time and space - measurements

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

I am reading an article suggesting the age of the universe is ~ 13.7 billions years old ( since the big bang, which I am not a fan of). The article sets up a model that suggests some galaxies reside about 45 billion light years away.
So, my conundrum - if the universe is ~13.7 billion years old how can anything exist 45 billion light years away? That is, it takes light 45 billion light years to come and go from there. If the universe is only 13.7 billion how did these galaxies get further in time ( 45 billion) then the age of the universe? What am I missing?


Now that said, the notion of the universe being 13.7 billion years of age never sat with me well. It's as if one is looking down a tunnel and says the length of the tunnel must be 13.7 billion years old - because that is where I see light coming from. The' light bulb' resides 13.7 billion years away , but that does not suggest the tunnel is that long or that old - it is only where the light is originating from... see my point? The tunnel ( the universe) can be older but not have any light that we are familiar with emitting from the older sections , or our inability to see that far away is not within our technology today.


praṇām

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Yajvanji:

Methinks you think too much. Clearly there is something missing with these scientists conjecture. I am in agreement that there is contradiction.

One explanation my wife came up with was that during big bang (Not my favorite theory either) , the explosion sent stuff out faster than the speed of light. (This goes against the conjecture that nothing is faster) Another possibility is that big bang happened simultaneously in more than one 'place' at the same time.

Since my general take on this stuff is "Who cares?" thank you for momentarily removing me from my box.

Aum namasivaya

[sanjaya]

Hello Yajvan. The answer to your question is that in the moments shortly after the Big Bang, space itself expanded at a rate faster than the vacuum speed of light. We astrophysicists are quite certain that no matter or information can ever exceed the speed of light, but since space-time itself is neither, such expansion is possible. That is why matter has been spread to such distances that the light should not be able to reach us in a static universe. It's also possibled that there may be regions of the universe that aren't even causally connected to us, i.e. due to the expansion rate of space the light will never reach us. In any case, there are actually a lot of funny ways of measuring distance, including distance, redshift, radial comoving distance, etc. Often times the radial comoving distance is greater than 13.7 billion years, and this can be a source of confusion too.

If I may ask: what is the source of the problem with the Big Bang for the two of you? Are these theological difficulties or scientific ones?

[Eastern Mind]

If I may ask: what is the source of the problem with the Big Bang for the two of you? Are these theological difficulties or scientific ones?

Vannakkam Sanjaya: For me its partly scientific arrogance. There have been so many times when 'scientific' theories have been proven wrong that it just wouldn't surprise me that another more logical theory comes along.

Theologically, I prefer to see the expansion/contraction of the universe as Siva's breathing. And such a massive explosion seems contradictory to that. But hey I'm not really radical anti on any theory.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast� sanjaya.

Hello Yajvan. The answer to your question is that in the moments shortly after the Big Bang, space itself expanded at a rate faster than the vacuum speed of light.

In any case, there are actually a lot of funny ways of measuring distance, including distance, redshift, radial comoving distance, etc. Often times the radial comoving distance is greater than 13.7 billion years, and this can be a source of confusion too.

If I may ask: what is the source of the problem with the Big Bang for the two of you? Are these theological difficulties or scientific ones?

Once again you add logic and insight that is valued. I still have a slight brain cramp. How does space 'expand' ? That is, what medium is it expanding into other then itself - ākāśa ? If I take matter I can see it expand into ākāśa ( pure space). But space expanding suggests there was something there before the expansion, no?

re: Measurement of distance - yes I am fine with this e.g. redshifts, par-secs, AU's, etc.


re: My Big Bang conundrum
I have a few issues.

• The notion does not offer a source of its origination that I am aware of. That is:
  • What is the primary cause for the Big Bang to occur - what stability or instability occurred for this event to happen?
  • What is behind the Big Bang? Where is the raw materials for this to occur ?
  • Where did this Big Bang reside if it is the 'source' of the Universe. What was it's cradle ?
• I am okay with the notion ( but not in its finality) that it ( the Bang) may be the source for all matter and anti-matter yet there is the nagging questions above remain
• Time - the 13.7 billion years ago is a very small time when one considers eternity

I ask these questions in awe , and without malice.

It seems to me that the colliding sting theory fits a bit better in my mind. The strings were always there. They come together and from that connection, more 'creation' occurs. This could be the point of the Big Bang or of many.

From a theological point of view I am much more comfortable with creation, manifestation, and the like yet could not write a formula that would describe it. It is beyond the notion of a specific beginning. For many that may view vedānta or kaśmir śaivism it is the notion of the Supreme curving back onto itSELF to create again and again.

praṇām

[sanjaya]

Once again you add logic and insight that is valued. I still have a slight brain cramp. How does space 'expand' ? That is, what medium is it expanding into other then itself - ākāśa ? If I take matter I can see it expand into ākāśa ( pure space). But space expanding suggests there was something there before the expansion, no?

It does suggest that at first glance. However, we can talk about expansion by describing the distance between any two points. Physically this manifests itself as sort of an outward pressure on physical systems. For example, a very large dust cloud might actually be retarded in its gravitational collapse due to Hubble expansion. We don't notice this effect at our small scales, because individual galaxies are gravitationally bound, and won't feel any expansion pressure. Strange as it may sound, the theory doesn't actually require that the universe be expanding into anything else.

The notion does not offer a source of its origination that I am aware of. That is:

• What is the primary cause for the Big Bang to occur - what stability or instability occurred for this event to happen?
• What is behind the Big Bang? Where is the raw materials for this to occur ?
• Where did this Big Bang reside if it is the 'source' of the Universe. What was it's cradle ?

The primary cause of the Big Bang is usually taken to be a particle field called the inflaton [spelled correctly] field. This inflaton field would have driven the early inflation and later expansion fo the universe.

The raw material for the Big Bang is, I suppose, taken to be preexistent. Most scientists are atheists and will of course reject any notion that God put it there, and will simply respond by saying that the preexistence of matter (or rather radiation fields) in the initial universe is no more absurd than positing the eternity of God. We theists can of course insert God here and say that he is the actual source of the initial state of the universe. That said I have to hand it to the atheists that doing so does nothing for the theory, and perhaps even puts God in too small a box.

As for the source or cradle of the universe, we can avoid this question with a bit of linguistic gymanstics. The universe is defined as all that there is. Thus, it ultimately doesn't make sense to ask what is outside the universe. Perhaps not the most satisfying answer, but I suppose it's the logical one.

• I am okay with the notion ( but not in its finality) that it ( the Bang) may be the source for all matter and anti-matter yet there is the nagging questions above remain
• Time - the 13.7 billion years ago is a very small time when one considers eternity

In a sense it is a relatively small time. But it is a remarkable feat that we have deduced that the universe has a finite age rather than an infinite one. And a finite number has to take some value. But considering that the earth is 4 billion years and that biological evolution has taken place for 3 billion years or so, it does seem like a very short time indeed.

I ask these questions in awe , and without malice.

Of course. I never perceived any differently.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya,

you offer

It does suggest that at first glance. However, we can talk about expansion by describing the distance between any two points. Physically this manifests itself as sort of an outward pressure on physical systems. For example, a very large dust cloud might actually be retarded in its gravitational collapse due to Hubble expansion

Yes, I comprehend this, yet we are talking something that has mass correct? Where do we find mass of perfect space? Hence my understanding remains constrained to how space can expand - something with no mass., but expanding. Now that said let me offer another POV:
Of the things we have discussed the wise have always used ākāśa as a perfect paradigm for brahman. An idea that we can 'see' that is without bounds. I can 'see' space or really the absense of objects, and hence the space between things.

The beauty here is brahman, which is rooted in bṛh which aligns nicely with this conversation. This bṛh is that which expands, to make big or strong , increase , further, extend, to grow great, etc. Some times it is written as bṛṃh.
This root is used in bṛhaspati and is another name for guru (Jupiter) . I only mention this as guru/ bṛhaspati/jupiter is the owner of the tattva ( element) ākāśa, which brings us full circle back to the conversation . That said, perhaps expansion is occuring all the time ( so says science ), yet we can not at this point know this rate of change of expansion, correct? But the expansion is occuring within this bṛh , then science and spirit lines up. A difference here that has not been addressed is also the expansion of consciousness , as there is cid-ākāśa we have not discussed. This is outside of science me thinks?

re: Inflation - yes , I have listened to a few programs on this as scientists discussed this in the last few years. I have paid special attention to Saul Perlmutter and the Supernova Cosmology Project.
Hence the conversation then goes back to Open, Flat and Closed universe models, let alone excellerating ones.
You have explained 'flat' in past posts , thank you. If Saul's work is firm I think I vote for an Open Universe myself,only by gut feel, but look to those smarter then me for coaching.


re: The raw material for the Big Bang is, I suppose, taken to be preexistent.
Perhaps the word unmanifest may work here? or all the work in quantum physics where the universe is mainly vertual? I am not conversant enough to express Dr. Feynman's ideas, yet I think his work is predicated on existeince itself and what manifests from the unmanifest.


Thank you again for considering the ideas offered in this string.


praṇām