any of the other big ones it's fascinating to venture a guess on

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:56 PM

there really shouldnt be any debate about the topic of changing speed of light. it's known science.

and now it must be absolutely clear. this is the part that science doesnt do. the holistic application..

now check this..

1. we know light can travel slower through a glass medium
2. Atmospheric conditions of the earth lead to a "Lens" effect when looking out into space.
3. we know that gravitational force can alter the path of light
4. the magnetosphere is just what the name suggests, and invisible force field

do we see the parallel here? in this case, the atmosphere is the same as the glass medium. it can make objects appear nearer or further than they actually are. what im trying to say is that because we can observe light being slowed down in it's path through a glass medium, that the universe has other ways of creating that same type of environment without the glass.. instead using gravitational anomalies which prevents the photon from covering the same straight line distance in the same time frame as it would being unobstructed. and just like light can be bent through a refractive medium like glass, so too can it be bent by gravitational force. here on earth we see the behaviours on the micro, and they apply as far out as we're speaking on the macro.

a gravitational disturbance creating a wavy pattern for instance, forcing the photon to travel along a meandering path for a period. but we wont see it. and in fact we could even travel along that meandering path and still keep our perception that we traveled in a perfectly straight line.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:56 PM
1. You have it pretty much right. But that part about "traveling through oblivion" isn't quite it. Simply put, the space between things in the Universe is growing. On a local level (like the Solar System, or even the Galaxy) this is not detectable. But over very great distances it adds up. The result being that over very, very great distances, space is growing faster than light. If you could eliminate local motions (us around the Sun, the Sun through the galaxy, etc.) and stopped everything from "moving", everything would still be getting further apart.

2. The trouble with that is two fold. If black holes are portals to some other place, it would pretty much have to a really other place, like a separate universe. If it were something like your model, we should see evidence of it, of some sort of "white holes." We don't.

But really, there isn't much reason to think that the matter of a black hole "goes" anywhere. If it did, the black hole would lose density and no long be a black hole.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 08:59 PM
Phage:

First, it is not a narrow beam, it is an ever expanding field of radiation (see the inverse squared law).
Second, it is not just "densities" which can refract light. Gravity does it too. A beautiful demonstration of that:

Actually, you are talking in a relative sense. It is a narrow beam of photons from our perspective, but from its starting point, it is of course an ever widening and expanding beam. The image of the galaxies you give show them (from our perspective) to be narrow beams of photons, but because each blob of light is a galaxy, the beam of photons must actually be many light years across. Yet, seen from earth, the cone of the beam is reductive, not expansive. The further they travel past the earth to other regions of deep space, the cone of light of the beam of photons will actually thin down to nothing...to darkness.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:02 PM
Wait even if at the big bang event a star was created and moved at the speed of light away from the event we are still only at about 28 billion light years or double, that is still a huge discrepancy in age/time/distance. We aren't in the center of the universe anyway, oh it's so confusing, my head.

edit on 26-12-2015 by Blue_Jay33 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:03 PM

The further they travel past the earth to other regions of deep space, the cone of light of the beam of photons will actually thin down to nothing...to darkness.

No. It gets wider and wider from it's source. Perspective makes distant things appear smaller (that's why stars look like point sources of light), but it has nothing to do with a "cone of light."

It fades toward darkness because the radiation is spread over a wider and wider area. Once an object is far enough to be only discernible as a point source, it does not get smaller, it just gets dimmer.

edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:11 PM
Phage:

Simply put, the space between things in the Universe is growing. On a local level (like the Solar System, or even the Galaxy) this is not detectable. But over very great distances it adds up. The result being that over very, very great distances, space is growing faster than light.

How do you know that 'space' is expanding? What property of space are you measuring to be sure that it is actually space, alone, that is growing?

Could it not be that it is the content in space that is being continually added to rather than space itself? What is it that is making more space. I would hope you do not say that it is a fundamental aspect of universal expansion. How can something that is an absolute of immateriality be made to expand? What if space itself is infinite, and that it is matter that is pushing ever outwards into that infinite space? If this is the case, then space would not need to expand.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:19 PM

Hi There,
I'll be honest I haven't read all 16?pages of replies, so if I'm duplicating any thoughts my apologies.

How is it possible for the observable universe to be 92 billion light-years wide while only being 13.7 billion years old?

That is a very hard thing to wrap ones head around isn't it?
There is so much involved in that question, and I'm sure much gas already been discussed, but I am going to add my \$.02 worth.

First, during the very early inflationary phase of the universe, it expanded a a rate much greater that the "speed of light". But that really doesn't matter because during those first few hundred thousand years, light itself didn't exist, as the universe was so dense that there were no free photons.
You mentioned the shape of the universe, the most logical way to think of it, is a combination of both the spherical and flat universe. The flat universe lies within the surface of the expanding sphere.
It's like the universe exists on the the surface of an expanding balloon. This idea fits very well with the evidence that shows all of the observable universe is moving away from itself.

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:19 PM

How do you know that 'space' is expanding?
So, you haven't looked into the standard model at all? No idea of the evidence?

Could it not be that it is the content in space that is being continually added to rather than space itself?
More mass? No, that wouldn't actually work. That would cause gravity to tend to pull everything together.

What is it that is making more space. I would hope you do not say that it is a fundamental aspect of universal expansion.
I don't know, but it is a fundamental aspect of universal expansion.

How can something that is an absolute of immateriality be made to expand?
Immaterial does not mean nothing. Nor is spacetime nothing.

What if space itself is infinite, and that it is matter that is pushing ever outwards into that infinite space?
The evidence does not indicate that is what is occurring.

Why does it worry you to think the Universe is expanding?
edit on 12/26/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:25 PM

originally posted by: Phage
If you could eliminate local motions (us around the Sun, the Sun through the galaxy, etc.) and stopped everything from "moving", everything would still be getting further apart.

and this is precisely what i disagree with. if u stopped everything. then that space would stop growing further apart.
edit on 26-12-2015 by John333 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 26 2015 @ 09:26 PM

and this is precisely what i disagree with.
You seem to disagree with a lot more than that.

if u stopped everything. then that space would stop growing.

I disagree.

new topics

top topics

42