Size and Age of the Universe

The Paradigm

From the time Edwin Hubble realized the universe was expanding; it was generally acknowledged that at one time all matter and energy must have had a common point and time of origin; a primeval atom. How everything went from crammed - the primeval atom - to expansive – our universe - was popularly called (among journalists and the public at large) the Big Bang. Refinements in the determination of the rate of the universe’s expansion; Hubble Constant (now valued at approximately 68(km/s)/Mpc) and analysis of the cosmic background radiation (recorded by the European Space Agency’s Planck mission has) lead researchers to the conclusion that the “big bang” occurred 13.82 billion years ago. But in astronomy, by definition time and distance are linked. A supernova observed 100 million light years from earth occurred 100 million years ago. If the Big Bang is determined to have happened 13.82 billion years ago, then it is occurring 13.82 billion light years away.

Beyond the Paradigm

If the outside limit of the universe is expanding at the speed of light, then no time is passing at the limits of the universe, the Big Bang, so what from our perspective happened 13.82 billion years ago is in reality still happening.

Figure 1 Cosmic microwave background recorded by the Planck mission.

Because, with slight variations, the cosmic background radiation is uniform across the sky, the Big Bang appears to be in all directions; giving the illusion of putting Earth at the center of the universe – shades of Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the cosmos. In reality this means, that from our position in the universe, the actual Big Bang is only one point in the sky, 13.82 billion light years away, and the rest of the observed cosmic background radiation is a relativistic mirage (often referred to as the cosmic horizon) created by space expanding away from us faster than the speed of light. Nothing can actually travel faster than the speed of light but relative to us, space on the celestial sphere is moving away from us at some speed between one and two times the speed of light, depending on how fast we are actually moving compared to the speed of light and where on the celestial sphere you are looking. The closer you are to the opposite point in the sky from the Big Bang, the closer the universe is to expanding away from us at 2 C.  The light we see left that point in space started toward us 13.82 billion years ago, which means that the minimum age of the universe is 13.82 billion years old – from our perspective – and there may be no reason for the universe not to be 10¹⁰⁰ times older than that.

Figure 2 Our visible universe shown within  a possibly much larger universe which exists beyond  the relativistic mirage which marks the visual horizon of our universe.

If the universe is spherical, as it is from our interior perspective, then the minimum radius of the universe is 13.82 billion light years. If the rate of expansion continues to exceed the rate at which gravity pulls matter together, then it will eventually fade into dead stars and black holes. If at some point in space and time, expansion is less than the force of gravity between distant super clusters, matter will pull together; creating hyper-black holes. At the very center of our universe, they may coalesce to form, a universal core; a hyper-black hole with more mass than is contained in the observable cosmos. For an observer within the core’s vicinity (say for instance, 13.82 light years) the universe would still appear to expanding but, in the direction of the core; where mass is slowing the speed of light, the flow of time, and is actually contracting space relative to the observer; space’s expansion would be dramatically slowed. The core, visible in the sky as an area of ultra red shifted light, it would, paradoxically look like the Big Bang, but centered on a point in the sky.

In summary:

·         The size and age of the universe depends on where you are.

·         No matter where you are in the universe, you appear to be at its center.

·         The minimum age, if the calculations based on Hubble Constant and the background cosmic radiation are correct, is 13.82 billion years old.

·         There is no way, presently, to determine the actual age and size of the universe.

·         There may be a galactic core composed of a hyper-black hole.

Questions that need answers:

Could the anomalies in the cosmic microwave background radiation provide clues to the actual size and age of the universe? For example could the slightly cooler anomaly indicate the point in the sky directly opposite from the location which marks the actual Big Bang?

Are there limits as to the size and age of the universe?

How would a universe core affect the rate of expansion in the surrounding space?

Links:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://www.nature.com/news/did-a-hyper-black-hole-spawn-the-universe-1.13743

http://hubblesite.org/reference_desk/faq/all.php.cat=cosmology

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/facts.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

Dark Energy

Shining a light on Dark Energy

The Paradigm

For 375,000 years following the Big Bang, the universe expanded very rapidly; a time referred to as the inflationary period. Despite its incredible density, and the gravitational fields that were being generated as the first matter condensed; the universe's rate of expansion appears to have exceeded the speed of light . The reason given for the universe not collapsing back in on itself is that there is/was another force, “dark energy”, which acted as an anti-gravitational repulsive force.  Dark energy continues to affect the expansion of the universe, although on a much less dramatic level.

Beyond the Paradigm 

If the universe is growing inwards (see Big Bang or the Big Bloat?), there is no reason to use dark energy as an anti-gravitational force to explain the expansion of the universe. The universe is growing because the closer you are to the center, the faster time flows. The apparent acceleration in the growth of our universe after its formation is due to the decreased time flow of the most distant objects, and our present inability to tell how fast time is flowing for those objects.  The effect is like watching a movie of a car being driven away from a camera. The car was moving at a constant speed. The camera recorded the car at a set rate. But, if when the movie is viewed, the initial frame lasts for a full second, and then the rate at which the film is shown is doubles the frame rate every second for several seconds. Then the rate slows; increasing at only a frame per second, until the speed of the projector matches that of the camera. Initially, the car will appear to undergo a tremendous acceleration; followed by a slower, gradual, acceleration. The universe is like that film, the most distant objects we see moving within a slower frame rate; the closer they are the closer their time flow is to ours.

Figure 4 Timeline of the Universe - A representation of the evolution of the universe over 13.7 billion years. Credit: NASA/WMAP Science Team

The accelerated expansion observed over the last 4 billion years (as seen within 4 billion light years of earth) may well be the result of the acceleration of time due to decreased influence of gravity over our region of the universe.

Dark energy may well prove to be the cosmic ether of late 20^th early 21^st century astrophysics.

Questions that need answers:

Does the difference in time flow as you approach the Big Bang, the outer limits of the universe, account for the observed expansion or is “dark energy” still needed?

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy/

http://hubblesite.org/hubble_discoveries/dark_energy/de-what_is_dark_energy.php

The Big Bang or the Big Bloat?

The Big Bang or the Big Bloat?

Riddle me this:

What is very big but very small?

Constantly grows but stays the same?

Is very old but is just born?

The universe.

If nothing else, the universe is dense with paradox. We live in three dimensional space and experience the flow of time. That is not true everywhere and for all things. Light exists without time and in an undefined space; which in our space may result in the perception that light acts as both wave and a particle. In some ways the universe parallels light; depending on your perspective, the universe can be paradoxically different.

The Paradigm

The most commonly accepted explanation for the origin of our universe is the Big Bang Theory. Briefly, about 13.8 billion years ago all the matter and energy of the universe was in an incredibly small, hot, dense state which then started to expand. With expansion, time and space - as we perceive it – were created. Accelerating rapidly, due the antigravitational force of dark energy, the universe was/is a growing bubble of space-time. As it grew and cooled, subatomic particles formed; followed by the first atoms. As it grew larger, the force of gravity became strong enough to overcome the repulsive force of dark energy, and began to pull matter together to form stars, then galaxies.

That the universe is expanding has been convincingly demonstrated by the observed red shift in all distant (beyond the local group of galaxies) objects, with the more distant the objects the greater the red shift. Cosmic background radiation, coming from all directions in the sky, is cited as conclusive evidence of the original event, the big bang of the Big Bang. The background radiation is viewed as the ultra red shifted light emitted by matter near the edge of universe, and traveling at near speed of light away from us. Two major problems with the Big Bang Theory are that it requires using an unknown force, dark energy, to explain the expansion and it seems to contradict relativity.

Beyond the Paradigm

The TARDIS Effect

The BBC’s Doctor Who travels through space and time in a ship called the Tardis, which is short for “Time and Relative Dimension in Space”. Its most distinguishing characteristic, other than the fact in looks like an old British police call box; is, as any character in the series remarks upon first entering, “It’s larger on the inside than the outside”.

We are residents of an easily recognizable three dimensional plus time universe. And we interpret what we see using what we know. When something expands, like a balloon being inflated, its outside edges are moving away from a central point, increasing the volume. But the universe isn’t a balloon. 

A tenant of the Theory of Relativity is that as speed increases the flow of time decreases. To calculate the time that passed by for a moving reference (seen by an observer) compared to the observer, use the following derivative of the Lorentz Transformation:

   

Where:

t’… is the time that passed by for the moving reference

t… is the time that passed by for the stationary reference (for simplicity, set to 1)

v… is the speed of the moving reference (set as a decimal fraction of c)

c… is the speed of light

When v is measured as a percent of c, as v approaches c, t’ approaches 0

Figure 2 Graph of time dilation as the observed objects speed goes to the speed of light (C).

It appears that the Big Bang is both the origin and outer edge of the universe. If the universe as we know it is expanding at the speed of light; the outer boundary, the edge, does not experience time - there is no time for anything moving at the speed of light. Whether the universe formed
13.82 billion years ago or 10¹⁰⁰ years ago, no time has passed for the edge of the universe. If no time has passed, the edge cannot have moved; the outside could not have expanded. But the universe is expanding. When our universe first formed it had to have had some spatial dimension. It had to have a central area that experienced time. If there was a time differential, there was time to expand. The universe is not expanding outwards; it is expanding inwards; an implosion creating space internally. The closer to the center, the larger the universe becomes.

What is very big but very small?

From our vantage point in the universe it has a radius of approximately 13.82 billion light years; near its edge, it approaches a singularity in size.

Constantly grows but stays the same?

From our vantage point in the universe it appears to be expanding at rate refered to as the Hubble Constant, approximately 68(km/sec)/Mpc; but at the Big Bang the size is frozen in time.

Is very old but is just born?

Like size and growth, the age of the universe depends on where you are. For mankind it is 13.82 billion years old; near the edge the universe has just come into existence.

Questions that need answers:

How is time created?

Is the Hubble Constant truly a constant? That is, does it vary depending on the density of the universe, or does it change due to the different flow of time depending on how far from the Big Bang expansion is being observed?

How is matter created?

Atomic theory is in large part derived from experiments in which atoms and subatomic particles are smashed; but what if the products of destruction are not the same as those of construction?

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/tdil.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Introduction and Consilience

Beyond the paradigm; getting more than your twenty cents worth.

Or

Possible answers to, alternative explanations for, and pertinent questions regarding some of science’s most vexing problems.

Introduction:

          Consilience

To truly know anything – to be able to visualize all its implications and apply it appropriately to new situations – requires knowing everything “anything” involves.  Essentially; impossible. But, it follows, the more we know about everything, the more we can learn. But again, the more we learn the harder it is to know everything. Which makes truly knowing anything harder.

With the explosive growth in information has come a tendency for scientists, as well as doctors, lawyers, economists, educators, and just about every other profession, to specialize in specific fields. It takes so long to learn the specialized knowledge for a given profession that there is not time to delve deeply into how your field is interconnected with other. Without the consilience that comes from being able to place specific facts within their overall web of interaction we run the risks of over simplifying, ignoring salient information, or heading down the wrong tract in search of further explanation.

The hypotheses that are presented in this document are consistent with known observations and the theory of relativity (as I understand it). They have not been experimentally proven.  It is my hope that they will provide a different way at looking at the problems and lead to new ways of investigating these issues by the present and future generation of scientists.

My credentials:

My academic career started as an engineering major at the University of Connecticut. After an intermission as an U.S. Navy Corpsman, I returned to UConn as a Geology major.  I transferred to Central Connecticut State University from which I received my BS and MS with educational certifications in biology, earth science, and general science.  My post Masters Degree advanced certificate (6th year science specialist) was part of the ISIS Program (Institute for Science Instruction & Study) at Southern Connecticut State University.

Presently a retired teacher; having spent a third of a century teaching primarily high school physical science, earth science, geology and astronomy. During those years, I found it imperative that before trying to teach a curriculum, I had to internalize the subject matter. So while I had a level of what would be considered expertise in geology and environmental science; I had to immerse myself into astronomy, atomic theory, basic chemistry, physics, climatology, oceanography, and electromagnetism. As a result, I am not a recognized expert in any one area of study, but I am a generalist with a basic background in a wide range of scientific fields. It seems to have been an education that has given me the ability to see a bigger picture; a wider perspective which experts may lack. This in turn may have allowed me to pull together bits and pieces of sometimes seemingly disparate information to create hypotheses representing a more accurate understanding of reality.  To be able to see what others have missed.

Wave-Particle Duality of Light

On the wave-particle duality of light.

or

It’s a matter of time, space, and relativity.

Understanding light is the key to understanding the universe. Not just because emitted or reflected electromagnetic radiation –light – allows us to see the cosmos, but because the rules found to govern the genesis and behavior of light may lead to deciphering the actual nature of all subatomic particles and the structure of the universe.

The Paradigm

Figure 1 Absorption and emission of photons.

Photons of light are produced when an atom’s electrons drop from higher to lower energy states. Introductory physics teaches that the photons of light behave both as waves and particles.  Its wave like nature can be demonstrated by the interference pattern produced during a double slit experiment. Its particle nature, the photon, can best be shown by photoelectric effect. Its dual nature, by the way light reflects and refracts. Quantum physics theorizes the wave-particle duality for all matter, but is most noticeable in small, subatomic, particles.

A paradox arose when investigating lights duality. In a double slit experiment set up with one photon being produced at a time, an interference pattern was still seen; it was as if the photon was interfering with itself. But if a particle detector was placed in one of the slits the interference pattern disappeared – the photons ceased to act as waves and behaved as particles. 

Beyond the Paradigm

How light can behave both as a wave and a particle is easier to explain if you approach the problem from the photon of light’s perspective. An important principle of relativity states that as speeds increase, time slows. At the speed of light, time ceases to have meaning; it stops. Therefore light itself does not experience time. Everything that happens to a photon in our universe, from the time it is generated till it is absorbed - as far as the photon is concerned - happens simultaneously. Distances are meaningless to light. If distance equals rate times time and time goes to zero, all distances go to 0. For light there is no difference between traveling to an abutting atom or clear across the universe. The distance is the same; there is none. When a photon is produced, it fills the space it exists in. From the light’s perspective, it instantaneously fills its universe. But in the universe as we perceive it, the photon would be described as a wave of energy moving away from its source at the speed of light (C). And if unabsorbed, the light would continue to spread out to fill the universe. But if at any point in our perceived universe the photon is absorbed, the apparent wave disappears. Thus light is a particle and appears as a wave. In the double slit experiment, the photon does interfere with itself because the photon is entering both slits at the same time. If the photon is absorbed, it disappears everywhere at the same instant.

Questions that need answers:

How does an electron dropping energy levels actually produce a photon?

How does an electron absorb a photon?

When electrons drop energy levels they release energy in the form of photons.  The more levels dropped the more energetic the photon and the greater the time difference between levels. What happens to time as electrons are transitioning between energy levels?

Are the discreet energy levels of atoms related to the time differential between levels?

What effect does speed of a charged particle have on the particle’s charge?

If the faster a charged object is moving the slower its time flows (even if the difference is minuscule), what effect does the difference in time flow have on the particle’s charge?

If energy equals mass times the speed of light squared, and at the speed of light time stops; how important is time to the structure of what we call mass or matter?

What is the role of time, if there is one, in the wave-particle duality of all matter?

Links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave%E2%80%93particle_duality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment

http://physics.about.com/od/lightoptics/a/waveparticle.htm

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v4/102