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.

 

[Jim Franklin]

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?

Here’s a reasoned refutation of this post, breaking down the misconceptions, I will give you a mark at the end as if this were course work.

1. Misrepresentation of the Hubble Constant
   The Hubble constant (H0) quantifies the relationship between the distance of galaxies and their recession velocities due to the expansion of the universe. It does not "prove" the Big Bang but is consistent with a universe that has been expanding over time, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. The expansion described by the Hubble constant does not conflict with the Big Bang but complements it as part of our understanding of cosmic evolution.
2. Superluminal Expansion and the Big Bang
   • The claim that superluminal expansion disproves the Big Bang is incorrect. During the universe's inflationary period (a part of the Big Bang model), space itself expanded faster than the speed of light. This does not violate the laws of physics, as it is the fabric of space that is stretching, not objects moving through space at superluminal speeds.
   • The observable effects of the Big Bang, such as the cosmic microwave background radiation and large-scale structure formation, are independent evidence supporting the theory.
3. Dependence on Type Ia Supernovae:
   While Type Ia supernovae were instrumental in discovering the universe’s accelerating expansion, they are not the sole evidence for this phenomenon. Other lines of evidence include:
   • Baryon Acoustic Oscillations - These provide independent confirmation of the universe's expansion history.
   • Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) - Observations by WMAP and Planck missions show fluctuations consistent with the universe’s expansion history.
   • Galaxy Clustering: This supports dark energy as a component driving the acceleration.
4. "Either-Or" Fallacy
   The post sets up a false dichotomy, implying that either the Hubble constant supports the Big Bang or superluminal expansion disproves it. In reality:
   • The Hubble constant measures the current rate of expansion.
   • Superluminal expansion refers to a property of space during inflation or in distant parts of the universe due to the metric expansion of space, which does not contradict the Big Bang.
5. Misunderstanding of Relativity
   • The post misunderstands how Einstein's equations work in cosmology. The superluminal recession of distant galaxies is not about galaxies moving through space faster than light but about the expansion of space itself. This is a key distinction in general relativity.
   • Objects receding at superluminal speeds are not "invisible" but instead redshifted out of detectability. This is well-understood and consistent with observational data.
6. Calculations Misapplied
   • The calculation provided assumes a static Hubble constant over time and misinterprets the result. The universe’s expansion rate has changed over time due to the interplay between matter, radiation, and dark energy.
   • The value of H0 does not directly indicate a "Big Bang velocity." Instead, it reflects the current expansion rate. Attempting to calculate recession velocities at the time of the Big Bang using the current H0 value is conceptually flawed, as the physics of the very early universe was dominated by conditions (e.g., inflation) vastly different from the current state.
7. Support for the Big Bang Theory
   The Big Bang theory is supported by multiple lines of evidence beyond the Hubble constant, including:
   • The cosmic microwave background radiation, which provides a snapshot of the universe 380,000 years after the Big Bang.
   • The observed abundance of light elements (hydrogen, helium, lithium) predicted by Big Bang nucleosynthesis.
   • The large-scale structure of the universe, which aligns with simulations based on the Big Bang model.
8. Dark Energy and Einstein’s Equations
   • Dark energy is inferred from a variety of cosmological observations, not just supernovae. Its presence is consistent with Einstein’s equations, particularly the cosmological constant (Λ\LambdaΛ) introduced in the framework of general relativity.
   • The interpretation of dark energy as a driver of accelerated expansion does not negate the Big Bang but adds complexity to our understanding of the universe’s dynamics.

The post conflates several concepts and introduces misunderstandings about cosmology. The Big Bang theory and the metric expansion of space (including superluminal recession) are not mutually exclusive but part of a coherent model supported by a wide range of observational evidence. The Big Bang theory remains one of the most robust scientific frameworks for understanding the origin and evolution of the universe.

If you're interested in exploring this further, I recommend resources such as NASA's cosmology pages or introductory texts by authors like Stephen Hawking or Sean Carroll for accessible and accurate explanations of these phenomena. D-

 

[Jzz]

Gibsense and Jim Franklin, if there is one thing I resent it is being preached to and told to suck it up like it or not! The question of whether the Big Bang took place or not is central to the discussion. Leaving aside the concept of space time, which would not exist in the presence of a medium, and sticking to empirical facts. Edwin Hubble, was the first to notice and record the fact that the Universe seemed to be expanding and that the further away stars and galaxies were the faster they were moving. He came to this conclusion by using the original Doppler shift to measure the red shift of distant galaxies. This expansion was uniform over distance and came to be known as the Hubble constant. Incidentally I am not the first to think of extrapolating the Hubble shift in order to find the age of the Universe and the starting point of the Big Bang, the originator of this theory was George Gamow, taking the end point (starting point) to be the speed of light.

IF there was a Big Bang that had its origin as a singularity, an infinitesimal point, then it is natural that there would be expansion, a lot of it, considering the present size of the Universe. Equally obvious would be the fact that the further back we looked from the present day the faster the Universe would have been expanding. I think the crucial point to comprehend at this time is that it was the Universe that was expanding (i.e., there was nothing, including space, that was external to the Universe.). This being so, to state based on the fact of the red shift increasing with distance, that the Universe is expanding in the present day is not logical. If the Big Bang existed then yes the further away that stars and galaxies are the faster would be the rate of expansion. This is the point that is ignored.

Secondly, and certainly I am not claiming to be Einstein, but Augmented Newtonian Dynamics, states that light can never red-shift into the microwave range, it is an impossibility. I state this because it is supported by empirical proof. Only optical wave-lengths can be emitted directly by electrons, this has been proved by the working of caesium 133 atomic clocks, the microwave range at which the electrons in the caesium atom are made to oscillate lack the energy to leave the atom and instead manifest as a change in the energy of the atom to a metastable state. This means that light can never red-shift into the microwave range, the two types of electromagnetic radiation are made from two different processes, one is light (direct emission by the electron) the other is radio waves, which are composite waves. This in turn means that the CMBR is NOT relic radiation from the Big Bang it is the sound of the Universe in the present day. Think about it could a signal from 13.8 billion light years away be strong enough to be picked up by a valve radio or a ctv TV, surely not.

It is Dark Matter that is the true relic radiation from the Big Bang. Dark Matter consists of virtual photons possessing an electric dipole structure of such low energies 10^-51 that according to HUP they can exist for practically ever. The electric dipoles (photons) permeate every part of the Universe, precisely because they were produced in unimaginably large numbers but could not cross over the edge of the Universe (could not cross into space, since nothing exists outside the Universe) these dipole virtual photons therefore accumulated within the Universe permeating every part of it. These virtual photons (electric dipoles) are responsible for the propagation of light and for the propagation of gravity.

Calculations done using both the original Doppler shift and the relativistic Doppler shift are in agreement that up to about 13.8 billion light years the recession speeds are sub-luminal or luminal. The claim that light from stars and galaxies further away than this are super-luminal is ridiculous because it would be impossible to detect such light.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Gibsense and Jim Franklin, if there is one thing I resent it is being preached to and told to suck it up like it or not! The question of whether the Big Bang took place or not is central to the discussion. Leaving aside the concept of space time, which would not exist in the presence of a medium, and sticking to empirical facts. Edwin Hubble, was the first to notice and record the fact that the Universe seemed to be expanding and that the further away stars and galaxies were the faster they were moving. He came to this conclusion by using the original Doppler shift to measure the red shift of distant galaxies. This expansion was uniform over distance and came to be known as the Hubble constant. Incidentally I am not the first to think of extrapolating the Hubble shift in order to find the age of the Universe and the starting point of the Big Bang, the originator of this theory was George Gamow, taking the end point (starting point) to be the speed of light.

IF there was a Big Bang that had its origin as a singularity, an infinitesimal point, then it is natural that there would be expansion, a lot of it, considering the present size of the Universe. Equally obvious would be the fact that the further back we looked from the present day the faster the Universe would have been expanding. I think the crucial point to comprehend at this time is that it was the Universe that was expanding (i.e., there was nothing, including space, that was external to the Universe.). This being so, to state based on the fact of the red shift increasing with distance, that the Universe is expanding in the present day is not logical. If the Big Bang existed then yes the further away that stars and galaxies are the faster would be the rate of expansion. This is the point that is ignored.

Secondly, and certainly I am not claiming to be Einstein, but Augmented Newtonian Dynamics, states that light can never red-shift into the microwave range, it is an impossibility. I state this because it is supported by empirical proof. Only optical wave-lengths can be emitted directly by electrons, this has been proved by the working of caesium 133 atomic clocks, the microwave range at which the electrons in the caesium atom are made to oscillate lack the energy to leave the atom and instead manifest as a change in the energy of the atom to a metastable state. This means that light can never red-shift into the microwave range, the two types of electromagnetic radiation are made from two different processes, one is light (direct emission by the electron) the other is radio waves, which are composite waves. This in turn means that the CMBR is NOT relic radiation from the Big Bang it is the sound of the Universe in the present day. Think about it could a signal from 13.8 billion light years away be strong enough to be picked up by a valve radio or a ctv TV, surely not.

It is Dark Matter that is the true relic radiation from the Big Bang. Dark Matter consists of virtual photons possessing an electric dipole structure of such low energies 10^-51 that according to HUP they can exist for practically ever. The electric dipoles (photons) permeate every part of the Universe, precisely because they were produced in unimaginably large numbers but could not cross over the edge of the Universe (could not cross into space, since nothing exists outside the Universe) these dipole virtual photons therefore accumulated within the Universe permeating every part of it. These virtual photons (electric dipoles) are responsible for the propagation of light and for the propagation of gravity.

Calculations done using both the original Doppler shift and the relativistic Doppler shift are in agreement that up to about 13.8 billion light years the recession speeds are sub-luminal or luminal. The claim that light from stars and galaxies further away than this are super-luminal is ridiculous because it would be impossible to detect such light.

No-one, @Gibsense or myself, has told you to "suck it up", we have simply pointed out where you are making basic and fundamental errors in your understanding, this is not personal and should not be taken that way, it is simply science and education. Here’s a clear and respectful refutation of the claims, addressing the misunderstandings while keeping a neutral and informative tone.

1. Misrepresentation of Hubble’s Work

• Edwin Hubble observed the redshift of galaxies, which indicated they were moving away from us. This observation was consistent with an expanding universe. However, he did not describe or interpret this as a direct "Doppler shift" caused by motion through space. Instead, it is the cosmological redshift, which arises from the stretching of space itself, not the motion of galaxies in a pre-existing space.
• George Gamow contributed to Big Bang cosmology by proposing the theory of nucleosynthesis, but the calculation of the universe’s age from the Hubble constant was developed by many cosmologists, not solely Gamow.

2. "Uniform Expansion" and the Present Universe
The post incorrectly claims that if the universe expanded faster in the past, then it should not be expanding today. This misunderstands the physics of the Big Bang model. The rate of expansion is governed by the interplay of dark energy, dark matter, and ordinary matter, which can result in both deceleration (early universe) and acceleration (present universe). Observations show that the universe's expansion rate is currently accelerating, a fact supported by data from Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and the cosmic microwave background (CMB).
3. Redshift and the CMB

• The claim that light cannot redshift into the microwave range is incorrect. Light can and does stretch into longer wavelengths as space itself expands. This is a fundamental aspect of cosmological redshift and is consistent with observations. The CMB is radiation originally emitted as visible or infrared light when the universe was about 380,000 years old. Over 13.8 billion years, this light has redshifted into the microwave range due to the expansion of the universe.
• Caesium atomic clocks measure microwave emissions due to specific transitions in atoms, unrelated to the cosmological processes governing the CMB.

4. Strength of the CMB Signal
The CMB’s detectability has nothing to do with “valve radios.” Modern detectors are designed to be sensitive to the extremely weak CMB signal. Instruments like those on the COBE, WMAP, and Planck satellites have detected the CMB with remarkable precision, measuring temperature variations on the scale of microkelvin.
5. Dark Matter Mischaracterisation

• The claim that dark matter is "relic radiation" and consists of "virtual photons with electric dipoles" is speculative and not supported by current physics. Dark matter is hypothesized to consist of non-relativistic particles (e.g., WIMPs, axions) that do not interact electromagnetically. Virtual photons, as defined in quantum field theory, are transient particles that mediate electromagnetic forces, not the constituents of dark matter.
• The idea that virtual photons can “exist forever” violates the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP). Virtual particles are ephemeral and cannot be treated as stable entities.

6. Superluminal Expansion Misunderstanding

Superluminal recession speeds are a natural consequence of the expansion of space and do not violate the laws of physics or relativity. The light we detect from distant galaxies does not travel faster than light; rather, the galaxies’ apparent recession speeds due to the expansion of space exceed the speed of light at sufficient distances. This is well-understood in cosmology and consistent with Einstein’s equations.

7. The Sound of the Universe

The claim that the CMB is "the sound of the universe in the present day" is incorrect. The CMB is relic radiation from the early universe, specifically from the time when atoms first formed, allowing light to travel freely. It represents a snapshot of the universe at that time, not a contemporary phenomenon.

8. Detection of Light from Distant Galaxies

• The claim that light from galaxies beyond 13.8 billion light-years is undetectable because of superluminal expansion is a misunderstanding. Light emitted by such galaxies in the early universe has already reached us, stretched by the expanding space. Observations of extremely high redshift galaxies (e.g., using JWST) confirm this.

Your post conflates and misrepresents several scientific concepts, including the nature of redshift, the cosmic microwave background, dark matter, and superluminal expansion. The Big Bang theory is supported by robust empirical evidence, including the CMB, the observed large-scale structure of the universe, and the abundance of light elements.

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

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?

This plethora of misconceptions would never have arisen if Einstein and Minkowski had worded their statements about space-time better, because although they certainly understood relativity,
they likely over estimated the capacity of the average person, to understand their vague and incomplete descriptions of it . Or... could it be, that whoever translated their words into English actually mistranslated those words?

Minkowski said,

["Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."]
If you already understand relativity, that statement makes sense. If not, you would probably think it was gibberish

So, I will attempt to explain the phenomenon in a little more detail.

Minkowski space-time can be used to determine the position of observers or objects, relative to one another within a three dimensional volume of space, plus one of time environment. however when the term space- time, is incorrectly used to describe the relativistic aspects of the phenomenon, it becomes a misnomer, as it should really be known as distance-time, this is glaringly obvious if you take a moment to think about the term light-second! Is a light second a measure of distance or a measure of time? The answer to that is of course... Either , or both!

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

This plethora of misconceptions would never have arisen if Einstein and Minkowski had worded their statements about space-time better, because although they certainly understood relativity,
they likely over estimated the capacity of the average person, to understand their vague and incomplete descriptions of it . Or... could it be, that whoever translated their words into English actually mistranslated those words?

Minkowski said,

["Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality."]
If you already understand relativity, that statement makes sense. If not, you would probably think it was gibberish

So, I will attempt to explain the phenomenon in a little more detail.

Minkowski space-time can be used to determine the position of observers or objects, relative to one another within a three dimensional volume of space, plus one of time environment. however when the term space- time, is incorrectly used to describe the relativistic aspects of the phenomenon, it becomes a misnomer, as it should really be known as distance-time, this is glaringly obvious if you take a moment to think about the term light-second! Is a light second a measure of distance or a measure of time? The answer to that is of course... Either , or both!

OOpsdidnt mean to post yet i will have to begin a new instalment

 

[Gibsense]

Jim, amazing! Thanks, very clear, and for time and trouble.

 

[Helio]

• Edwin Hubble observed the redshift of galaxies, which indicated they were moving away from us. This observation was consistent with an expanding universe. However, he did not describe or interpret this as a direct "Doppler shift" caused by motion through space. Instead, it is the cosmological redshift, which arises from the stretching of space itself, not the motion of galaxies in a pre-existing space.

Yes. But I would like to add a little flavor to this. Although Hubble was the heavy hitter for galactic astronomy, given both his character and the key observer from the world's largest telescope (Mt. Wilson), he always avoided the expansion declaration to explain the redshifts. The redshifts mostly came from his companion, Humason, actually. Hubble chased distances. He used multiple techniques, including the use of Cepheids, to determine the distance. Distance and redshift, when combined, reveal the expansion rate. His best estimate was a rate of 500 kps/Mpc. This shows science, when free to operate normally, will tweak results with better instruments and knowledge.

De Sitter, shortly after Einstein's cosmology GR model (1917), showed showed redshifts could exist without any expansion. Hubble worked with de Sitter on occasion and was aware of this interpretation for redshifts. Also, his predecessor, Shapley, made the mistake of claiming a particular model was correct and he was wrong. Shapley respected the observations of a fellow Mt. Wilson observer who was convinced he saw rotational shifts over time for some spirals, thus they had to be very close to the MW. Shapley was convinced the spiral galaxies were not "island universes", but the Great Debate and soon Hubble's paper made it clear they are distant galaxies.

The person who first claimed the universe was expanding came a year or two ahead of Hubble. Georges Lemaitre was in the US, obtaining a PhD at MIT, and had time to travel to meet Vesto Slipher in Flagstaff, and Hubble at Mt. Wilson. He used the highly respected redshift data from Slipher and the highly respected distances from Hubble to produce the world's first estimate of the expansion rate , ~ 635 kps/Mpc., IIRC. [I'm short on time to look it up.] But he knew this was a crude estimate, hence Hubble's work soon produced more accurate results so Lemaitre's English translation of his original 1927 paper in French was avoided by Lemaitre, which seems incredibly humble to do so, IMO. [Those who stepped on Hubble's toes, however, were known to get bruised. Perhaps he knew this, but maybe not.]

You simply won't find any evidence of Hubble stating the universe is expanding no matter how many times he is credited for it. [In his later years, he did lean this direction, however.] He stated that he wanted to be a great astronomer and chose to leave theory for the cosmologists.

[Welp, my time is up. I hope to continue this later. ]

 

[Curiosity killed the cat]

Moving on to the words of Einstein, who said...

Space and time can no longer be independent. Rather, they are "converted" into each other in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers.

I would say...

Distance and time can no longer be independent Rather, they can be "experienced" in such a way as to keep the speed of light constant for all observers...

Its amazing how such a small edit can make such a huge difference to the meaning of that sentence.

There is no actual conversion of distance and time occurring, it is the perception of the observer which is altered.

I apologise for this preamble , but I can think of no other way of making my point about space-time, and the effect it has on cosmic expansion, plus all that has occurred since, (and possibly before, the event we know as the big bang.)

 

[Classical Motion]

I don’t think the speed of light limits our range of detection. I think it’s our ability to detect light density that limits us.

We need to be able to directionally filter much more than we do. And we need to be able to collect and integrate much longer periods. Very long exposures. Filling a detectable bucket with a teaspoon. Takes time.

An area filter, a great zoom….. and a photon “wave” integrator. Pointed at the darkest coldest spot you can find. I’ll bet galaxies will eventually appear. Unseen weak far away galaxies.

I think time integration will limit our detection range. As time goes by, our range should increase with it.

 

[Jim Franklin]

Yes. But I would like to add a little flavor to this. Although Hubble was the heavy hitter for galactic astronomy, given both his character and the key observer from the world's largest telescope (Mt. Wilson), he always avoided the expansion declaration to explain the redshifts. The redshifts mostly came from his companion, Humason, actually. Hubble chased distances. He used multiple techniques, including the use of Cepheids, to determine the distance. Distance and redshift, when combined, reveal the expansion rate. His best estimate was a rate of 500 kps/Mpc. This shows science, when free to operate normally, will tweak results with better instruments and knowledge.

De Sitter, shortly after Einstein's cosmology GR model (1917), showed showed redshifts could exist without any expansion. Hubble worked with de Sitter on occasion and was aware of this interpretation for redshifts. Also, his predecessor, Shapley, made the mistake of claiming a particular model was correct and he was wrong. Shapley respected the observations of a fellow Mt. Wilson observer who was convinced he saw rotational shifts over time for some spirals, thus they had to be very close to the MW. Shapley was convinced the spiral galaxies were not "island universes", but the Great Debate and soon Hubble's paper made it clear they are distant galaxies.

The person who first claimed the universe was expanding came a year or two ahead of Hubble. Georges Lemaitre was in the US, obtaining a PhD at MIT, and had time to travel to meet Vesto Slipher in Flagstaff, and Hubble at Mt. Wilson. He used the highly respected redshift data from Slipher and the highly respected distances from Hubble to produce the world's first estimate of the expansion rate , ~ 635 kps/Mpc., IIRC. [I'm short on time to look it up.] But he knew this was a crude estimate, hence Hubble's work soon produced more accurate results so Lemaitre's English translation of his original 1927 paper in French was avoided by Lemaitre, which seems incredibly humble to do so, IMO. [Those who stepped on Hubble's toes, however, were known to get bruised. Perhaps he knew this, but maybe not.]

You simply won't find any evidence of Hubble stating the universe is expanding no matter how many times he is credited for it. [In his later years, he did lean this direction, however.] He stated that he wanted to be a great astronomer and chose to leave theory for the cosmologists.

[Welp, my time is up. I hope to continue this later. ]

That does not make the findings from his work untrue, just because he was careful man who did not make statements that could be erroneous or misinterpreted.

 

[contrarian]

I don’t think the speed of light limits our range of detection.

The observable universe is defined as consisting of all the matter which can be seen from Earth by way of electromagnetic radiation.

Objects do exist beyond our limit of sight, which is limited by the speed of light. They are beyond our ability to ever see them as the light from these objects will never reach us due to their current distance and continuing expansion of the universe. This limit to humans is known as the "cosmic horizon".

How Big is the Universe?

How big is the universe around us? What we can observe gives us an answer, but it's likely much bigger than that.

www.space.com

 

[Classical Motion]

I assume by"observable universe " you mean what we can measure. Most stuff talked about can not be seen with naked eye.

If measurement is the qualifier for the observable universe.......then any improvement in detection will increase the size of the universe. I suggest incident, time integration will improve that measurement. If I did not confuse anybody. I seem to be a terrible explainer.

 

[Helio]

That does not make the findings from his work untrue, just because he was careful man who did not make statements that could be erroneous or misinterpreted.

Agreed. His work was monumental. Both he and Humason had to face daunting cold conditions to get useable glass-plate images with exposures that would exceed 40 hours. Slipher also had these exposure times and had to lean into his scope to help the imaging.

Hubble deserved the great notoriety he received for ending the debate about the “island universes”. He revealed a vastly larger universe than any could imagine.

But, too often the work of others have gone ignored. Let the facts speak for themselves.

The expansion claim history is interesting enough to establish properly.

The great pioneers of BBT should include all those giants. Einstein (GR), Slipher ( 1st spiral redshifts), Hubble (distances), Lemaitre (expansion discovery), Payne-Gaposhkin (Cepheids), etc.

iPhone

 

[Classical Motion]

I have always wondered if we went back and looked at our oldest, most distant star/galaxy spectrums, and compare those with our present day spectrums, what we might see. The far-est stars should have moved the most distance and the fastest rate, over the past decades, so that the shift of far stars should have changed the most.

Is this assumption correct? Or just too slight to measure or matter?

Are there data banks for such comparisons? Or is that what researchers have to do?

Is A.I. being asked such questions? Could A.I. find the proper info and compare?

And maybe another way to measure expansion rate?

 

[Helio]

I have always wondered if we went back and looked at our oldest, most distant star/galaxy spectrums, and compare those with our present day spectrums, what we might see. The far-est stars should have moved the most distance and the fastest rate, over the past decades, so that the shift of far stars should have changed the most.

There is likely some distance changes that might be found in those older spectrums, but not because the galaxy is now much farther away but because it was very difficult to image and measure those redshifts. The earlier spectrums would not be so clean as to match nicely with today's images, no doubt.

You may know that Lowell was convinced there was intelligent life on Mars, which he felt would explain the observed canals on Mars. Better observations, like galactic spectra images, revealed they were not canals as we would know them.

But, Lowell used his money to build his own private observatory to confirm his hypothesis about Mars. He located the obs. near Flagstaff. It's elevation of 7800 ft. (IIRC) was significantly higher than at the Lick Observatory near San Jose. Thus he though his smaller refractor (24", I think) at this altitude might prove superior to their results.

Regardless, Lowell, after hiring Slipher, eventually asked Slipher to do other things while Mars wasn't visible. Lowell asked him to study the spectrums of the "white nebulae", which were the spirals. Slipher had very weak results initially. He, however, improved their spectrograph by about 20x. This allowed him to get the first (IIRC) useable spectrums of spiral galaxies. In 1917, same year Einstein was developing his cosmology model, he had established 25 "redshifts", though 4 of these were blueshifted. [Blueshifts are a result of their close proximity to us. These galaxies are moving towards us, such as the Andromeda galaxy.]

When Slipher finally, after many nights, was able to obtain a decent spectrum with absorption lines visible, he had to wait for Lowell to send from the east coast his microscope. Amazingly, he was then able to estimate the Andromeda's motion to be 300 kps, and today's value is 301 kps. That accuracy is more the exception than the rule, however.

I hope you don't mind the bounce through history.

Slipher felt these velocites were represented motions just as would be explained by Doppler measurements. He, and the astronomy community, recognized that the very fast motions of the dimmer spirals were much to fast to be local nebulae velocities. This was a strong clue that the "island universe" theory was credible. When Slipher presented his work at a conference the scientists stood and applauded his work. Apparently, that's rare.

Hubble, unlike Slipher, avoided the idea that the spirals were actually moving. He called the velocities "apparent velocities", as we call the observed magnitude of a star "apparent magnitude" and not the true (i.e. absolute) magnitude.

Hubble was acting wisely, nevertheless, because de Sitter had already shown that redshifts could exist for non-moving objects (e.g. galaxies), but I'm repeating myself from my prior post.