Space Expansion makes observable universe over triple the age of the universe

The limit on our observation universe is not the age of the universe and the speed of light which would be 13.799 billion light-years for two reasons.

This article is selected material from the Observable Universe entry in Wikipedia.

1. Space itself is expanding, so we can actually detect light from objects that were once close, but are now up to around 45.7 billion light years away (rather than up to 13.799 billion light years away as might be expected).

2. before the recombination epoch, about 378,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to light, and photons were quickly re-absorbed by other particles, so we cannot see objects from before that time using light or any other electromagnetic radiation. Gravitational waves and neutrino background would have been unaffected by this, and may be detectable from earlier times.

There are at least 2 trillion galaxies in the observable universe, containing more stars than all the grains of sand on planet Earth. Assuming the Universe is isotropic, the distance to the edge of the observable universe is roughly the same in every direction. That is, the observable universe is a spherical volume (a ball) centered on the observer. Every location in the Universe has its own observable universe, which may or may not overlap with the one centered on Earth.

The total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe to be about 1.5×10^53 kg.

Future Observable universe

Assuming dark energy remains constant (an unchanging cosmological constant), so that the expansion rate of the Universe continues to accelerate, there is a “future visibility limit” beyond which objects will never enter our observable universe at any time in the infinite future, because light emitted by objects outside that limit would never reach the Earth. (A subtlety is that, because the Hubble parameter is decreasing with time, there can be cases where a galaxy that is receding from the Earth just a bit faster than light does emit a signal that reaches the Earth eventually). This future visibility limit is calculated at a comoving distance of 19 billion parsecs (62 billion light years), assuming the Universe will keep expanding forever, which implies the number of galaxies that we can ever theoretically observe in the infinite future (leaving aside the issue that some may be impossible to observe in practice due to redshift, as discussed in the following paragraph) is only larger than the number currently observable by a factor of 2.36.

Size of the Universe

According to the theory of cosmic inflation, if it is assumed that inflation began about 10^−37 seconds after the Big Bang, then with the plausible assumption that the size of the Universe before the inflation occurred was approximately equal to the speed of light times its age, that would suggest that at present the entire universe’s size is at least 3×10^23 times the radius of the observable universe.

There are also lower estimates claiming that the entire universe is in excess of 250 times larger than the observable universe and also higher estimates implying that the universe is at least 10^10^10^122 times larger than the observable universe.

If the Universe is finite but unbounded, it is also possible that the Universe is smaller than the observable universe. What are seen as very distant galaxies may actually be duplicate images of nearby galaxies, formed by light that has circumnavigated the Universe. It is difficult to test this hypothesis experimentally because different images of a galaxy would show different eras in its history, and consequently might appear quite different.

64 thoughts on “Space Expansion makes observable universe over triple the age of the universe”

  1. The radius of the Universe is calculated with the help of the Holy Quran and the Hubble law to be around 5.74 * 10^26 meters or 63.80 Billion light-years, which is perfectly consistent with the theoretical visible limit of 5.78 * 10^26 meters or 63 Billion light-years.
    The radius of the Universe could be defined in the following way :
    R = R1 + R2
    where,
    R1 is the distance from the center of the Universe to the position of the Earth in the 7 Heavens and which is calculated with the help of the Hubble law to be around 1.28 * 10^ 26 m or 13.80 Billion light-years
    and,
    R2 is the distance from the Earth to the boundary limit of the 7 Heavens and which is equal to 50000 Million light-years using the information in the Holly Quran according to which 1 Day in a reference frame based outside the Universe or the God’s reference frame is equal to 50000 years in a reference frame based on the Earth.
    thus,
    R = 13800 Million light-years + 50000 Million light-years = 63800 Million light-years = 63.80 Billion light-years
    or,
    R = 1.28 * 10^26 m + 4.66 * 10^26 m = 5.74 * 10^26 m
    This coincidence means that the Holy Quran is perfectly consistent with the observational cosmology regarding the creation of the universe from a singularity, the Big Bang theory, the inflation theory, the expansion of the Universe, the relativity theory, and so on.
    But, the Lord of the Universe knows best.

    Reply
  2. The radius of the Universe is calculated with the help of the Holy Quran and the Hubble law to be around 5.74 * 10^26 meters or 63.80 Billion light-years, which is perfectly consistent with the theoretical visible limit of 5.78 * 10^26 meters or 63 Billion light-years.
    The radius of the Universe could be defined in the following way :
    R = R1 + R2
    where,
    R1 is the distance from the center of the Universe to the position of the Earth in the 7 Heavens and which is calculated with the help of the Hubble law to be around 1.28 * 10^ 26 m or 13.80 Billion light-years
    and,
    R2 is the distance from the Earth to the boundary limit of the 7 Heavens and which is equal to 50000 Million light-years using the information in the Holly Quran according to which 1 Day in a reference frame based outside the Universe or the God’s reference frame is equal to 50000 years in a reference frame based on the Earth.
    thus,
    R = 13800 Million light-years + 50000 Million light-years = 63800 Million light-years = 63.80 Billion light-years
    or,
    R = 1.28 * 10^26 m + 4.66 * 10^26 m = 5.74 * 10^26 m
    This coincidence means that the Holy Quran is perfectly consistent with the observational cosmology regarding the creation of the universe from a singularity, the Big Bang theory, the inflation theory, the expansion of the Universe, the relativity theory, and so on.
    But, the Lord of the Universe knows best.

    Reply
  3. Astronomy now a very simple way to settle Hubble’s Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations, and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology. If this is not accepted, you will never be able to ‘escape’ today’s ‘Hubble mess’, and endless guessing and bickering over something purely universe maths that’s now very easy to settle. NASA will never solve this by measuring. Look at their latest confused ‘guesses’, and the Hubble conflicts on Wikipedia. I rest this case. ‘The equation to perform this is 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.

    Reply
  4. Astronomy now a very simple way to settle Hubble’s Constant by inputting to an equation the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology. If this is not accepted you will never be able to ‘escape’ today’s ‘Hubble mess’ and endless guessing and bickering over something purely universe maths that’s now very easy to settle. NASA will never solve this by measuring. Look at their latest confused ‘guesses’ and the Hubble conflicts on Wikipedia. I rest this case. ‘The equation to perform this is 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.”

    Reply
  5. Astronomy now a very simple way to settle Hubble’s Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations, and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology. If this is not accepted, you will never be able to ‘escape’ today’s ‘Hubble mess’, and endless guessing and bickering over something purely universe maths that’s now very easy to settle. NASA will never solve this by measuring. Look at their latest confused ‘guesses’, and the Hubble conflicts on Wikipedia. I rest this case. ‘The equation to perform this is 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.

    Reply
  6. Astronomy now a very simple way to settle Hubble’s Constant by inputting to an equation the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology. If this is not accepted you will never be able to ‘escape’ today’s ‘Hubble mess’ and endless guessing and bickering over something purely universe maths that’s now very easy to settle. NASA will never solve this by measuring. Look at their latest confused ‘guesses’ and the Hubble conflicts on Wikipedia. I rest this case. ‘The equation to perform this is 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.”

    Reply
  7. Astronomy now a very simple way to settle Hubble’s Constant, by inputting to an equation, the numerical value of Pi and the speed of light (C) from Maxwell’s equations, and the value of a parsec. NO space probe measurements (with their inevitable small measuring / interpretation errors) are now required. Hubble’s Constant is ‘fixed’ at 70.98047 PRECISELY. This maths method removes the errors / tolerances that is always a part of attempting to measuring something as ‘elusive’ as Hubble’s Constant. This has very deep implications for theoretical cosmology. If this is not accepted, you will never be able to ‘escape’ today’s ‘Hubble mess’, and endless guessing and bickering over something purely universe maths that’s now very easy to settle. NASA will never solve this by measuring. Look at their latest confused ‘guesses’, and the Hubble conflicts on Wikipedia. I rest this case. ‘The equation to perform this is 2 X a meg parsec X light speed (C). This total is then divided by Pi to the power of 21. This gives 70.98047 kilometres per sec per meg parsec. The equation to perform this can also be found in ‘The Principle of Astrogeometry’ on Amazon Kindle Books. This also explains how the Hubble 70.98047 ‘fixing’ equation was found. David.

    Reply
  8. Yes, but given that the universe is expanding about 67 kilometer per second for every megaparsec (and disregarding the acceleration of the expansion which may actually be caused by our own rate of perceived time slowing down due to the universe increasing in entropy as it expands) this means anything that is more than 14,597,014,925 light years away is receding from us at more than the speed of light and is therefore probably beyond our reach forever.

    Most of the rest of it will escape us, too, as we probably won’t send out many ships going straight out and at even half the speed of light (and staying at that velocity for billions of years).

    This is especially true if the apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe leads to a big rip scenario in the next two to ten billion years, subjective.

    It’s all still very cool to think about.

    Reply
  9. But if the space is flat and there is not any local manifestation of its expansion how can we get global expansion of our world? If space does not expand locally, how it can expand globally? This is nonsense. The main problem follows from the assumption of uniformity of the cosmic space. If it is homogeneous and locally nonexpanding then it also should not be expanding globally. https://www.academia.edu/12515391/The_Expansion_of_the_World

    Reply
    • Yea that never made any sense to me either. In the analogy of the dots on a balloon, where space is supposed to be the balloon blowing up with air, the dots also increase slightly in size, since the balloon stretches everywhere, even under the dots.

      I’m not sure how you go from no local space expansion to massive expansion between galaxies. Perhaps it really is, but its just below measurable levels.

      Reply
  10. Logically speaking space is 3-D volume without “end” (infinite,) not “something” that expands. The stuff in space is observed to be moving away (expanding.) There is no limit or boundary but the limit of the finite mind to imagine infinity. And beyond such an imaginary limit, what but more space with more of the same in it? And where did it all come from? Everything out of nothing, by magic? Consider the observable cosmos (one of an infinitely many) to be eternally oscillating (Bang/Crunch) and the question of origin is answered: No beginning or end, even if our human minds can’t comprehend eternity. And leave “God” to religious believers… not science.

    Reply
  11. It is interesting to hear how the big bang theoreticians with their limited inflation theories, almost routinely discover something new about the universe. According to the existing theories the shape of universe could be flat, saddle, spherical or not sure, all depending on who and how it is explained, and of course, for the observable universe must be spherical? The “big bangers” want you to believe into a singular point explosion that filed the spacetime we call the expanding universe. Was this really a bang that is expanding, or could it be our knowledge about the universe needs to expand? In any case, a lot of details are missing. Also, refrain from terms like expansion or inflation of the universe, although I am guilty of this habit also. Universe is alive and, like anything in the nature, it grows or shrinks. It has its lifecycles, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. Just recall, the galactic year is about 230 million years, and the history of humans is about 200,000 years. For an alternative views about the universe take a look at:
    https://youtu.be/ZszeTbaeb88
    and
    https://youtu.be/Ppq1ECXaKMs

    Reply
  12. Dear Dr. Brian Wang,

    We made indeed calculations for a “Hubble sphere” Universe?

    The model of an ASTRONOMICAL Universe “sphere-like” is from philosophical point of view more convenient that an “inflationary planar” universe.
    An ASTRONOMICAL physical open system in place of an isolated or closed (/singular) system!
    You made indeed the calculation for a spherical Hubble Universe?
    Or, you take the Guth model – a priori – as a correct model?
    The model of Guth is based on a fake picture – an “inflationary universe” versus an “clasic H0=100 km/sMpc” model (de Vaucouleurs model from 1975) !
    But now – H0= ~ 69km/sMpc. A large cosmological difference between 1980 and now.
    A “Hubble shere” model with H0~69km/s/Mpc couuld indeed verify all cosmological data!
    Better than an inflationary Universe …

    Try to verify.

    Keeping in touch,
    Sincerely yours,
    Marian

    Reply
  13. The wiki source is simply wrong and Mr. Wang needs to look at what he is writing. The theory is a point source, the theory is an expansion which if one believes the math commonly used is slowing as the rate of expansion to the size has steadily declined. the problem with the whole idea is the assumption time and light are constants when that is a WAG.

    Reply
  14. We can observe objects that were close 13 billion years ago but are now further away due to the assumed expansion of space.,We are not observing them as they are now but as they were 13 billion years ago. The problem with this trash articles claims is the 45 billion number is a guess. nobody actually knows it space has expanded to that size or not.

    Reply
  15. Space-time acts as a perfect fluid with currents ,eddys and flushes.There is a jet stream effect of space-time from our universe onto space-time of other universes.Nothing doesn’t exist as nothing always was nothing and will always be nothing and due to the Law of Conservation of Energy.The velocity of space-time was determined in my first book “Megaphysics II;An Explanation of Nature” as pi(c) at the point of maximum expansion of space-time from our universe into space-time of other universes with the expansion being propelled by Dark Energy(push)and the pull of the gravity of other space-time and other universes in the multiverse(not clearly vacuum energy as a space-less vacuum is impossible and space-time isn’t massless in my book “Megaphysics III;Nothing Doesn’t Exist”.The curvature of space-time caused by mass is gravity and even a miniscule mass which counters the cosmologic constant will form an open flat expanding Friedman type I universe.The accleeration of space-time is towards the center of a vortex of the space-time continuum from the time oscillation paradox of the First Event which mathematically occurred considerably before the “Big Bang”

    Reply
    • Dark Energy, is Space Expanding. Gravity may be caused by a particle being pushed in on by expanding space. SO if we find that Atoms hold space that is NOT expanding then their weight is just space pushing on it. No Gravity just what looks like it. The more matter, the grater the push which actually warps space causing the gravity well.

      Reply
  16. I would ask this: If a man and a half can run a mile and a half in a day in a half, how long does it take for a frog with a wooden leg to kick the seeds out of a dill pickle?

    Reply
  17. It has been some time since Sir Fred Hoyle decided on a steady State Universe. Sense matter is depended on an observation, the Universe could be whatever we decide on. Since the universal vacuum is filled with virtual particles , a perfect vacuum does not exist … and light speed cannot be constant. So time cannot exist, and the universe must be infinite.

    Reply
  18. These speculations are probably meant to make us believe that we are very smart, understand much and control a lot. The reality is otherwise. Let’s leave for a moment the speculations about black holes or the distant galaxies… Let’s check here and now.

    A Reality check one:
    This is 2017. This is over a decade after year 2000 and a century after general relativity. We still send good women and men in space sitting on huge piles of explosives and hope they won’t blow up. We equally expect them to casually come back hurtling through the atmosphere like a burning meteor and crash without grace somewhere in Kazakhstan, also with much luck. This normal?

    B Reality check two:
    We still have no idea about what the universe is made of and about what exactly makes it going by itself, here and now. And we don’t seem to care. This normal?

    The state of A is directly eon the state of B. According to B, we don’t really know what we are doing, which stands to reason that we can’t do any better than A.

    Physics has to come out of its tunnel vision. All our dreams of exploration as well as all our nightmares of survival depend, for a good outcome, on a better propulsion technique derived from a better understanding of the here and now.

    If the nightmare comes, crying, praying and sitting on your smart phone won’t help you.

    Reply
  19. Just for fun look into “conformal cyclic cosmology” version of the universe. The Hindu vision of a cyclical universe is not too far different.

    Reply
  20. Fact one: Everything we can see was within 13.799 billion Light Years of us.
    Fact two: “The total mass of ordinary matter in the universe can be calculated using the critical density and the diameter of the observable universe to be about 1.5×10^53 kg.”
    Fact three: The Schwarzschild Radius (Event Horizon) if 1.5×10^53 kg is 23.55 billion Light Years.

    That means this much mass could never have been condensed the radius of the observable universe without collapsing into a Black Hole according to the Theory of Relativity. Can some one explain what is broken between the facts as we observe them, and what well established theory should prescribe?

    http://www.wolframalpha.com/widgets/view.jsp?id=15c7a7eb32c8610b005811b8640ebc1

    Reply
  21. How could you have every point be the center of a spherical volume by math and physics point of view.? Is,not it the fundamental assumption of relativity theory? Then, earth should be the location of Big Bangthat occurred XX.xxx billions years ago.

    Reply
  22. All matter is essentially energy. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It is eternal. Revelation states that God is the Alpha and Omega. God is eternal. If energy and God are the only eternal entities, then God is Energy. Thus everything is composed of the only source of energy…God. Acts 17:28 “For in Him we live and move and have our Being”.

    Reply
    • The hubris you just typed!!! You dare to truss God up into a 3d entity? God may live in all things, including energy, but He is the creator, not the creation. God is much more than that.

      But this wonderful article is about science. Science may certainly reveal God through understanding creation, but God is still much more than that and attempting to pin Him into some corner of reality for the sake of fitting Him into the world view of the day is hubris.

      So perhaps we leave the discussions about God and the nature of God for the philosophy boards?

      Reply
  23. We (humans) have zero idea, really, of how large this universe may be. God created everything from nothing, as he “spoke” everything into being, including us. If, in creating, God started things off with a “bang”, then from that bang, matter of any form would then “explode” in every direction. If, for your argument’s sake, everything was expanding at the speed of light, which I doubt, there would be innumerable amounts of matter, regardless of makeup, expanding, each at its own velocity, from that predicted center location. Much like we see when a bomb goes off, the resulting expansion of particles is not equal, with some speeding away from the central location faster and farther than others. So, if we use your “big bang” theory properly, some particles in this universe would be accelerating out at a faster clip than others, maybe even at a speed very close to that of light. Some, however would be accelerating at a slower speed, something I do not feel “scientists” actually consider when making their predictions or evaluations. At any rate, how the whole universe began, observable or not, has but one explanation: GOD SPOKE AND IT OCCURRED. As the Bible (which the majority of scientists and unbelievers discount) states, there was NOTHING until God spoke for something to appear. We are told, also, in the Bible, that all things we do not understand will be made known when He decides, not because any of it we will “discover”. People will continue to seek knowledge of all things, but will never be able to discover all things, until God so decides. Besides, if God spoke things into being, he would not necessarily have started with a “big bang”. Think about that for a while.

    Reply
    • I Agree Wi’ Ye. But, The Big Bang and “the recombination epoch, about 378,000 years after the Big Bang, the Universe was filled with a plasma that was opaque to light, and photons were quickly re-absorbed by other particles, so we cannot see objects from before that time using light or any other electromagnetic radiation.” are “Scientific” terms and conceptualizations with which the “Scientists” try to comprehensively explain what The Lord Spoke and It Came into being ( that void which was the heavens and all of it’s “things-in-themselves” (noumena) contents, and the Earth, means to them. That recombination epoch in which Light permeated the entire volume of space, is just the moment between when God said “Let there be light” and when He Divided the Light and separated it into discrete phenomena which today we call Photons. They think it took gazillions of years of time. Neverthe less, all light coming to here from anywhere at one time was already at the location of its point of omission, and already was at the point of detection/observance at the time it was Let to be into the volume of the Heavens. I also think that the comma between the Heavens, and the Earth. suggests that the creation of The Earth was separate and deliberately different from the rest of it all. Such that the Earth is not to be compared to anything or any other “planets” in the entirety of the Universe.

      Reply
  24. In the “finite but unbounded” case, there is an area of the universe which is furthest from us, and objects in that area would be seen in every direction you look, at essentially the same age. Which improves the odds of confirming that scenario.

    But this directly implies another effect of both the expanding universe and unbounded yet finite universe: Objects at great distances will subtend larger angles than their perceived distance would imply; They’ll be *magnified*.

    http://cosmicreflections.skythisweek.info/2017/03/20/cosmologically-distant-objects-appear-magnified/

    In the unbounded but finite universe, (Assuming spherical symmetry!) the most distant object subtends the entire sky in all directions…

    Reply
  25. I don’t understand any of this BUT I do believe in a creator God and have some confidence that scientists have good reasons for their theories (speculations). Science state that the universe is expanding as explained by Hubble. But it is expanding into what?

    God started with infinite nothing which means no space no time no primordial soup. God created space and then the physical primordial soup. The Big Bang Theory is more properly stated as the “God said, “OK soup now go Boom” reality.

    The Genesis 1 account of creation states on the 7th day God rested. The question becomes what did God do on Monday morning? God did what many people do he went back to work. At the very edge of the universe is the force of God creating more space and physical stuff going “BOOM” in not just an ever expanding universe rather an ever expanding creation.

    I suggest you factor an ever expanding creation into your physics.

    Reply
  26. Time would be better spent coming up with new types of methods and tools for detecting the “observable” universe, otherwise we are more or less stuck at a provable fact/theoretical event horizon.

    Reply
  27. If, during the big bang, a humongous (scientific term) amount of stuff (another) exploded from a point, in all directions, and is expanding in all directions; is it expanding in all directions equally?; and is there still stuff issuing from that point?. Otherwise, it would seem there would be a large void around that point, a 13.X billion year void? A big vacant “center”. And where is that point?

    Reply
    • Big Bang is a misleading term. “Birth” of the universe was not a case of a bunch of matter exploding into existing ‘space’, but rather the expansion of the space itself –dragging the matter with it. A good analogy of his is drawing a bunch of dots (matter) on a baloon (space) and then blowing it up. The dots move away from each other, but stay in relative position pretty constant. There was/is some kind of 4th dimension force (for lack of better term) which is doing the same thing to our 3d universe– that blowing air into a 2d baloon does.

      Reply
      • I would think as to your first question, that no, the universe does not expand exactly equally in all directions. Reason being, all of the mass / matter within it would have to be ubiquitous and dispersed pretty much equally at the point of origin. The expanding force, as well, would have to act equally in all directions. I believe the ‘shape’ of the universe may likely mimc what what we see when observing exploding stars. There are a vast number of planetary nebulae that have formed depending on their random, non-symmetrical circumstances coupled by rotational forces. Just Google ‘planetary nebula’ images and you can see the possibilities are basically endless.

        Reply
      • Seems the energy density would have been a bit high initially for matter beyond a quark-gluon soup to possibly exist. Soup cooled enough with expansion and left a distribution imprint of normal matter’s precipitation as a legacy.

        Reply
      • So if space expanded, dragging matter with it, just what was there instead of space before this expansion? I find it hard to fathom that space has not always existed. The opposite of nothing is something, meaning if there was no space there must have been something else. Exactly what would that be?

        Reply
        • The term, “space” implies substance, or, “something”, ie-energy/matter, but “space” is not material substance, therefore is not “something”. The “something” of the universe is energy/matter. Therefore, there was the substance(something) and no space.

          But your question still remains, in order to have something(energy/matter) there must be something else before it which generated the something of the universe, so, what is that “something else”?

          I propose, the eternal, not created, Creator is the “something else”.

          Reply
    • Regarding the last question in your post, that point is everywhere. Every single point in this universe is equally the same distance from the ‘original point’.

      Reply
        • The observer doing physics sits at the center of a sphere of observation, sphere that parts well into three directions at 90 degrees. The three dimensions are just a description or our status of “observer” within that sphere or our “point” of view. The universe has no point of view; it exists and happens. There is no 3D in the universe, period.

          We make the standard meter as an “object” whole in one moment of perception when in fact, no two points on the ruler are at the same moment i.e. it takes time to have any of the these points to interact, even at the speed of light. Again, the observer “creates” space.

          So, what was your question again?

          Physics is highly practical. But when it comes to things fundamental, it is way off, and limited. Physicists are by trade (education and experience) “philosophically challenged” people. This is why, in 2017, a century after General Relativity, we still send astronauts in space sitting on piles of explosives… and we think we are so smart!

          Reply
          • Physicists are by trade (education and experience) “philosophically challenged” people. This is why, in 2017, a century after General Relativity, we still send astronauts in space sitting on piles of explosives… and we think we are so smart!

            So? You got a better idea?

  28. ultimately you have to either admit that the speed of light is not the maximum speed limit otherwise we would see all of the universe at the same time…. it must be expanding faster than the speed of light.the farthest point in the universe is all that matters.. nothing can expand farther out than the edge of existence (if there is one.) so it irrelevant on the expansion of the inner universe. So the big bang had to have exploded much faster than the speed of light. However. If it did explode at the speed of light. we would only see all of existence If we are the center of the universe. BUT if it did then would see the edge of some portion of the universe. So the speed of light can be broken.

    Reply
    • No, the speed of light is the maximum speed of stuff in space. It cannot be broken.

      This does not mean space cannot go faster than the speed of light.

      Reply
  29. How the hell can anyone calculate a number as large as 10^10^10^122?!? The number of zeros behind it couldn’t even be written out if a zero could be written on each elementary particle in the observable universe.

    Reply
    • “How the hell can anyone calculate a number as large as 10^10^10^122?!?”

      Is this a serious question? They do it the same way you wrote it – with exponential notation.

      Reply
    • Who counted was the first astrophysicist on the moon? Who counted the trillions of galaxies? Finally . . . have all the grains of sand in the observable universe been verified–the reason : I want to come away from this article believing that I’ve learned something, not just hypothetical estimates that have little bearing on the survival of the human race–like the fun stuff of some one’s imagination.

      Reply
      • Human race may survive for approximately another 225 million years, unless we have managed to escape to a far distant galaxy. As the sun uses up it’s nuclear fuel and starts to expand ,because gravity can no longer contain it, it’s expansion will engulf the inner planets Mercury,Venus ,Earth, Mars before it finally uses up all it’s fissionable fuel and collapses in on it’s self. The size of the universe ,and the expansion if the universe will become a mute point if we as a species don’t find another place to live…in about two hundred million years… or so.

        Reply
      • “Who counted the trillions of galaxies”

        I assumed someone just took a random sample of the number of observable galaxies, calculated the average number, and multiplied it by the total volume of the observable universe. The value I was referring to is the calculated size of the entire universe.

        Reply

Leave a Comment