The speed of light, etc

[Sephiroth]

The scientists are often telling us that the various space telescope have observed light emanating some “short” time after the so-called “big bang”.

Is there a brainpower on this forum who can explain the paradox that I describe below.

For this discussion, two axioms apply:

1. There was a big bang c. 13.5 billion years ago;
2. The material of the universe has expanded ever since.

Taking one of the observations as an example of my point (no citation provided), we are told that we can observe a galactic event that took place 13 billion years ago (as measured by red-shift of the received light frequency).

But if our portion of the universe hadn’t yet been expanded to, how can we see light from 13 billion years ago unless one of the axioms is wrong?

Also this stuff about “Space-Time”. Is n’t time entirely relative to an observer and thus nothing to do with space?

[joglynne]

It's only Monday and you just made my head hurt. Not happy with you Sir!!!!!

This may (or may not) clarify things…

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/webb/big-bang-q-and-a/

And this expands upon it…

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27054

What astronomers actually have observed is that distant galaxies all appear to be receding from us, with a speed roughly proportional to their distance. We’ve known this since 1929, when Edwin Hubble drew his famous plot. From this we conclude a few simple things. First, we can get the approximate age of the universe by dividing the distance by the speed; the current value is around 14 billion years. The second and more striking conclusion is that there is no center of this expansion, even though we seem to be at the center. We can imagine what an astronomer would see living in another distant galaxy, and she would also conclude that the universe appears to be receding from her own location. The upshot is that there is no sign of a center of the universe.

And just to confuse you further

There is no first moment of time, just as there is no smallest positive number. In physics we have equations and laws of nature that describe how one situation changes into another, but we have no equations that show how true nothingness turns into somethingness. So, since the universe did not spring into existence, it has always existed, though perhaps not in its current form. That’s true, even though the apparent age of the universe is not infinite, but only very large. And, even though there’s no first moment of time, we can still measure the age.

[daveeb]

Don't worry about it. We live in a universe inside a gigantic black hole which is expanding in an external universe which is also expanding. I had this confirmed by Keith at my local the other night. Keiths also captain of the darts team so has many strings to his bow.

[mrmistoffelees]

And here’s the real noggin buster

It’s the space between galaxies that’s expanding and pushing them galaxies apart and that expansion is occurring faster than the speed of light. This is what gives us the term ‘the observable universe’

There are elements of the universe that we will never observe as it’s light will never reach us

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

This may (or may not) clarify things…

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/webb/big-bang-q-and-a/

And this expands upon it…

https://www.edge.org/response-detail/27054



And just to confuse you further

I read that too, and it encourages me. I doubt the big bang theory; I'm of the school that everything has always been there, in one form or another.

In that case, we will always be able to "see" events that occurred 13 billion years ago. There'll no doubt be a limit if Mr M's point holds good about expansion occurring faster than the speed of light.

[Jaymoss]

Thing is science can not even decide if light is a particle or a wave without that knowledge how can you take anything related to light with anything other than a pinch of salt

The only answer I want an answer too is where all the energy came from. From what I can find there is only one theory that does not require a pre existing energy source and that isa Quantum field theory that theorises Quantum Flutuations where energy just pops into and out of existence. Yes as convenient as Dark Matter and Dark Energy used to allow for the fact they had it all totally wrong and thought there was not enough energy or matter for the universe to still be expanding so they said oh it must be there we can not see it

[Sephiroth]

If you accept my theory that everything has always been there in one form or another, (and the things that it does) then it gets easier. And, indeed, it's logical.

On the question of light, I address this problem in my mind for an exclusive half-hour each day. It's clear that a source of energy emits light, which is why we can't see each other in the dark. If our eyes were IR sensitive, we could see each other. So there we have the proof that light is a waveform generated from energy.

Next, is light a particle? They seem to have isolated individual photons but they are said to be massless - and I believe that. Why? If, like the electron, photons are elementary particles (electron has mass - something elementary must have mass), then there is no need to explain their behaviour - like being bent by gravity. Rather interesting read: https://profoundphysics.com/if-photo...have-momentum/

Btw, "always been there" then there is no "God the Creator".

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

Thing is science can not even decide if light is a particle or a wave without that knowledge how can you take anything related to light with anything other than a pinch of salt

The only answer I want an answer too is where all the energy came from. From what I can find there is only one theory that does not require a pre existing energy source and that isa Quantum field theory that theorises Quantum Flutuations where energy just pops into and out of existence. Yes as convenient as Dark Matter and Dark Energy used to allow for the fact they had it all totally wrong and thought there was not enough energy or matter for the universe to still be expanding so they said oh it must be there we can not see it

It’s not about that scientists can’t decide , it’s that light behaves differently due to something called the wave-particle duality

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It’s not about that scientists can’t decide , it’s that light behaves differently due to something called the wave-particle duality

Now even light is turning trans lmao

[joglynne]

Does chaos theory come into this as well? Because trying to understand that when I was a very serious teenager, whilst also attempting to understand the difference between existentialism and nihilism, gave me a similar headache.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Arthur C Clarke had a lot to answer for. <<sigh>>


Sorry if my ramblings aren't relevant but, really, I don't think anyone has ever come up with a universally accepted definitive answer regarding what happened all those eons ago.

[Sephiroth]

I have come up with a "definitive answer", but universal acceptance would put a lot of people out of work. As in, Photons and Electrons are fundamental particles, along with a number of -uons and -ons of various sorts that, in chaos, produce more tangible matter.

And, they have always existed (how could it not be so?).

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by joglynne

Does chaos theory come into this as well? Because trying to understand that when I was a very serious teenager, whilst also attempting to understand the difference between existentialism and nihilism, gave me a similar headache.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Arthur C Clarke had a lot to answer for. <<sigh>>


Sorry if my ramblings aren't relevant but, really, I don't think anyone has ever come up with a universally accepted definitive answer regarding what happened all those eons ago.

all the scientists I have ever spoken to avoid like the plague the question "what come before the big bang" because basically it is a infinite question which can not be answerd.

Infinity blows my mind. I know the theory or cyclical the symbol figure 8 thing but we are here the matter we see is here it has always existed (unless of course our idea of reality is wrong and you can get something from nothing) but then even if there was nothing there is a infinite past of nothing no start. I am rambling now too haha

[Sephiroth]

Infinity is a fine concept when you align it, as mentioned before, with the highest positive number or the highest prime number.

To my mind, this answers it all. Space is infinite and matter recycles as gravity does its work. Indeed the entropy theory falls flat because although things cool down, they collide with other things which releases energy, particles, matter etc.

Simples. Or what?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Infinity is a fine concept when you align it, as mentioned before, with the highest positive number or the highest prime number.

To my mind, this answers it all. Space is infinite and matter recycles as gravity does its work. Indeed the entropy theory falls flat because although things cool down, they collide with other things which releases energy, particles, matter etc.

Simples. Or what?

Yeah but as I said that answers everything other than give it a beginning