0

My question is this: If we can look back to roughly 500m years after the big bang and have estimated the age of the universe at 13.7B years, why is the galaxy we are looking at not a part of the non-observable universe? Shouldn't its space have inflated so much that it is moving away from us faster than the speed of light?

One article I have read is that the true size of the universe may actually be 250 times the size of the observable universe. (Mihran Vardanyan at the University of Oxford + others) If this is true, then wouldn't the age of the universe be older than we have predicted?

My second question is why isn't the Microwave Background Radiation a part of the non-observable universe if it is older than the oldest galaxies which we cannot see as they are moving away faster than light.

Qmechanic
  • 201,751
Rick
  • 2,686
  • I am not sure the question: Why is the observable universe so big? answers my questions.

    I understand why the non-observable universe is non-observable.... My questions concern why we can see items 500m years after the big bang. Should these not have been moving away from us faster than light speed?

    And then there is the MBR as part of this question.

    – Rick Feb 17 '19 at 23:25
  • Also if we have underestimated the size of the non-observable universe per Mihran, then does this mean we have underestimated the age of the universe? – Rick Feb 17 '19 at 23:29
  • You are not accounting for the expansion. Galaxies were closer to us when they emitted the light that we are now receiving. That makes the distance calculations more complicated than just equating distance to age. – D. Halsey Feb 18 '19 at 00:01

0 Answers0