17) Why will the universe be always younger than 14 billion years old?
(This page has been reorganized and updated on 29th Jan 2005)
The Hubble Law is the generally accepted and presently only method of measuring the distance of a light source or a galaxy and its receding speed away from an observer, hence also the rate of the Expansion of Universal. The theory is based on the knowledge that when a luminous source such as a star moves away from an observer, the wavelengths of that light emission increase with distance and therefore shifts towards the red end of the light spectrum. It becomes more red and is said to have a redshift.
Some members of the scientific community question whether Hubble's Red-shift exists, because presently there is no way of confirming it experimentally, despite its extreme importance. This writer supports the theory of redshift. for the following reasons. All hot or warm cosmic bodies emit energies into space. Our sun is said to lose 400 million tons mass per day due to converting into radiations alone, therefore all galaxies emit enormous amount of energy into space as radiations. This colossal amount of energy is bound to affect the neighboring galaxies and force them to move away, because there is practically nothing between galaxies to halt it, except gravitation. But gravitation reduces exponentially as soon as galaxies begin to separate (Inverse Square Law), causing the separating acceleration to double up. The original force that cause the expansion added by the decrease of gravitation already produce acceleration. Therefore, the phenomenon of universal in accelerated expansion is inevitable.
Once this foundation is established, one can safely begin to observe and examine the tell-tale signs of increased speed or acceleration. If the wavelength of sound proves to be stretchable (Doppler's Effect), then there is no reason why the wavelength of light should remain un-stretchable. Besides, light wave is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, which is similar to a stream of sinusoidal electric waves. Sinusoidal waveforms of electric currents may be altered and worked upon, or interfered, such as rectifying into Direct currents or other waveforms, showing the flexibility and stretchable qualities... Light enter a denser medium, such as water, is observed to bent and slow down. There are all sorts of medias in cosmic space. There is another theory called the "Tired Light" theory, which suggests that redshift is due to light losing energy during travel. Such theory confirms that light's wavelength may be lengthened (besides making the issue even more complicated).
In the upcoming lines of this page, readers will find that the calculation of redshift matches seamlessly with the expected reality. That is to say, the distance of our vision becomes maximum when the speed of galactic recession reaches the speed of light. The following calculations of redshift from actual observations match this vital prediction precisely, confirming the existence of red-shift! What's more! Both American Space Telescope and European ground based telescopes have seen that the last galaxies are positioned some 13/14 billion light years away. Because light can be relayed and strengthened by Interference, it therefore can be transmitted far beyond the distance of 13/14 BLYs. In fact, there is no limit to the transmissible distance of light. It appears that present telescopic technology has achieved the capacity to see or reach the maximum limits of our vision, i.e. limited by the speed of light. Beyond this limit, light signals cannot reach us. Yet it is reported that the remotest light sources are seen to be accelerating away...
Let me repeat! The fact that if the ground based European telescopes can already observe objects at the distance of 13-14 BLYs away, then obviously HST Space Telescope, which is positioned well above the thick layer of misty atmosphere, can see better and even further away, but instead, it sees also the same distance only. Besides, observations also report that the said light sources are still accelerating away. This can mean only one thing, that is both types of telescopes are seeing the maximum limit and not further, despite the increasing speed of the sources...
Therefore, it would appear that due to the fixed speed of light, it has become quite possible for the capacity of present day (and future) telescopes to observe beyond this distance. However, because the capacity of our visions are limited by the speed of light, beyond the limit the signals of light cannot reach us, that's why all the telescopes can see only this far.... Now, taking this observed distance and working backwards with the expected rate of redshift against the known speed of light, it becomes immediately clear that the speed of galactic recession at the end of this distance has reached the speed of light, yet still accelerating away. This is the long expected maximum distance called Hubble's Radius, or LH . Therefore the results of combined ground and space telescopic observations have become the long awaited (international) experiments needed to prove that Hubble's redshift does exist and the rate of redshift is extremely accurate as predicted. The further acceleration of galactic recession also proves that light speed has been exceeded by the motion of remote galaxies, and with some allowance, the postulate of Special Relativity is proven unrealistic. See Hubble's Law and calculations coming up:-
Hubble's Law shows that the rate of universal expansion is linear. In other words, the speed of galactic recession is proportional to the distance of receding galaxies. The graph on the left is the original result observed by Edwin Hubble in 1929 (Vertical scale =.velocity in km/sec, horizontal scale = Distance in parsec). Please click on graph or this line to see more graphs and details.
There are a couple of ways to look at the limits of the observed universe:
(1) According to Edwin Hubble's early work in the 1920s, which resulted in his Redshift-Distance Law and the more recently developed Velocity-Distance Law, the expansion of the universe may be regarded as theoretically uniform and linear, despite difficulties of measurements and possible complications due to light traveling through such extreme distances. Thus the law governing velocity and distance of galactic recession is as follows, (which is confirmed by more recent observations. Click on any graph to see more!) :- .
Thus, Speed of galactic recession = Constant x Distance of galaxy (or a luminous source).
(a) V = HL
(Where V
= Recession Speed
of Galaxy, L = Observed
distance of the most remote light source (or galaxy
)
from us, or the observed
edge of universe at present,
and H is
a constant, called the "Hubble term". The Hubble term changes with time and with improvement of measurement due to more modern equipments, presently it is called Hubble Constant Ho.
See graph of Hubble
Sphere below. When L becomes Hubble Radius, then recession speed of galaxy equals to the speed of light in vacuum). 
Left fig. is the symbolic graph of the so called Hubble Sphere. The circle/sphere represents the limit of the observable universe. Within the circle A = speed of galactic recession slower than the speed of light (in vacuum). Outside the circle B = speed of galactic recession faster than the speed of light. At the radius of circle is the Hubble Radius where C = recession speed of galaxy equal to the speed of light.
Click on left fig or this line to view more details.
As the recession speed increases with distance, at a certain distance it would equal to the speed of light, or become the radius of Hubble Sphere. This certain distance is called the Hubble Length LH, thus :-
(b) LH = C/Ho
The above expression (b) is obtained by writing V = C, and L = LH in equation (a) above.
( where LH is the Hubble Length. Ho is Hubble Constant, presently this is about 100h km/ sec per Megaparsec or about 30h Km/sec per million light years, according to estimates of most recent books)
LH = C/Ho = 3000/h Megaparsec
Now, taking the Hubble Constant of Ho as equal to 30h kilometers/second per million light year, we have:-
LH = ( 9.78 /h) billion Light Years
(Where h is a coefficient, or a rather large fiddle factor, which lies between 0.5 to 1.0. This coefficient compensates difficulties of measurement and other complications.)
Basing on the observed uniform or linear rate of galactic recession and the Hubble Law, if a galaxy recedes from an observer's position to the distance, which equals the "Hubble Radius" (see above Hubble Sphere, i.e. if Hubble's Length = Hubble's Radius), then that galaxy's receding velocity is theoretically equivalent to the speed of light. Meanwhile, as h the coefficient lies between 0.5 to 1.0, if we assume the best intermediate value of h = 0.75, then
LH = 13 .04 billion Light Years.
The above calculation is based on recent text books. At this distance the Hubble Length would theoretically be equivalent to Hubble Radius, or the speed of galactic recession would be equal to the speed of light.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(2) The following is the recently observed result. The so called Age of Universe is also referred to as the "Hubble time" Ht. ( Note: A large team of US scientists, the HST Key Project Team, after measuring universal expansion for 8 years with Hubble Space Telescope reported in 1998 that the radius of observable universe is about 13 billion light years away. This finding was confirmed by a team of European scientists from European Southern Observatories in 2001. Their conclusion is that the Hubble Constant Ho = 72 ± 8 Km / Sec per Megaparsec. This is the most recent and undisputed figure ).
Age of the Universe Ht = 1 / Ho (The Hubble time is the reciprocal of Hubble Constant Ho)
Ho = 72 ± 8 Km / Sec per Megaparsec.
Hence,
Age of Universe : Youngest limit = about 12 billion years
Oldest limit = about 14 billion years.
Average Age = about 13 billion year.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(3) Lastly, a highly precise standard for the speed of light in vacuum was determined in 1983 to be 299,792,458 meters/sec. This figure is accurate down to the last meter. If we take this above calculated average age of universe of 13.9 billion years and multiply it by the above exact speed of light We get another result, which is 13.15 billion light years as the exact distance light has moved towards us after 13 billion years of travel. This again is roughly equivalent to the text book estimate of Hubble Radius of 13.04 billion light years, at which distance the recession speed would equal to the speed of light. The discrepancy of 13.15 - 13.04 = 0.11 billion light years is reasonable compared with many large tolerances usually given in cosmological calculations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(4) The American Scientist Online reported in Volume: 91 Number: 1 Page: 36 DOI: 10.1511/2003.1.36 (click to view) on "The Hubble Constant and the Expanding Universe". The following are taken from the article
"Using the Hubble Space Telescope, Freedman (Wendy Freeman the leader of HST Key Project Team) and her colleagues measured H0 to an unprecedented level of accuracy, deriving a value of 72 [72 Km / Sec per Megaparsec. See above item (2)] with an uncertainty of 10 percent—a milestone achievement in cosmology. The new result suggests that our universe is about 13 billion years old, give or take a billion years, and it's a value that sits comfortably alongside the 12 billion years estimated for the age of the oldest stars."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(5) According to European Southern Observatory (ESO Press Release 02/01) http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2001/pr-02-01.html "How old is the Universe", which was reported in the international research journal Nature in the issue of February 8, 2001. First Reading of a Basic Cosmic Chronometer with UVES and the VLT. Scientists used the latest improved method of a Uranium clock unaffected by the turbulent history of the Milky Way. The telltale spectral line in the old star CS 31082-001 was the first detection of uranium outside the Solar System. Scientists have determined this star CS 31082-001 to be 12.5 billion years. They have then declared that since the star obviously cannot be older than the Universe, it means that the Universe must be older than that.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(6) The following was published by "hubblesite.org" April 24, 2002 STScI-2002-10 Title: "Hubble Uncovers Oldest "Clocks" in Space to Read Age of Universe"
Contents:- NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has uncovered the oldest burned-out stars in our Milky Way Galaxy. These extremely old, dim "clockwork stars" provide a completely independent reading on the age of the universe without relying on measurements of the expansion of the universe. The ancient white dwarf stars, as seen by Hubble, turn out to be 12 to 13 billion years old. Because earlier Hubble observations show that the first stars formed less than 1 billion years after the universe's birth in the big bang, finding the oldest stars puts astronomers well within arm's reach of calculating the absolute age of the universe.
Though previous Hubble research sets the age of the universe at 13 to 14 billion years based on the rate of expansion of space, the universe's birthday is such a fundamental and profound value that astronomers have long sought other age-dating techniques to cross-check their conclusions. "This new observation short-circuits getting to the age question, and offers a completely independent way of pinning down that value," says Harvey Richer of the University of British Columbia, Canada. The new age-dating observations were done by Richer and colleagues by using Hubble to go hunting for elusive ancient stars hidden inside a globular star cluster located 5,600 light-years away in the constellation Scorpius......
In 1997 Hubble astronomers broke this impasse by triumphantly announcing a reliable age for the universe, calculated from a very precise measurement of the expansion rate. The picture soon got more complicated when astronomers using Hubble and ground-based observatories discovered the universe was not expanding at a constant rate, but accelerating due to an unknown repulsive force termed "dark energy." When dark energy is factored into the universe's expansion history, astronomers arrive at an age for the universe of 13-14 billion years. This age is now independently verified by the ages of the "clockwork" white dwarfs measured by Hubble.". Click on following hyperlink to read whole article http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/newsdesk/archive/releases/2002/10/text/
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All above results happen to roughly equal to the recently (1998-2002) observed and published distance of the most remote light source (or galaxy) by Hubble Space Telescope and other ground based telescopes..... It means that the receding velocity V of the very distant galaxy has already reached the speed of light, and the observed distance has also reached the theoretical LH or the Radius of the Hubble Sphere (the discrepancy is treated as a tolerance. In cosmology the tolerance, or fiddle factor, or coefficient of allowance are rather inexact but they are improving ). However, despite the fact, actual recent observations also show that the galaxies are still receding away faster than ever. In other words, the observed expansion of universe is speeding up in acceleration. We therefore have an "Accelerating Universe". The present Accelerating Universe leaves no doubt that galaxies are receding with maximum observable speeds, although the allowance or tolerance ( ± 8 Km / Sec per Megaparsec.) is still rough. However, this tolerance will rapidly disappear, when following facts are considered.
The galaxies are receding away from each other. It means the energy that causes the recession must come either from the galaxies, or from the cosmic space between them. Which one do you think it should be?
O.K. Now, let's make a simple thought experiment. I say, even if the speed of receding galaxies today were just half of the recently observed speed, or just half the speed of light, it would still eventually overtake the speed of light. The reason is as follows. Theoretically, there is nothing in space to stop receding galaxy from exceeding the speed of light, just as long as the force persists. On the contrary, when galaxies recede further away from each other, according to Inverse Square Law, the gravitation between receding galaxies would rapidly decrease. The rapid decrease of gravitation means rapid increase of recession acceleration even if the amount of pushing force remains constant. Thus, even the acceleration of recession itself is accelerating away at all times!... Another fact is that there are still plenty of galactic mass in the observable universe to be converted to energy, which will continue to energize the acceleration of recession. So, do you think the speed of receding galaxies is ever to be limited by the speed of light, or by the equations of Lorentz Transformation? Alternatively, you could ask why should the galactic recession be limited by the speed of light as suggested by relativity?
As far as I am concerned, my interest is not directed to whether or not entire theory of relativity is true or not. My concern is linked to the existence of big bang and the black hole at the center of our galaxy, which directly conflict with T.R.U.TH., because these existences are the products of relativity theory. However, I do believe that although human knowledge about phenomena on earth or the solar system are well advanced, our experience about the vast universe is still very limited. The space age is still very young and it could be costly if space technology is not based on absolutely common knowledge. Every truth has the potential of becoming a common knowledge. Therefore, any theoretical assumptions and presumptions or any theory involving imaginary mathematics should be continuously and strongly scrutinized until they become common knowledge.
In 1983 a very precise standard of the speed of light was fixed to be 299,792,458 meters/sec. Generally it is sufficient to regard it as 300,000 kilometers/sec. The speed of light is the only known motion that's fixed and limited. Other speeds of motion in the universe are not necessarily subject to any limits or restrictions. Consequently, the well known postulate that speed of light is the top limiting speed in the universe can only limit itself. In fact, it has no theoretical support for being the top limiting speed.. The said postulate was only a pure assumption without explanation in the first place...
The obvious reason is, since cosmic space has no energy to shift the whole universe to expand, then only galaxies can do it, and only by converting galactic materials into energy can have such colossal power. The speed of galactic recession begins to accelerate as soon as each galaxy begins to emit energies causing each other to move away. The acceleration is enhanced in two ways. Firstly, by emission of electromagnetic force in waves and secondly, by decreasing pull of gravitation between galaxies. The deceleration of gravitation pull begins as soon as the galaxies begins to move away (Inverse Square Law). The pushing power of galaxies and the decreasing pull of gravitational are mutually provoking, which adds to the deceleration of gravitation. There is nothing in space to hinder or stop it. From this point on, the speed of galactic recession is already destined to overtake any speed limit, including the speed of light. The rest depends only on how much material there is available from the nearby galaxies for conversion into pushing energy..
If any nearby galaxy B can (and must) push a certain galaxy C to recede to the speed of light, then the relative speed of separation between galaxy A, the next door neighbor of B in the other direction (Thus A - B - C), would much faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, the speed of galactic recession is not in any way related to the speed of light, instead, it is related to the rapid decrease of gravitational pull and the magnitude of push given by the galaxies, which in turn depends on the amount of mass available to be converted into pushing energy. This fact shows there are grave problems existing in the mathematical method of transformation as used in Lorentz Transformation. Another problem is that according to observations, by Hubble and by numerous astronomers, the speed of galactic recession is linearly proportional to distance of galaxy (click on above graphs to see more observational results). There is therefore no curved space as confirmed by many long years of observations. In the case of our observable universe, the observed galactic recession has already reached speed of light, yet it is still accelerating. Even the acceleration itself is rapidly increasing. Now, with the continued rapid decrease of gravitation and the observable universe still has great reserve of material to be converted into pushing energy. This leaves no doubt at all, that the assumption of light speed being the top speed cannot be true. In fact, only the speed of light is limited, any theory that fixes any limit to the capacity of universe, in size, in age, in power or in speed, is more likely to face its own limit.
There are still some difficulties though, i.e., a big problem is how much time does the galactic light take to travel from such remote distance? Especially when the lights may lose some energy or be bent by massive objects, or be interfered, relayed and reinforced from galaxies to galaxies as they come. towards earth. However, these difficulties affect only the big bang universe, because it is interpreted that big bang occurred some certain billions years ago, and the galaxies have just got to the remote position of about 13 billion light years. Subtracting the time of approach due to the said complications, the distance would become an unknown quantity. On the other hand, if the approximate figure of 13 billion years is accepted as the time taken for light to travel to earth, then, as shown in above calculations plus the accelerating speed of galactic recession, it would mean that the speed of light is easily exceeded and Relativity theory is proven erroneous, along with all the postulates, such as curved space, spacetime curvature, big bang and lots more, because they are all based on relativity. And if what Hubble Space Telescope sees at the remote end are Quesars representing the creations of the so called "early universe", but Quesars are still galaxies, then how do mature galaxies get to be in the early universe? The so called early universe should be some kind of indescribable remnants of big bang singularity, or a state of homogeneous Inflation.
All these problems do not affect the theory of Regenerating Universe, because in our theory the universe is timeless and regenerating. The recession speed of galaxies is always faster than the speed of light, the radius of observable universe (Hubble Sphere) will remain always the same. It doesn't matter when and how you choose to take a look, the recession speed of remote galaxies will always be the speed of light and the distance of remote galaxies will always be 13 billion light years as observed, since this distance is already the maximum observable distance according to Hubble's law... In fact, the rate of red-shift and the speed of light are constant and can always be measured.
The most recent observation by global astronomers indeed confirm that the remotest galaxies are still speeding away with increasing velocity. The important question is: ''Has this phenomenon occurred only recently?". The answer is "Of course, Not! Judging from the coincidences of superluminal speed, the distance and the acceleration of the expansion of universe, as well as the given explanations, the observed phenomenon must have occurred since time immemorial! It would be a super fantastic coincidence, if the remote galaxies had just got to be the Hubble Radius last night, out of a total span of 13 billion years!". The coincidence is too obvious! This leads to some important conclusions and major implications.:
In any case, an object moving beyond the speed of light cannot be seen or detected, because if the speed of recession is greater than the speed of light, then all no lights, nor signals, can ever reach us. Let's round up everything with some tolerance and make it exactly 14 billion light years. Therefore, as far as the observers on planet Earth is concerned, the universe will always stay younger than 14 billion years. In other words, the maximum age of the universe can never exceed 14 billion years old! Because it doesn't matter how old the universe really is, so far we can only see this much of it. Perhaps someday new forensic evidences might provide new clues for detection of universal existence....
This is important enough to emphasize again. So let's ask, is it purely by sheer coincidence that the speed of galactic recession should equal to the speed of light? Or has it been that way billions of years before we arrived on earth? Since we would only be seeing so much of the universe, no more and no less. Beyond this distance we would never know what's out there. This is one of the multiple reasons in this theory to regard the life of universe as an infinitely regenerating one....
Meanwhile, the recently discovered acceleration of the universal expansion eliminates the possibility of a big bang universe, because big bang is directly rooted from the unproven idea of light speed in vacuum being the top limiting speed (Lorentz equations). Also because the theory of Inflation must depend on temperature, but during the big bang early universe there was no possible means of any kind to formulate a smooth spectrum of scaling electromagnetic waves. According to the present theory of the Regenerating Universe, these waves are generated by the galactic field symmetry. So, in the early epoch of big bang there were no heat waves, nor Cosmic Microwave Background radiations (CMB), and the big bang early universe could not cool down and reheat, therefore, Inflation could not have occurred either. The big bang universe cannot explain where its Singularity had come from, nor does it describe how the universe might end. Strictly speaking, it's an explosion of some existence without causality and impossible to conceive, then it's not responsible further for the possible destiny of that existence.... The Regenerating Universe has no such problems. It does describe the evolutionary and regenerative life of the universe. Only its origin needs explanation. The origin could be depicted in two ways. One is that our universe is a "closed" system, where everything has always existed, because we are compelled to observe the laws of conservation for mass and energy. The other is that the universe is a "near closed" system, where one atom is created in say one eternity and over eternal numbers of eternities, it would have still become what it is today. At least in this way the minutest increase could hardly be noticed by our sciences, and our cosmology in theory and practice, can still remain consistent at any time point.
This is the only realistic and rational picture of the universe, because mother nature loves growth as compared with decay, and orders as against disorders. That's why she gives her child nature evolutionary progress. The progress of Evolution is in itself a form of growth, both physically and metaphysically. The human population growth is also an example. The little cosmic village called Earth is growing too! First it was just molten earth. Then molten earth made heat. Then heat made gas. Gas gave winds. Winds produced water. Water became oceans. Ocean gave birth to life. Life began botanical being, evolving to biological being. Thus life began from water, air and organic substance....... Someday, Perhaps 200 years from now, the human will go to one of Jupiter's satellites, from which he will use his "yet to acquire" know how to turn Jupiter's gases into solid matters and new oceans. This is why Jupiter and Saturn are made for. The purpose of nature is growth and not decay, always evolutionary, never devolutionary. The human is destined to the conquest of science and nature, not against man's own kind, nor at his own destruction!.....