14 billion lightyear enigma

Sorry to drag this old chestnut up, but Im still baffled by the whole thing,
if the farthest stars are somewhere in the region of 14 billion light years
away, how have the stars managed to get so far if the universe is as old as
we think it is?

In message , Richard
writes
Sorry to drag this old chestnut up, but Im still baffled by the whole thing,
if the farthest stars are somewhere in the region of 14 billion light years
away, how have the stars managed to get so far if the universe is as old as
we think it is?


It's acceptable to be baffled. As you know this is an old chestnut, you
must have read the old chestnut answers. The age and origin of the
universe is theoretical, i.e. Some clever people have come up with a
theory to explain some limited evidence and a great deal of dubious
extrapolation.
Some other clever people have a theory called 'steady state' based on
the same evidence but different extrapolation. This is not currently
flavour of the month.
Yet other theories exist that are generally described as 'barking mad'.
It is entirely possible that the universe is quite different to our
current models.
Learn to embrace uncertainty. In practical terms, the universe is
constant.
It's just human life that is a momentary blip in energy densities.

On the other hand, if you want to get lost in a psychotic sea of
mathematics, take a wander over to sci.physics. They will surely have an
'explanation of the day', and will enjoy the opportunity to hurl abuse
at each other!
Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills

"Richard" wrote in message
...
Sorry to drag this old chestnut up, but Im still baffled by the whole
thing,
if the farthest stars are somewhere in the region of 14 billion light
years
away, how have the stars managed to get so far if the universe is as old
as
we think it is?

I can recommend a good read called The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene. It
covers this sort of stuff but also simpler stuff to get you upto speed and
also some more complex stuff that makes you question whether you really
understood the simple stuff in the first place.

For a brief moment in time, after reading this, I felt I truly understood
curved space and the brilliance of relativity. The feeling of euphoria soon
disappeared into a cloud of non Abelion anyons as I started to question it
all again, though.

Regards,
Ed.

In message , DT
writes
In message , Richard
writes
Sorry to drag this old chestnut up, but Im still baffled by the whole thing,
if the farthest stars are somewhere in the region of 14 billion light years
away, how have the stars managed to get so far if the universe is as old as
we think it is?


It's acceptable to be baffled. As you know this is an old chestnut, you
must have read the old chestnut answers. The age and origin of the
universe is theoretical, i.e. Some clever people have come up with a
theory to explain some limited evidence and a great deal of dubious
extrapolation.

Actually it is supported at least to within an order of magnitude by a
great deal of experimental evidence. And it is getting harder and harder
for the theoreticians as telescopes get ever more powerful.

Some other clever people have a theory called 'steady state' based on
the same evidence but different extrapolation. This is not currently
flavour of the month.

That's an understatement. It was pretty much shot down in flames several
decades ago. Only a handful of the oldest generation still cling to it.

Yet other theories exist that are generally described as 'barking mad'.
It is entirely possible that the universe is quite different to our
current models.

That is always possible. But whatever model we settle on it has to
explain all the observed data. Hot Big Bang does surprisingly well at
explaining how the universe works. It may still be wrong, but until you
can produce a better model it is a very good working approximation.

Ned Wrights cosmology FAQ is as good a place to start as any.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

In message , Martin Brown
writes
snip
But whatever model we settle on it has to explain all the observed
data. Hot Big Bang does surprisingly well at explaining how the
universe works. It may still be wrong, but until you can produce a
better model it is a very good working approximation.

Ned Wrights cosmology FAQ is as good a place to start as any.

Regards,
--
Martin Brown

I have no argument with what you say, and I agree that Ned Wrights' FAQ
is very helpful, but my (light-hearted) point was that much of what I
read is presented as cast in stone, when in fact an important aspect of
many statements is the assumption that it is perfectly reasonable to
extrapolate backwards in time from the current situation.
I see statements and photographs from Hubble, etc. that lead me to
believe that large galaxies could form within half a billion years of
the starting gun and I have trouble with this, bearing in mind that I've
also read that Sol takes around a quarter of a billion years on just one
circuit of our Galaxy.
I freely admit to being a learner, but the hardest part of all this is
sorting the wheat from the chaff.
(and, at the moment, deciding who is a troll and who isn't!)

Denis
--
DT
Replace nospam with the antithesis of hills