kuzinov:

  Correct me if I'm mistaken, but, I thought String Theory was less about Cosmology as a whole and more a way to unify quantum physics with macro-physics. ... an attempt to have a "rule book" that covers both.

Yep, I agree. It's the unification bit that gets sticky. The main problem I have with the String idea is it's verifiability. I know some new work is going on in that regard, and the LHC holds promises for some light to be shed in that direction ...

If the idea of a singularity has merit, and if you take the BBT as requiring it, then these ideas (or some very like) will come into play sooner or later.

Hi Chip,

I have been watching this thread and have enjoyed reading each post.

I also have a keen interest in Cosmology and I have been eagerly waiting for the LHC to shed some new secrets, But I cannot seem to find any updates as to the current status of the LHC, other than a accident that caused damage to some magnets, http://peculiarvelocity.wordpress.com/2008/10/17/lhc-status-report/

I like to keep an open mind especially with the direction of Cosmology, String theory, M Theory, and all the other theories or hypothesis that have recently sprung forth.

I have to agree that so far the BBT has not been shot down by mainstream science, but every time I read about particles that can be at two places at the same time,  and how particles can appear and disappear, and then re-appear, I can't help but wonder what are we missing?  The Universe we see now, created all of these particles through the process of Stellar nuclear synthesis, at least according to our present level of accepted theories, so in my mind both the Macro Universe and Micro particle worlds should play by the same set of rules.

 I have to agree with the BBT so far, because it seems to fit the observations quite well, but April's Issue on the cyclic universe has instilled a serious doubt in my mind, and that we as human beings are just not physically equipped to ever fully understand the universe as a whole.

As far as the Age of the Universe being 14bly old, I am quite sure that we may be jumping to an early conclusion,  because it fits the observational data, it's fine for now and accepted, but I am glad to see that we still keep asking how and why.

One thing for sure is that we live in a very special time of great scientific discoveries to come.

Nice thread!

Dennis

Hi Star Dragon, been some time...

I vote infinite, until proven otherwise....

I would otherwise argue that:

The limit of the reiman integration is infinity only on the case of  fields, not particles. What defines particles (proton , neutron) is a interference pattern on a wave, folded in on itself some 5000 5082 times (11 frequency vector equilibrium). So Calculus is OK for macro structures, but the infinite Rieman Sum fails at about the hadron distance for particle physics. Et to BB.

Star Dragon, what have you been up to since the GGIT era. New telescope or photos ...? 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Dennis, I thus reply to you without adding a new entry to the thread per your following hijack comment, by your own bootstaps. Copaxone and sparagus work well together.

Hi Morbas,

Yes, it has been some time, its good to hear from you again.

I have to agree with your view, of course we have relied on the fact that the Riemann sum always has a limit as n goes to infinity. I barely remember my Calculus, Ouch! my age is showing.

I have been patiently waiting for the LHC to go full steam ahead, hoping that it will open up some new ways of thinking, that might to be able to unite both under one grand unified theory. It just seems logical.

I still have the same 4 scopes,  the only upgrade I have made recently is a new DSI PRO II for my 6 inch refractor,  and my latest image was NGC 2903 it's in the Astro photos section.

I did suffer a slip and fall from my MS, and I broke my left leg and ankle early last month.
I'm still in a cast, but I hope to get it off soon.
Leo is coming up, and I should be working on my 3 year long Super Nova hunt, in all the Spirals in the area. 

Sorry folks it was not my intention to semi hijack this thread!

Dennis

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

I posted some of these links before.

Here it is again, and make a scientific look at it and not an emotional one.

   Harrry, honestly isn't there anything better you could be doing with your time? I hear there's been some great strides made in 9/11 and moon landing conspiracies. Perhaps you should go to a dictionary and look up the words theory and hypothesis and learn the difference.

 To me the age of the Universe is just a matter of perspective.

Lets say for example that the BBT is correct, since we can only go so far  back wards with our math, and the singularity is left, How long was the Universe in that state before the BBT? It's a question that just cannot ever be answered.

 We can work back wards to the point that there is breakdown of physics, so were is the beginning?  is it at the start of the singularity? or the separation  of the known forces of nature?. we can never say how long the universe was in this primal state that the standard model leads us to.

It's like chip said, it is like asking whats North of North?

This is just one perspective, For the BBT advocates, the universe started as a massive expansion from a singularity, which lead to the separation of the 4 known forces of nature.

For others, they ask, well how long was the universe contained in a singularity before this expansion?

We are asking a question that just cannot ever be answered with any certainty.

Dennis

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

Some people become emotional over the BBT and if people do not agree with it than they come up with statements that are silly and try to insult the person.

Look I do not care which theory rules the waves.

From the reading that I do the BBT reminds me of Santa Clause. How do you prove that Santa Clause does not exist? How do you prove that the universe is infinite.

I post many links above and thats only the tip of the iceberg, if you wish to understand than you will need to read the links and make up your own mind.

Okay Harry, I understand if your not up to the challenge.  It's kind of hard being on the side of something for which their is no support.  I only used expressions which you yourself had used earlier.  Why even in your last post, you've used the words "silly, emotional, and Santa Claus against people and the BB.  The only time you stuck your neck out with a statement of your own that; "there are some stars 20 billion years old", Chip pulled you out on the carpet, and you had nothing.  No proof.  Nothing.

I haven't put you down with any words lately.  But consider yourself swatted.

  A webpage a scientific paper does not make. I'm not even going to waste my time with them. There's plenty of "proof" for the BBT. We have cosmic backround radiation, the Hubble Flow of galaxies. and an elegant theory that matches observed data.

Dusty said

 Okay Harry, I understand if your not up to the challenge.  It's kind of hard being on the side of something for which their is no support.  I only used expressions which you yourself had used earlier.  Why even in your last post, you've used the words "silly, emotional, and Santa Claus against people and the BB.  The only time you stuck your neck out with a statement of your own that; "there are some stars 20 billion years old", Chip pulled you out on the carpet, and you had nothing.  No proof.  Nothing.

What to what challenge?

As for the stars and objects in the universe being older than 20 Grs, think about it for a sec. The universe is infinite in time and matter. The BBT is very theoretical and has no concrete evidence to support it , but for ad hoc ideas.

As for people wasting their time reading the links that I posted, well they are not my links.

If you have any idea of the complexity and size of a galaxy, local group of galaxies, that make up a cluster of local group of galaxies that make up a super cluster of clusters of local groups of galaxies than you will understand that the probability of forming these structures in just 13.7 Gyrs is like living in fantasy land.

In the near future the BBT will be called the greatest crank theory and how on Earth did people ever think along those lines. You can mark my words.

 If you get a chance read up on the Origin of CMB.

also star formation and cycles of phases and rejuvination.

than maybe look at the life span of a super size black hole 18 billion the mass of our sun.

Hi Harry,

You make a valid point, I have read most of those links that you posted, I also don't really care which theory or hypothesis is accepted by the mainstream,  But It's good to see it being questioned, that is what really matters to me, its not and open and shut case.

The anomalies in the Polarized CMB and the interpretation of the redshift needs to be re-examined.

The only thing that bothers me about the BBT and the estimated age of our Universe is that our Pillars like the CMB and the Redshift phenomenon can be skewed by some unknown means.

I have read that besides the polarization of the CMB, some other Astronomers have found a flow of galaxy clusters within the CMB.

It's good to see it questioned, now we need concrete observational data to overthrow the Redshift at large distance scales and an explanation of the possibly corrupted CMB.

Dennis

Star Dragon:

The anomalies in the Polarized CMB and the interpretation of the redshift needs to be re-examined.

These have been questioned many times, and in great depth. Doubtless there will always be someone to question them. It would be a gross overstatement to say that current questions along these lines threaten the BBT.

I have read that besides the polarization of the CMB, some other Astronomers have found a flow of galaxy clusters within the CMB.

There certainly are movements among galaxy clusters, as well as movements of galaxy clusters that are not in line with the Hubble Flow. Even on the scale of galaxy clusters and superclusters you're still talking about "local" phenomena (that is, specific to one part of the Universe). The expansion-based flow is universal (that is, the same for all parts of the universe at large). Expansion trumps local flow only at cosmic scales; at local scales, gravity dominates.

See Voyage to the Great Attractor, for a lucid summary.

I'm not sure what you mean by "within the CMB" ... it should be no surprise that anything moves within the CMB, since the CMB is all around us and everything else.

... an explanation of the possibly corrupted CMB.

Small-scale anisotropies are to be expected. I'm not aware of any large-scale problems. Both COBE and WMAP confirmed the correlation between theory and CMB measurements to ever-increasing accuracies.

G'day from the land of ozzzzz

This is an interesting link

 and this paper is of interest

And CMB polarizaton invalidates the BBT just how?

It is a well-known problem and is a major reason behind the Planck mission. Better data and a fuller characterization of the parameters affecting its accurate collection and reduction are needed, and they're going after those.

A child is borned but was not declared ( given a birth certificate ), now a young man and he wants to know his age. He goes to his grandmother and inquires about his mother, the grandmother tells him that his mother was twenty-years old when she became pregnant and she die at the early age of forty. She further tell him that she carried him for a full nine month before giving birth. It's easy to calculate his age: the young men will is 20 years old or is about to be. If we find the age of our Galaxy then we will be much closer to the age of our Universe. Another thought, " Space " DOES NOT MOVE. Everything that occupies space is in constant motion be it that is attracted to another force or not but space itself has no Motion. The numbers which are applied to the Galaxies and Universes are astronomical ones, which makes it difficult for the ordinary minds to comprehend and visualized.

Fluflu:

I understand your reasoning.

However, earlier you stated:

So the question should be -- How old is our Galaxy? Its a much greater number than you can imagine and much more than 14 billion years old.  

First, I can imagine some pretty big numbers (ages). Second, I'm not aware of any evidence that our galaxy is older than 14 billion years. It is certainly not a widely-held opinion.

We've explained how we estimate the age of the Universe (by running the clock backwards using simulators based on what we think we know, then running them forward again to see if the assumptions we applied result in a Universe that is compatible with what we observe. We do this iteratively, honing the calculations until we've run out of reasonable assumptions.

When we do this, it results in models that give reasonable ages on the order of 13+ billion years, and the assumptions that drive those models very nearly match the conditions postulated for the first few hundred million years near t=0 of the Big Bang. We then extrapolate as far back in time as we can using what we know about quantum physics and derive a figure more like 13.7 billion years ago as the most probably time for t=0.

Beyond that (earlier than that), nothing we model results in usable simulations (ones that give Universes that are similar to what we observe today). Earlier than that, we must simply label "undefined" until new and falsifiable theories -- or better technologies -- are developed.

Galaxy formation and evolution are hot areas of study right now. Perhaps new insights gained from GALEX and similar missions will help refine our understanding.

This graphic illustrates our current (mainstream) thoughts:

and is explained here.

Gday from the land of ozzzzz

To date the age of the MIlky way you need to first work out the evolution of merges with other galaxies and than calculate the time taken to form a spiral. One more thing its undergoing a merger as we speak.

Better to look at the evolution of galaxy form. Use either Hubble tuning fork or the modern approach.

Once the age is calculated, you have only calculated the evolutionary phase of the spiral and not the history of its formation.