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

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: dragonridr

A research team at Perimeter Institute have proposed that we could exist within a 3D mirage of a collapsing star in a 4D universe, which is mathematically explainable according to them. Its perhaps more believable than the singularity that requires god like faith, no. link.

I know I read the paper I call it lazy physics here is why it uses string to propose the idea our universe is information on a 2 D surface of a black hole. First there is no explinarion how this could work but the papers aren't concerned with that. Now the lazy part its easier to mathmatically calculate the universe in only two dimensions. This means it's very easy to claim we can get it to match current observations. Problem is it doesn't couple of key factors. One in any holgraphic image each piece contains all the information of the whole. If you look,at smaller and smaller images of a halogram your going to see exact copies in fact if part of the image is missing you can create it only from a part it.

So how does this disprove the theory as you look at smaller and smaller pieces you actually see the image gets fuzzy because its made up of other copies of the image. Think of it like getting to close to a TV and seeing the individual pixels of our image.only these pixels would look exactly like our larger image.well the European space agency went looking for this grainy or blurry images on the small scale. And they built something called geo 600.The observatory can measure gamma-ray bursts, and depending on their behavior it can determine whether the universe really does become "grainy" at super-small scales. And what did we discover there is no sign of bluriness this all but rules out halographic universe. See often when you hear some idea in physics there is some experiment trying to prove or disprove the idea. This is a physics dead end and science has moved on. But in a way its good as I said it causes more problems then it solved and only due to lazy mathematics did the idea even seem plausible.

a reply to: John333

Yes higher frequency and vibration may well be indirectly related to "spirits" or other unknowns.

However I don't believe that the universe is infinite. It has a beginning and an end just like everything else.

It looks infinite to us because it's being continuously "fed" by some unknown force/energy that's helping it to expand.

Where did this unknown energy came from? The point of origin where our universe first kicked off.

These unknown invisible energy keeps coming in from/through other dimension thus the expansion of universe continues.

Once it stops the feeding, our universe will stop expanding.

If the feeding is needed to sustain universe/space, keep it in balance / harmony, then once it stops, universe could crumble down completely, perish back into nothingness.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

Recent studies from Planck Telescope suggest first stars formed 560 million years after the Big Bang which according to the source document contradicted earlier observations which suggested that the cosmos remained dark for just 420 million years. So not sure where you got your 100 million years from but their research suggest that it wasn't cool enough for electrons and protons to form into hydrogen for 100's of millions of years much less the heavier elements that HD 140283 contains.

This research is based on the assumption that the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation is from a big bang,

link

That 560 million year figure is later than information I have read. That figure might be true for population I stars such as our sun, but the earliest stars and protostars are thought to have come earlier.

Larson and Bromm have discussed the earliest stars that would be metal poor population II stars and extremely metal poor population III stars, which may have formed 100 million to 250 million years ago. These stars formed out of mostly pure hydrogen an helium, and were maybe much much more massive and much more luminous than later stars. These massive early stars may have collapse into the black holes that could have helped with the formation of galaxies.

The First Stars in the Universe - Scientific American


The First Sources of Light - Volker Bromm

1. INTRODUCTION
How and when did the first sources of light form in the universe? Within the framework of modern cosmology, we have learned that the first stars and quasars formed at the end of the so-called “dark ages”, a few 10^8 yr after the big bang (e.g., Barkana & Loeb 2001; Miralda-Escud ́e 2003). The cosmic dark ages began ∼500,000 yr after the big bang when the photons of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) were emitted.

It may be true that the great epoch of star formation began at the end of the cosmic dark ages (about 500 Million years ago), but there were a few of these massive early stars that were around prior to the reionization that occurred to end that cosmic dark age:

Approximately 400,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe cooled down enough for these ions to recombine into atoms, enabling the first light in the cosmos, that from the Big Bang, to finally shine. However, what came next were the dark ages of the universe — there was no other light, as the stars were not born yet.

Current models of the universe suggest the first galaxies began forming about 100 million years after the Big Bang, marking the beginning of the end of the dark ages. This process of star and galaxy formation gradually continued until virtually all the hydrogen and helium that make up most of the universe was once again ionized, this time by starlight, about 500 million years after the Big Bang.

The Universe's Dark Ages: How Our Cosmos Survived


Here is an article summarizing the work by Avi Loeb on this subject, who also was looking for the "first light":

discovermagazine.com...

a reply to: chosonone

Yes higher frequency and vibration may well be indirectly related to "spirits" or other unknowns.

Frequency and vibration of what? Both are properties of things. Neither are things.
A pogo stick has frequency. A guitar string vibrates with a frequency.

a reply to: glend

Proof of the big bang is rudimentary at best, the cosmic background radiation was already estimated by Arthur Eddington in 1926 to be 3 degree's, not from a big bang, but the warming of spacetime from the furnace of 1 billion trillion stars.

Arthur Eddington was a leading scientist of his time. His time was a century ago.

He did not know the universe was expanding. If he did, he would have realized that you cannot calculate how hot the universe is by counting the number of stars in it. His ‘calculation’ has absolutely nothing to do with the CMB (which he also had not heard of in his time) but is simply a calculation based on stellar luminosity. See here.

As dragonridr says, stars could never warm the universe.

a reply to: chosonone

This involves a difficult concept for people to grasp in physics. Even empty space has energy Quantum physics explains that there are limits to how precisely one can know the properties of the most basic units of matter. There is always an uncertainty of either position or momentum . One bizarre consequence of this uncertainty is that a vacuum is never completely empty, but instead buzzes with so-called “virtual particles” that constantly pop into and out of existence this is the casimer effect.

So what does this tell us there is energy even in the vacuum of space under normal conditions these "virtual particles" often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. Now not to get into to much detail because we could write pages on this but this energy is hiding as it fluctuates between positive and negative energy.

In physics you can never have an object with zero energy. Because we can rob Peter to pay Paul. In physics we can substitute time for energy through two are interchangeable but when we do we effect the other when we do it. ( SIDE NOTE don't think this is free energy the universe makes sure we can't use it other than to make a flash of light. ) When the mass is very large like a macroscopic object, the uncertainties and thus the quantum effect become very small, and classical physics is applicable. So to make it simple very small things can be almost anywhere and are because we can never be certain of their location. But this frothing bubling mass has an effect it expands space much like water boiling over in a pot.

a reply to: spy66

you cant even prove me wrong.

I am not interested in proving you wrong. You asked a question, which I answered. You don’t like my answer, so you’re trying to prove me wrong. Unfortunately, your strategy of refusing to understand that which goes against your precious beliefs is also preventing you from understanding why your objections are absurd.

My question to you was - How can you argue which of these two galaxies are oldest.

It does not matter which of two galaxies is the older. The point is that the light from one galaxy takes time to reach the other. If I look up into the heavens and see someone observing me from 13bn LY away, then I know he was observing me 13bn years ago. Today he is stardust. And it will be another 13bn years before one of his descendants can observe me. By which time I will be stardust.

That is the little detail you are missing.

If two astronomers are on two galaxies 13bn LY apart and each observes the other’s galaxy simultaneously, neither will see the other; they will see each other’s galaxies as they were 13bn years ago, not as they are today.

THe image just depicts light from the one Galaxy. Wouldnt the same laws apply to the other Galaxy as well, because light would be traveling to that Galaxy also. With the exact same referances....Space and light would streach equally for the other Galaxy as well.

There you go again. Yes, the same laws apply to the other galaxy. Yes, the metric expansion would produce the same effects for observers in both galaxies. None of that is relevant. I’m sorry I can’t seem to make you understand why, but I don’t blame myself for it; I can see how much effort you’re putting into not understanding.

Good luck with holding the doubts at bay for another day.

a reply to: Phatdamage

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

It mean that light speed is the speed of information onto the fabric of space-time. But the expansion of space-time by itself is not constrained to light speed.

a reply to: gflyg

ow if i was a particle with eyes and we visualise in super slow motion the first nano second after the big bang...

An excellent way to visualize it.

...what do i see myself exploding out towards?

You wouldn’t see yourself exploding out to anywhere. You would see yourself as stationary. You would look around you and see the Universe expanding away from you in every direction.

And why when I look in that direction...

But there is no ‘that direction’. It’s expanding in all directions. And this would be true wherever in the Universe you were standing.

...I know I'm not seeing the dimensions

I’m guessing that what you mean by ‘the dimensions’ is whatever the Universe is ‘expanding into’. Well, the Universe is not expanding into anything. There is nothing outside the Universe; the word Universe means ‘everything there is’. Even empty space is part of the Universe. The Universe, the entirety of everything that exists, is just getting bigger and that’s all there is to it. Beyond the Universe, we see nothing because there is nothing to see.

I thank you for bringing me one step closer to that vision. I have been trying to understand it for a long time.

My pleasure. If you have any further questions, I’ll do my best to answer them correctly.

a reply to: dragonridr

But this frothing bubling mass has an effect it expands space much like water boiling over in a pot.

I would be careful stating this as a fact, we still haven't solved the cosmological constant problem. I think it's fairly obvious the vacuum fluctuations must generate an equal amount of negative and positive energy, which cancel each other out and the vacuum energy has no net effect, which would mean vacuum energy is not really the culprit behind dark energy. If you want to frame vacuum energy as dark energy then you need a huge anti-dark-energy factor to cancel out all of the dark energy except for just the right amount to cause our universe to expand at the rate we observe, and this produces what is probably the most fine-tuned calculation in all of physics, a clearly ridiculous level of fine tuning.

Understanding the Cosmological Constant Problem (aka vacuum catastrophe)

a reply to: EnPassant

But they are only moving relative to each other at greater than c. They are not moving absolutely more than c. That is, they are not moving through space at more than c. Space is expanding with them. Imagine an elastic string with beads on it. Pull it at both ends and the space between each bead expands.

(I think I've got this right!)

I’m afraid not. In relativistic mechanics, you don’t simply add velocities as you do in Newtonian mechanics. Nothing moves faster than light with respect to anything else. You cannot have objects moving at speeds of 2c, 3c, etc., with respect to each other.

There is no absolute motion and no absolute rest; these are only defined relative to other objects, which are also moving. Finally, though spatial distortions do occur at relativistic velocities, it is the dilation of time, not space, that chiefly resolves the apparent paradoxes caused by the invariance of the speed of light.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: dragonridr

But this frothing bubling mass has an effect it expands space much like water boiling over in a pot.

I would be careful stating this as a fact, we still haven't solved the cosmological constant problem. I think it's fairly obvious the vacuum fluctuations must generate an equal amount of negative and positive energy, which cancel each other out and the vacuum energy has no net effect, which would mean vacuum energy is not really the culprit behind dark energy. If you want to frame vacuum energy as dark energy then you need a huge anti-dark-energy factor to cancel out all of the dark energy except for just the right amount to cause out universe to expand at the rate we observe, and this produces what is probably the most fine-tuned calculation in all of physics, a clearly ridiculous level of fine tuning.

Understanding the Cosmological Constant Problem (aka vacuum catastrophe)

This is where a false vacuum comes into effect their are several papers on it. Bottom line is what we believe to be the lowest energy level is not. However this leads to the nightmare scenario that physists talk about with the higgs field. If the universe ever truly reaches its ground state it is no longer stable and ceases to exist. There's another solution for the vacuum catastrophe but I'm inclined to rule that out for now unless experimentation can prove otherwise.

originally posted by: Dumbass
Who says the speed of light was the same in the early stages of the Big Bang?

C, it's a constant.

a reply to: Astyanax



Ok, i take it that you agree With what i am saying.

So, since you agree that if two galaxies are 13,8 billion years appart. They must be equally old.

How much older is the first light compare to Our Galaxy?

a reply to: spy66

i take it that you agree With what i am saying.

You can take it that way if you like, but I certainly don’t.

So, since you agree that if two galaxies are 13,8 billion years appart. They must be equally old.

No, that does not follow at all.

How much older is the first light compare to Our Galaxy?

The difference is measured in billions of years.

a reply to: Astyanax

The difference is measured in billions of years.

Really...Billions of years....in which way? You are the expert, tell us The oldest star in Our milky way is 13,7 billion years old. So how many billion years differ really?

Oldest known star: 13,7 billion years. en.wikipedia.org...

I hope People read this.

originally posted by: spy66
a reply to: Astyanax

The difference is measured in billions of years.

Really...Billions of years....in which way? You are the expert, tell us

The oldest star in Our milky way is 13,7 billion years old. So how many billion years differ really?

I hope People read this.

I really hope someday someone manages to prove some theories right, because that is all it is, theories, until real tangable evidence can be found, i could say we are an atom within a unicorns right hoof, this is my theory, prove me wrong,

Big bang or no big bang, multiple bangs or unicorn hoof, all theories.

a reply to: Phatdamage


Well i agree. There are to many theories and to many experts, claiming to be right.


That makes a mess out of everything.

" But wait, how can the universe be 93 billion light-years across if it is only 13.8 billion years old? Light hasn’t had enough time to travel that far…?

Well, according to special relativity, objects that are close together cannot move faster than the speed of light with respect to one another; however, there is no such law for objects that are extremely distant from one another when the space between them is, itself, expanding. In short, it is not that objects are traveling faster than the speed of light, but that the space between objects is expanding, causing them to fly away from each other at amazing speeds.

According to the theory of cosmic inflation, the entire universe’s size is at least 10^23 times larger than the size of the observable universe. "

futurism.com...

a reply to: Astyanax
Yes, I am only taking c as an absolute limit. A fraction of c would work out the same, just slower speeds.