Big Bang or no Big Bang and Creation Theory

[Jzz]

The Hubble constant is taken as definitive proof of the Big Bang, namely that the Universe started of as a singularity and then underwent a massive expansion process. What the Hubble constant does show quite definitively is that the further into the past we look the faster that galaxies appear to be receding from our position. This would tie in with the Big Bang theory of a Universe having its origin in a singularity and undergoing a fast expansion process that slowed with time. In more recent measurements, the value of the Hubble constant has been found to be around 67 km/s to 74 km/s/Mpc, depending on the method used to measure it. This means that a galaxy 1 megaparsec away from us would be receding at about 70 kilometers per second, and that recession rate increases as the distance to the galaxy increases. Today, this theory of the expansion of the Universe according to Hubble's law has been changed to indicate that the Hubble Constant refers not to the Big Bang but to the recession velocities between galaxies being present due to the stretching of space itself. This theory that dark energy is pushing the Universe apart and that the further back we look the faster the expansion is taking place and that the expansion rate at those distances exceeds the speed of light or is superluminal, puts the Big Bang theory into question or reduces it to insignificance. If this is the case what happens to the Big Bang theory, surely both theories cannot be true? If the Universe is indeed expanding at super-luminal speeds then there is no way to sugar coat the fact that the Big Bang theory no longer holds good and we live in an infinite or steady state Universe. This means that the whole argument of creation comes into question once again, if not the Big Bang then what? This is not a small question based for the most part on the sighting of a single type 1 a supernova, almost thrity years ago (1998) at a distance of several billions of light years distant and since supported by questionable data of type 1a supernovae, the only accurate sightings of which are quite near in cosmological terms and claims that dark energy is supported by Einstein's equations. .
If the original theory for the Hubble constant holds good it SHOULD indicate that at the time of the Big Bang the Hubble velocity (Hubble flow) would be in the region of the speed of light. It is possible to perform a simple calculation to see if this is the case:

The recessional velocity at the time of the Big Bang can be calculated using the Hubble law, which is given by:

v = H_0 × d

where:

v is the recessional velocity of an object (in km/s),

H_0 is the Hubble constant (in km/s per megaparsec),

d is the distance to the object (in megaparsecs, Mpc).

First, convert the distance of 13.8 billion light-years to megaparsecs, because the Hubble constant is typically expressed in km/s per megaparsec.

1 light-year ≈ 9.461 × 10^¹² km (the distance light travels in one year).

1 megaparsec (Mpc) = ≈ 3.26 × 10^6 light years = (3.26 x 9.41 x 10^12) = 3.067 x 10^19 km

So, to convert 13.8 billion light-years (1.38 × 10^9 light years) to megaparsecs = 9.461 x 10^12 = 1.305 x 10^23 km:

= 1.305 x 10^23/3.067 x 10^19 = 4254 Mpc

The distance to the Big Bang event is approximately 4254 megaparsecs.

The distance being known, the velocity at the time of the Big Bang can be calculated using the Hubble law. Using a typical value for the Hubble constant, say H_0 = 70 km/s/Mpc:

v = H_0 × d = 70 km/s  x 4254 Mpc = 299780 km/s

This is the recession velocity at a distance of 13.8 billion light-years, (ie approximate time frame for Big Bang) which is approximately 2.997 x 10^5 kilometres per second, which is the speed of light give or take a few metres per second.

The question is this, if the Hubble constant ties in so well to the concept of a Big Bang as to give a very accurate estimate of when the Big Bang took place, how can it also be an indicator that the Universe is expanding at super luminal speeds. Surely, it has to be one or the other ? If Einstein’s equations are correct it means the universe is expanding at superluminal speeds the further back we look BUT if that is true , it means that we can never see or detect this expansion. The only sure proof would be a type 1a supernovae that is further away than the Big Bang event was thought to be and that supernovae (if it indicates superluminal speeds), would be invisible. Which theory is to be believed, one that has been proved over many years, namely the Hubble constant OR a Universe expanding at superluminal speeds for which (if truth be told) little proof exists in favour of except that it is vaguely indicated in Einstein's equations?

 

[Gibsense]

Today, this theory of the expansion of the Universe according to Hubble's law has been changed to indicate that the Hubble Constant refers not to the Big Bang but to the recession velocities between galaxies being present due to the stretching of space itself

The stretching of space (or the addition of space) is compatible with the idea of a Big Bang. I can only think that you misunderstand the Big Bang. It was not a 3D explosion as per, say a hydrogen bomb exploding in 3D space. It was the creation and explosion of a 4D space (some would say Spacetime). So 'stretching' of space was the initial microsecond process to the present.

 

[Gibsense]

This is the recession velocity at a distance of 13.8 billion light-years, (ie approximate time frame for Big Bang) which is approximately 2.997 x 10^5 kilometres per second, which is the speed of light give or take a few metres per second.

From any position in the Universe, there will be a limit to the distance that can be observed that is defined by the speed of light. There is no place that can be assigned as the Big Bang within this 3D space. 13.8 billion light years arises from the age of the universe:13.8 billion years.
If you refer to it as light years ( a distance but technically ok) then you must consider it in 4 Dimensions as a radius and a distance separate from 3D space ie the distance to other galaxies. It is a measurement of time at 90 degrees to our space containing galaxies.

Think of it as the radius of a sphere where the circumference is our space and the BB is at the centre. In a flat space scenario the same principle but harder to explain

 

[Gibsense]

Which theory is to be believed, one that has been proved over many years, namely the Hubble constant OR a Universe expanding at superluminal speeds for which (if truth be told) little proof exists in favour of except that it is vaguely indicated in Einstein's equations?

There is no 'which theory?'. Both situations are compatible.

• The Hubble constant is about the amount of stretch or space added per volume
• The amount of space added per volume means that the speed of recession increases the further you look
• At extreme distance, the speed of light is not sufficient to reach you given the expansion (space added) between you and that distant object and therefore you loosely say the universe is expanding at the speed of light (or super-luminal at even more distance) but this is the Observable bit and not necessarily the whole universe
• The universe does expand at the speed of light BUT it is the radius that increases at this speed by definition. Each second added is a light second. By definition it is c. the radius : ct which is not part of 3D space
• The increasing radius ct defines the Hubble Constant ie the circumference 3d space
• Distance beyond the Observable Universe Event Horizon may be so large, say, such that the distanct objects recede at multiple times the speed of light and this in no way contradicts the speed of light as a 'speed limit for travel through space. It is not mysterious or contradictory.