What was the Universe like 15 Billion years ago ?

[Keith Stein]

Most Big Bangers will tell you that time itself did not exist back then,
no time before the BB eh!

However i can reveal that actually the universe was "not a lot
different" - to today eh!

and "How do i presume to know that?" i hear you ask - scornfully eh!

That's easy i would reply with a grin, :)
i read "The Daily Telegraph" sometimes.

Daily Telegraph,3rd January 1995,

"ASTRONOMERS have found the most distant known galaxy....
"BC 1435 + 63, found by the Keck telescope...........
"is 15 billion light years away..............

"Even more remarkable, this newly found galaxy appears to contain stars
"that were already old when their light signals started their journey
"towards us. It also appears to be a "normal galaxy", like the Milky "Way.
Adrian Berry,Science Correspondent

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Keith Stein wrote

Most Big Bangers will tell you that time itself did not exist back then, no time before the BB eh!

Above Planck Pressure, Time & Space not mathematically Valid

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmZM1DL2NTwaqwlr2

[Keith Stein]

On 22/04/2018 15:58, Keith Stein wrote:
> Most Big Bangers will tell you that time itself did not exist back then,

or perhaps they will woffle about manifolds, like Mr.Roberts:
" The big bang is a SINGULARITY. It did not "occur in time", but rather is
> in essence a boundary of the manifold in which time progresses. One can
> trace worldlines backwards to limit points of the big bang, but not to
> the singularity itself (which is not part of the manifold, and such
> tracing can only be performed in the manifold).
>
> So time-related concepts like "start" and "stop" simply do not apply to
> the big bang (they inherently refer to the manifold, which does not
> include the singularity). "

[Keith Stein]

On 22/04/2018 15:58, Keith Stein wrote:

> Most Big Bangers will tell you that time itself did not exist back then,

or perhaps someone will send you off to an irrelevant web site about
"Cosmis Inflation"

Above Planck Pressure, Time & Space not mathematically Valid

https://photos.app.goo.gl/RmZM1DL2NTwaqwlr2

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Keith Stein wrote

Most Big Bangers will tell you that time itself did not exist back then, or perhaps they will woffle about manifolds, like Mr.Roberts

Tom Roberts wrote

In modern physics “we” don't "assign properties to space" (or to points).

Instead we model the world as a fiber bundle, with a Lorentzian base manifold.

The fibers, of course, are the quantum fields of the theory.
_________________

Who is 'we'??

The “WE” is the mainstream NON-AETHERISTS writing Government Grant applications for our tax dollars

As long as it is NOT solved, they keep getting grant applications approved & Funded

[Adam Stefaniak]

@Keith Stein

> Daily Telegraph,3rd January 1995,
>
> "ASTRONOMERS have found the most distant known galaxy....
> "BC 1435 + 63, found by the Keck telescope...........
> "is 15 billion light years away..............

What you're appear to be saying, is that you have found inconsistency in the big bang model, since the distance to the observed object exceeds the age of the universe times the speed of light.
This is just a misunderstanding of the features of the model.

In expanding universe the current distance to any observed object is not equal to the light travel time.

This is the result of the space between the emitter and the receiver is expanding while the light signal is en route. As the space expands, the light signal has to cover more distance than it would have in a static (non-expanding) universe.
Furthermore, during the time it takes the signal to cover the total distance, the emitter keeps being carried away by the expansion.

The relationship between speed, distance, and travel time is analogous to an ant walking on a rubber band which is being stretched.

This means that the light travel time will never be equal to either the distance to the emitter at emission, nor at reception. It will fall somewhere in-between those two.
It also means that the current distance to the high-redshift objects can easily exceed light travel time multiplied by the speed of light.


Other issues with the quoted bit:
- the galaxy name is misspelled. It's actually 8C 1435+63
- a newspaper is not a good source of scientific information; luckily, it was relatively easy to find the discovery paper:
http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1994MNRAS.271..504L/0000504.000.html
and the confirmation paper:
http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/1995ApJ...438L..51S/L000051.000.html
- the distance calculated is provisional, given the enormous error bars on the parameters in 1994. For one, no dark energy was included (it was discovered in 1998), and neither WMAP nor PLANCK were yet operational (or even proposed).
But that's ok, since neither the equations, nor the actual observable - the redshift - change. Using PLANCK 2015 data, the current distance to the galaxy can be calculated to be 24.5 Gly. Distance at emission: 4.7 Gly. Time of emission is 12.4 Gyrs ago (vs age of the universe = 13.8 Gyrs).

You can use this calculator:
http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7-2017-02-08/LightCone_Ho7.html
to examine the interplay between the various distances, horizons, redshifts, age, temperature, etc.

[David (Kronos Prime) Fuller]

Adam Stefaniak

@Keith Stein
> Daily Telegraph,3rd January 1995,
>
> "ASTRONOMERS have found the most distant known galaxy....
> "BC 1435 + 63, found by the Keck telescope...........
> "is 15 billion light years away..............

What you're appear to be saying, is that you have found inconsistency in the big bang model, since the distance to the observed object exceeds the age of the universe times the speed of light.
This is just a misunderstanding of the features of the model.

In expanding universe the current distance to any observed object is not equal to the light travel time.

Expanding Universe Obfuscation & Befuddlement

After 14.0047821766 billion light years, a Photon emitted at Planck temperature will have dropped below Planck's Constant .

So that is the Horizon of the Universe and a Different Universe after that

(hbar / s)*14.0047821766 billion light years*c/(4pi/3) = 1

(s/hbar *Joules^2 ) = 5.91852459e52 eV Photon

(s/hbar *Joules^2 )/ 1.416808e32 Kelvin /6.52749404442^2/(pi/2) = 1



((5.91979465e52 eV * electron mass /c *137.035999172^2)^2/(m^2 kg^4 / s^2)+0.5^0.5 = 1

((5.91979465e52 eV /joules * hbar

hbar*5.91979465e52 eV = 1.00021459


Planck Photon emitted @ Planck Temp = 5.91852459e52 eV

(5.91852459e52 eV/1.7037785e53kg)/(G/c/4) = 1

1.7037785e53kg/(13.88805 billion light years)*(1kg*G/c^2)/kg*(6.52489305/tau) = 1

[Keith Stein]

ir

Firstly my thanks to Mr.Stefaniak for an informative and considered
response with very useful links.

Secondly a question for Mr.Stefaniak, or indeed anyone.

What's the difference between a universe which is expanding,
and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ?

keith stein

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, April 23, 2018 at 2:21:12 AM UTC-6, Keith Stein wrote:
>
> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding,
> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ?
>
> keith stein

Sitting here in front of my computer on a little planet circling around a
little G-type star, no difference at all. But we always seem to want to
"understand" EVERYTHING. I do, too. I don't know why. Maybe it's for a
feeling of security.

So to address your question. If the speed of light were faster in the
past, many processes would be different. Just think of all the equations
describing physical values that have c in them, such as the fine-structure
constant:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant?

"Webb et al. found that their spectra were consistent with a slight increase
in α over the last 10–12 billion years." Specifically, 5.7x10^-6 parts per
~10 billion years.

[Adam Stefaniak]

@Keith Stein

> What's the difference between a universe which is expanding,
> and a universe in which the speed of light is slowing down ?

From what little I know about VSL theories (e.g. Moffat, Albrecht & Maguejo), they don't replace the standard big bang expansion (LCDM), but rather precede it, as an alternative to inflation. They're something of a fudge factor introduced to explain the flatness problem.

One would need to have a full and self-consistent model of static cosmology with VSL, that makes testable predictions, in order to be able to say what it does differently, and make any meaningful comparisons.

What I'm saying here is I can maybe help you with explaining at least some features of the LCDM, but I'm not the right person to ask about VSL.

[Erálnì Histickému]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

>> keith stein
>
> Sitting here in front of my computer on a little planet circling around
> a little G-type star, no difference at all. But we always seem to want
> to "understand" EVERYTHING. I do, too. I don't know why. Maybe it's
> for a feeling of security.

You are struggling against the system, hacking your away at the working-
class benefits. We’re in a period of extreme deregulation, deep tax cuts
for business and the rich, extreme protectionism, and rising debt locally.