Tutorial : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Age | Distances | Bibliography | Relativity
The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
The evidence for an accelerating expansion comes from observations of the brightness of distant supernovae. We observe the redshift of a supernova which tells us by what the factor the Universe has expanded since the supernova exploded. This factor is (1+z), where z is the redshift. But in order to determine the expected brightness of the supernova, we need to know its distance now. If the expansion of the Universe is accelerating due to a cosmological constant, then the expansion was slower in the past, and thus the time required to expand by a given factor is longer, and the distance NOW is larger. But if the expansion is decelerating, it was faster in the past and the distance NOW is smaller. Thus for an accelerating expansion the supernovae at high redshifts will appear to be fainter than they would for a decelerating expansion because their current distances are larger. Note that these distances are all proportional to the age of the Universe [or 1/Ho], but this dependence cancels out when the brightness of a nearby supernova at z close to 0.1 is compared to a distant supernova with z close to 1.
This question makes some hidden assumptions about space and time which are not consistent with all definitions of distance and time. One assumes that all the galaxies left from a single point at the Big Bang, and the most distant one traveled away from us for half the age of the Universe at almost the speed of light, and then emitted light which came back to us at the speed of light. By assuming constant velocities, we must ignore gravity, so this would only happen in a nearly empty Universe. In the empty Universe, one of the many possible definitions of distance does agree with the assumptions in this question: the angular size distance, and it does reach a maximum value of the speed of light times one half the age of the Universe. See Part 2 of the cosmology tutorial for a discussion of the other kinds of distances which go to infinity in the empty Universe model since this gives an unbounded Universe.
When talking about the distance of a moving object, we mean the spatial separation NOW, with the positions of both objects specified at the current time. In an expanding Universe this distance NOW is larger than the speed of light times the light travel time due to the increase of separations between objects as the Universe expands. This is not do to any change in the units of space and time, but just caused by things being farther apart now than they used to be.
What is the distance NOW to the most distant thing we can see? Let's take the age of the Universe to be 10 billion years. In that time light travels 10 billion light years, and some people stop here. But the distance has grown since the light traveled. The average time when the light was traveling was 5 billion years ago. For the critical density case, the scale factor for the Universe goes like the 2/3 power of the time since the Big Bang, so the Universe has grown by a factor of 22/3 = 1.59 since the midpoint of the light's trip. But the size of the Universe changes continuously, so we should divide the light's trip into short intervals. First take two intervals: 5 billion years at an average time 7.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which gives 5 billion light years that have grown by a factor of 1/(0.75)2/3 = 1.21, plus another 5 billion light years at an average time 2.5 billion years after the Big Bang, which has grown by a factor of 42/3 = 2.52. Thus with 1 interval we got 1.59*10 = 15.9 billion light years, while with two intervals we get 5*(1.21+2.52) = 18.7 billion light years. With 8192 intervals we get 29.3 billion light years. In the limit of very many time intervals we get 30 billion light years.
Another way of seeing this is to consider a photon and a galaxy 30 billion light years away from us now, 10 billion years after the Big Bang. The distance of this photon satisfies D = 3ct. If we wait for 0.1 billion years, the Universe will grow by a factor of (10.1/10)2/3 = 1.0066, so the galaxy will be 1.0066*30 = 30.2 billion light years away. But the light will have traveled 0.1 billion light years further than the galaxy because it moves at the speed of light relative to the matter in its vicinity and will thus be at D = 30.3 billion light years, so D = 3ct is still satisfied.
If the Universe does not have the critical density then the distance is different, and for the low densities that are more likely the distance NOW to the most distant object we can see is bigger than 3 times the speed of light times the age of the Universe.
Of course the Universe has to be older than the oldest stars in it. So this question basically asks: which estimate is wrong -
Determining the age of the oldest stars requires a knowledge of their luminosity, which depends on their distance. This leads to a 25% uncertainty in the ages of the oldest stars due to the difficulty in determining distances.
Thus the discrepancy between the age of the oldest things in the Universe and the age inferred from the expansion rate is within the current margin of error. In fact, in 1997 improved distances from the HIPPARCOS satellite suggested that this discrepancy has vanished.
Again, this is a question that depends on which of the many distance definitions one uses. However, if we assume that the distance of an object at time t is the distance from our position at time t to the object's position at time t measured by a set of observers moving with the expansion of the Universe, and all making their observations when they see the Universe as having age t, then the velocity (change in D per change in t) can definitely be larger than the speed of light. This is not a contradiction of special relativity because this distance is not the same as the spatial distance used in SR, and the age of the Universe is not the same as the time used in SR. In the special case of the empty Universe, where one can show the model in both special relativistic and cosmological coordinates, the velocity defined by change in cosmological distance per unit cosmic time is given by v = c ln(1+z) which clearly goes to infinity as the redshift goes to infinity, and is larger than c for z > 1.718. For the critical density Universe, this velocity is given by v = 2c[1-(1+z)-0.5] which is larger than c for z > 3 .
The redshift of an object is the amount by which the spectral lines in the source are shifted to the red. That is, the wavelengths get longer. To be precise, the redshift is given by
z = [WL(obs)-WL(em)]/WL(em)where WL(em) is the emitted wavelength of a line, which is known from laboratory measurements, and WL(obs) is the observed wavelength of the line. In an expanding Universe, distant objects are redshifted, with z = Ho D/c for small distances. This law was discovered by Hubble and Ho is known as the Hubble constant.
The short answer is
Stockton (1978, ApJ, 223, 747) observed faint galaxies near in the sky to bright quasars at moderate redshifts. He chose quasars with moderate redshifts so he would still be able to see galaxies at the redshift of the quasar. He found that a good fraction of the redshifts of the faint galaxies agreed with the redshifts of the quasars. In other words, quasars are associated with galaxies that have the same redshift as the quasar and have just the brightness expected if the quasars are at their cosmological distances. Thus at least some quasars are at the distance indicated by their redshifts, and this includes some of the most luminous quasars: for example 3C273. Thus the simple answer selected by Occam's razor is that all quasars are at the distances indicated by their redshifts.
The statistical arguments advanced by Arp and others in favor of anomalous quasar redshifts are often incorrect.
One famous example of objects with different redshifts appearing in the same part of the sky is Stephan's Quintet. But the low redshift galaxy (in the lower left) is obviously more resolved into stars and looks "bumpier". By the surface brightness fluctuation method of distance determination, this bumpiness means that the low redshift galaxy is indeed much closer to us than the other four members of the quintet.
This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 4 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:
This depends on how you measure things, or your choice of coordinates. In one view, the spatial positions of galaxies are changing, and this causes the redshift. In another view, the galaxies are at fixed coordinates, but the distance between fixed points increases with time, and this causes the redshift. General relativity explains how to transform from one view to the other, and the observable effects like the redshift are the same in both views. Part 3 of the tutorial shows space-time diagrams for the Universe drawn in both ways.
Also see the Relativity FAQ answer to this question.
This question is best answered in the coordinate system where the galaxies change their positions. The galaxies are receding from us because they started out receding from us, and the force of gravity just causes an acceleration that causes them to slow down. Planets are going around the Sun is fixed size orbits because they are bound to the Sun. Everything is just moving under the influence of Newton's laws (with very slight modifications due to relativity). [Illustration] For the technically minded, Cooperstock et al. computes that the influence of the cosmological expansion on the Earth's orbit around the Sun amounts to a growth by only one part in a septillion over the age of the Solar System. This effect is caused by the cosmological background density within the Solar System going down as the Universe expands, which may or may not happen depending on the nature of the dark matter. The mass loss of the Sun due to its luminosity and the Solar wind leads to a much larger [but still tiny] growth of the Earth's orbit which has nothing to do with the expansion of the Universe. Even on the much larger (million light year) scale of clusters of galaxies, the effect of the expansion of the Universe is 10 million times smaller than the gravitational binding of the cluster.
Also see the Relativity FAQ answer to this question.
The definitions of length and time are not changing in the standard model. The second is still 9192631770 cycles of a Cesium atomic clock and the meter is still the distance light travels in 9192631770/299792458 cycles of a Cesium atomic clock.
The Universe appears to be homogeneous and isotropic, and there are only three possible geometries that are homogeneous and isotropic as shown in Part 3. A flat space has Euclidean geometry, where the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180o. A curved space has non-Euclidean geometry. In a positively curved, or hyperspherical space, the sum of the angles in a triangle is bigger than 180o, and this angle excess gives the area of the triangle divided by the square of the radius of the surface. In a negatively curved or hyperbolic space, the sum of the angles in a triangle is less than 180o. When Gauss invented this non-Euclidean geometry he actually tried measuring a large triangle, but he got an angle sum of 180o because the radius of the Universe is very large (if not infinite) so the angle excess or deficit has to be tiny for any triangle we can measure. If the radius is infinite, then the Universe is flat.
Bolyai developed this geometry and published it, whereupon Gauss wrote to Bolyai's father: "To praise it would amount to praising myself. For the entire content of the work ... coincides almost exactly with my own meditations which have occupied my mind for the past thirty or thirty-five years." And Lobachevsky had published very similar work in the obscure Kazan Messenger.
This question is based on the ever popular misconception that the Universe is some curved object embedded in a higher dimensional space, and that the Universe is expanding into this space. This misconception is probably fostered by the balloon analogy which shows a 2-D spherical model of the Universe expanding in a 3-D space. While it is possible to think of the Universe this way, it is not necessary, and there is nothing whatsoever that we have measured or can measure that will show us anything about the larger space. Everything that we measure is within the Universe, and we see no edge or boundary or center of expansion. Thus the Universe is not expanding into anything that we can see, and this is not a profitable thing to think about. Just as Dali's Corpus Hypercubicus is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D object that represents the surface of a 4-D cube, remember that the balloon analogy is just a 2-D picture of a 3-D situation that is supposed to help you think about a curved 3-D space, but it does not mean that there is really a 4-D space that the Universe is expanding into.
Or you can ask Dr. Science :)
The standard Big Bang model is singular at the time of the Big Bang, t = 0. This means that one cannot even define time, since spacetime is singular. In some models like the chaotic or perpetual inflation favored by Linde, the Big Bang is just one of many inflating bubbles in a spacetime foam. But there is no possibility of getting information from outside our own one bubble. Thus I conclude that: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent."
From Bruce Margon and Craig Hogan at the Univ. of Washington
When astronomers add up the masses and luminosities of the stars near the Sun, they find that there are about 3 solar masses for every 1 solar luminosity. When they measure the total mass of clusters of galaxies and compare that to the total luminosity of the clusters, they find about 300 solar masses for every solar luminosity. Evidently most of the mass in the Universe is dark. If the Universe has the critical density then there are about 1000 solar masses for every solar luminosity, so an even greater fraction of the Universe is dark matter. But the theory of Big Bang nucleosynthesis says that the density of ordinary matter (anything made from atoms) can be at most 10% of the critical density, so the majority of the Universe does not emit light, does not scatter light, does not absorb light, and is not even made out of atoms. It can only be "seen" by its gravitational effects. This "non-baryonic" dark matter can be neutrinos, if they have small masses instead of being massless, or it can be WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles), or it could be primordial black holes. My nominee for the "least likely to be caught" award goes to hypothetical stable Planck mass remnants of primordial black holes that have evaporated due to Hawking radiation. The Hawking radiation from the not-yet evaporated primordial black holes may be detectable by future gamma ray telescopes, but the 20 microgram remnants would be very hard to detect.
Also see the Relativity FAQ answer to this question, Jonathan Dursi's tutorial on dark matter, and the Center for Particle Astrophysics on dark matter.
Dr. Science on dark matter :).
This is the question that professional astronomers ask the most frequently,
and the answer is:
Tutorial : Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Age | Distances | Bibliography | Relativity
© 1996-2000 Edward L. Wright. Last modified 20-Jul-2000