http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/6455493/Exploding-star-from-13-billion-years-ago-caught-on-camera.html
So how long will it take for something to be clearly older than the possible age of the universe by redshift (on classical terms) to be found?

Well, you can't do it by redshift because when emission time approaches zero, the redshift approaches infinity, so you can't get redshift based measurement of "older than universe".

The equation is presented here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift

1 + z = a_now / a_then

where a_now and a_then are basically the size of the universe. When we are looking at distant objects existing very close to the time of the big bang, the a_then is close to zero, and when we approach the time of the big bang, the size of the universe approaches zero, i.e. a_then approaches zero. You can see from the equation that z approaches infinity when a_then approaches zero.

Thanks Ari,
So can we apply this formula to the CMB?
How big was the universe when that was emitted and how big is it now?
warming to a theme,
If z is infinite, the temp was infinite.
How long does it take for an infinite temperature to cool down?

If z is infinite, the temp was infinite.
How long does it take for an infinite temperature to cool down?

*laugh* Although I know we love talking up asymptotes for these things, it's pretty easy to use limit theory to get out of that infinite bind.

What I think is more likely to happen is that a galaxy cluster will be found with a redshift indicating it was created way too early in the Universe for it to be possible to have formed.  We came close just recently with a cluster finding (see here: Galaxy cluster smashes distance record), but it didn't quite make the cut.

Of course, if we do find one "old enough" to disturb the BBT assumptions about galaxy cluster ages, I'm sure the mainstreamers will come up with an explanation that suits the newly found data.

Hey!  Let's beat 'em to the punch!  Can anyone suggest what they might come up with?  Should be fun.

- Mike Petersen

Lyndon said:

So can we apply this formula to the CMB?

I think so, but I don't know the relevant parameter values for that. I remember seeing some discussion about CMBR having redshift of z = 1000, but I don't know any sources for that right now.

Lyndon said:

If z is infinite, the temp was infinite.

I don't think that is known yet. We don't know how to get back to t = 0 to find out.

Thanks Ari,
I see what you are on about in an earlier post. Unfortunately I am not an einstein and it takes time to get my head around things.
When you say that one cannot use redshift to determine the age of the universe I realise that you are referring to my hydrogen cloud paper.
That I can do as the talk back time is not only published in 'good' journals but in the time scale mentioned it works.
However, I will take it on board and change the paper to avoid the confusion.
(sorry, but I am from lancashire and you have to 'say it as it is' otherwise it goes over my head.)
However, you have given me a great idea and I will get back to you.
Cheers
Lyndon

Lyndon said:

When you say that one cannot use redshift to determine the age of the universe I realise that you are referring to my hydrogen cloud paper.

If I am, it's completely accidental. :)

I really was just referring to the equation I presented. I know that in Big bang theory, when time goes from 0 to now, redshift goes from infinity to 0. That means that no matter how high redshift you measure, the redshift does not indicate "older than universe". That was all I meant.

But even if it wasn't exactly intentional, it's good that a great idea came out of it.