It’s an established, working theory in Astronomy, that the Universe is approximately 12 billion years old, well, maybe 13. At the same time, Astronomers have been able to observe distant objects in the Universe, far beyond our own galaxy and most others, the light of which has taken 13 billion years or so to reach us. And as the linked article suggests, there is an issue around how Astronomers claim to know this. And so a key phenomenon which takes place, is called The Doppler Effect, which is akin to how the sound of a car on the highway seems higher in pitch when it’s moving towards us, but drops down in pitch as it passes us. This phenomenon also takes place with Light.
If the light of a distant object is in fact red-shifted, then a natural conclusion which Astronomers might come to, is that this must be due, to the Doppler Effect. Alternative hypotheses which have been proposed included ‘Tired Light’, the idea that light just gets tired as it travels through space, and loses photon energy. The Tired Light hypothesis is presently defunct.
But there could be another way to explain why, the light from such a distant object is red-shifted. If the light took 13 billion years to reach us, this might really just mean, that those objects were 2.9 billion light-years away from us, when they emitted the light which we observe today. In the 13 billion years that followed, those objects can easily have moved further away from us. How much further? We really don’t know.
But if the concept is held to be true, that a Universe which is ‘only’ 13 billion years old, may in fact presently be bigger – than to have a size of 13 billion light-years – then this stumbles over very reliable Laws in Physics, which tell us that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. And so an answer which has been put out there is, that ‘space itself has expanded’. This is a statement that would have profound implications if it should happen to be true, because it would imply that contrarily to common wisdom, space does not just consist of nothing.
But, by how much can (intergalactic) space have expanded? A hint might lie, in the factor by which the light has been red-shifted, and thus also reduced in frequency: slightly more than a factor of 9. If space really had the ability to expand, and did so as it seems, then it would seem natural to me to think that light traveling through space has also expanded (meaning its wavelength).
And so, if the light traveled 13 billion years to reach us, but has arrived at 1/9 its original frequency, it may be that the distance of the source of that light, has also increased by a factor of approximately 9. And so the present distance, of whatever became of that object, that we cannot observe, may be as far as 26 billion light-years.
Unless, 13 billion years ago, galaxies were traveling away from each other at 90% the speed of light.
(As Of 08/22/2018, 10h00 : )
What would not make sense, would be to suggest that the same object was originally 1.4 billion light-years away, but that it took light 13 billion years anyway, to reach us. And the reason for that would be the connected assumption, that originally, light would have started to close a mere 1.4 billion light-year distance. It was only as the light had already traveled, that the distances between such an object and our current position would have increased, for which reason the time it would have taken, was related more-closely, to the Integral of (x). The Integral of (x) , is 1/2 (x2) . ( –> :1 )
(Updated 08/23/2018, 22h50 : )
Another way to say the same thing would be, that if two objects were moving away from each other at relativistic speeds, and presently 13 billion light-years apart, then the light which Object A would be seeing as coming from Object B, would be light from less than 13 billion years ago, and that Object B would have moved since then. But then, just to suggest that the light which Object A is seeing would be 6.5 billion years old, would be a mere approximation, similar to the approximation which I made above, using the notion of an integral. ( :2 )
(As Of 08/22/2018, 10h00 : )
This line of reasoning also affects how we may explain the so-called “Two-Degree Kelvin Noise“, that radio-astronomers can measure as coming uniformly from space, but from apparently-empty regions of space. The official explanation for that is, that it’s ‘Thermal noise from The Big Bang itself, which has cooled down, due to the expansion of the Universe.’
The problem I see with this explanation is, that if a big-bang took place literally, it would be reasonable to assume that its temperatures would have been similar to or higher, than the temperatures that exist at the center of our Sun, because after all, the entire Universe would have emerged from such an intense explosion. So, if we simply compared that the temperature of The Big Bang might have been 2 Million K, but that the residual noise we can detect is consistent with temperatures of about 2 K, it would seem to follow that the Universe has since expanded by at least a factor of 1 million. While I can visualize an expanding Universe, I find such a huge factor of expansion to be unlikely. A factor of 9-10 maybe, a factor of 106 , less likely so.
All I’d venture to say about the 2 K noise, is that it’s residual noise of some kind, but that we don’t really know what caused it. Similarly, while it seems unavoidable that the Universe is expanding, simply to say that a backwards-extrapolation of this, to a pea-sized Universe that expanded by a factor of much more than 1 million, suddenly at first, is wanton speculation. I’d prefer to say, that present-day Scientists do not truly know, how or why the Universe began. Presently, Scientists are saying that it began, with a Cosmological equivalent of an Adam and Eve, simply because presently, every Human Being had a Mother and a Father…
(Updated 08/22/2018, 14h45 : )
- When Astronomers look into greater distances of the cosmos, they are also looking back further and further in time – into the distant past before some current galaxies were formed.
- In the Early Universe, distances were considerably shorter, as the Early Universe was smaller, than the present Universe.
- In reality, our Earth has become more distant from that set of observable coordinates – In every direction at once, according to visualization in 3D.
- Other objects which we see, may presently be as distant from the same set of coordinates, but in the opposite directions, from the directions in which we have become distant.
- The same phenomenon is likely to be observable, from anywhere in the Universe.
- The Radius of the Universe may be expanding, at the speed of light.
(Update 08/22/2018, 19h55 : )
One important difference between their hypothesis and mine, which I’d like to point out, is that according to them, the Universe could consist largely of space, from which light has not had the time to reach us. I think that my hypothesis is still more conservative, in that I only estimated the distances to max out at 2x 13 billion light-years. Further, according to my hypothesis, light from the Early Universe’s objects did in fact reach us, except, it could be easy to miscalculate what the distance of such objects would be in the present.
One reason fw to calculate this would be difficult, is the probability with which such ancient objects may no longer even exist. And another, is the fact that our galaxy, and our solar system, did not exist yet, in the Early Universe. And so the very notion of where points in space might be today, the light from which has taken 13 billion years to reach us, is very ephemeral.
But an equally ephemeral question which I’d like to voice a potential answer to, is ‘Why points in the Early Universe could not have been close to our corresponding point, in the Early Universe, Why instead, those other points would already have been maximally distant from ours, and traveling away from us.’ And the answer which I would suggest is, that ‘Points close to our corresponding point, in the Early Universe, did exist, but mapped out to points in the vicinity of our own galaxy in the present, from which light reached us comparatively quickly. If the points mapped out to cosmologically distant apparitions in our present view of the Universe, then that should be, because they were already far away from our corresponding positions, in the Early Universe, and traveling away from us’.
(Updated 08/23/2018, 22h50 : )
Alternatively, the concept of Point A and Point B traveling away from each other, can be expressed entirely in relativistic terms, if we define a reference frame in which Point A is stationary, and Point B is moving away from it at 90% the speed of light, similarly to how the most distant objects in the Universe seem red-shifted by a factor of ~9.
One problem I see in trying to apply pure Relativity to the expansion of the Cosmos is, that I’m not completely sure that it’s the same phenomenon.
(Update 08/23/2018, 23h55 : )
I can take this thought experiment one step further. We could assume that within the next few thousand years, Humanity will live out a happy retirement. But another 10 billion years from today, a different civilization could evolve, which also points its telescopes skywards, and it will find that its telescopes can peer backwards into the depths of its Universe, and therefore backwards in time, 23 billion years instead of our 13 billion years, because their Universe will have become 10 billion years older than ours. I’m not sure to what extent this fails to suggest, that the Universe will be expanding at the speed of light.