Cosmology

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

DaveMitsky — Thu, 14 May 2009 03:47:15 GMT

fluflu:
The age of the Universe is not conclusive and so its keeps getting older as science discovered more facts and evidence about it.

The universe has actually gotten younger as more precise measurements have been made. The high end figure for the age of the universe was originally placed at 20 billion years.

Dave Mitsky

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

porcupinehill — Wed, 13 May 2009 18:18:08 GMT

fluflu:

.... A created Universe froman initial point seems to fit the human mind but it does not fit the human mind to asked what was there before that initial point. I will stated it again, in order for something to exist it must have the space to occupied it first. Energy can't just appear out of nowhere, ....

Hi fluflu,

But energy apparently does appear out of nowhere all the time! quantum vacuum fluctuations are an integral part of our universe. particles and antiparticles come into existance and spontaneusly decay constantly throughout all space in the universe (the keystone of Hawking radiation). These particles are of course energy.

Newtons a-priori universal time and space as a backdrop to all that exists has also been discarded in light of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Space and time are human concepts....used to understand natural phenomenon. They are perceptions to us, but they may have expanded properties from some other more universal point of view not easily accessed by beings such as us who evolved in a very limited environment.

Einstiens model of spacetime is beyond many peoples understanding of reality...even perhaps a few of us on this forum...but even though it describes observations much better than Newton's model it too is an incomplete model of space and time as it cannot be reconciled with quantum phenonena. So perhaps it does not describe all there is to know about space and time. But Einsteins model IS the model of the big bang and it predicts the sigularity as containing all matter, all space, all time all of everything that later became observable in the universe. If you accept the big bang theory at all then you are really accepting a model where there is no "before" and there is no "backdrop of 3 space dimension". A big bang with a "before" and a 3-D backdrop is a brand new theory.

The model of the BB as the origin of space and the origin of time is the model of General Relativity. GRhas been proven constent with macroscopic observation (unlike conjecture that has not been confirmed such as string theory). GR is not consistent with quantum mechanics so the universe cannot be modeled back in time to a singularity, only to a very small diameter. THe mystery that lies in the earliest 10-43 second of history may in reality be on its own scale a rich and illustrious history that may include another familiar or unfamiliar universe. Nobody knows anything about before this time. Before this time ist is all conjecture. "Before" all lies in the first .00000000000000000000000000000000000000000043 second and for all we know this may be enough to contain all our wildest imaginings!

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

fluflu — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 11:05:01 GMT

Evidencce minus evidence equals zero. Some are unabble to graps the concept so they select to built upon a model that fits their imagination. A created Universe froman initial point seems to fit the human mind but it does not fit the human mind to asked what was there before that initial point. I will stated it again, in order for something to exist it must have the space to occupied it first. Energy can't just appear out of nowhere, all energy is the break down of something else, visible and invisble. What seems to appear out in space all of the sudden as witness by scientists is due to the facts that we already have a Universe and a lot of dark energy. mass and gravity which are responsible for such appearences. The age of the Universe is not conclusive and so its keeps getting older as science discovered more facts and evidence about it. Some interesting reading are found in UNIVERSE BY design --- an Explanation of Cosmology and Creation. By Dr. Danny Faulkner. Though I don't accept nor believed in Religion or that God created the universe, this book presents different points of views.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

kuzinov — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 12:42:35 GMT

Harry, thank you for posting and proving my points.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

tkerr — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:36:55 GMT

If you are unable to discuss this thread topic and keep it friendly, then in accordance with web site usage policies I will lock it from further discussion.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

Harry Costas — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 09:32:08 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Hello Chip read my words.

What part did I say was a joke?

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

chipdatajeffB — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:51:13 GMT

Harry Costas:

Do you think that the BB started from one point and that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light?

Is this some form of a joke. So we have theory becoming a fact.

This has been explained before. I also have explained here, several times, the way a theory reaches that status (that it is not just an "idea", that there are rules in science for elevating an hypothesis to the level of theory).

Your continually referring to the BBT as a joke is wearing thin. You can be forgiven your misunderstanding of, or resistance to, any given theory -- whether it's the standard model or not.

But I warned you before about challenging other members in this way. Play here politely, or don't play here.

I'm finding this discussion is less about hard science and more about emotions. You send us links, then absolve yourself of any responsibility about their validity. You take an extreme viewpoint then play the victim when called on it and question everyone else's logic. I'm finding this thread tiresome, unlike the Life Out There thread which has some great logic chopping.

Some of the link that I post do not agree with my thinking and yet I find them interesting. Expressing my opinion right or wrong is hardly important.

But! If you wish to discuss any paper, just ask. If you wish to discuss deep science than, what are you waiting for.

Or do you wish to sit on the fence and feel the victim.

This is another challenge. Please change your style of discourse here, Harry. Last chance.

There are many who read the links that I post and even say thank you.

That may be true. But it's beside the point. Including it here is a bit smug.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

Harry Costas — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 08:00:15 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzz

Kuzinov said

Harry, Dusty does have the theory correct. As I stated earlier, according to the BBT, you cannot estimate the size of the Universe from it's age. The point being that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light, spacetime isn't affected from the whole having to travel to space thing. The Hubble Flow is well known, it was from the deviations of the Hubble Flow that the Seven Samurai were able to guage a rough map of large scale structure to the Universe, again see Voyage to the Great Attractor.

Do you think that the BB started from one point and that spacetime can expand faster than the speed of light?

Is this some form of a joke. So we have theory becoming a fact.

I'm finding this discussion is less about hard science and more about emotions. You send us links, then absolve yourself of any responsibility about their validity. You take an extreme viewpoint then play the victim when called on it and question everyone else's logic. I'm finding this thread tiresome, unlike the Life Out There thread which has some great logic chopping.

Some of the link that I post do not agree with my thinking and yet I find them interesting. Expressing my opinion right or wrong is hardly important.

But! If you wish to discuss any paper, just ask. If you wish to discuss deep science than, what are you waiting for.

Or do you wish to sit on the fence and feel the victim.

There are many who read the links that I post and even say thank you.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

kuzinov — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:38:49 GMT

Toodles

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

Harry Costas — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:16:15 GMT

G'day from the land of ozzzzzz

Dusty if you are going to refer to the BBT, at least get the theory correct.

Its like asking a person to count to TEN with only one number to count with.

Where has science gone, we live in the modern ERA.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

Dusty_Matter — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:08:21 GMT

fluflu, The age of our galaxy is less than 13.7 billion years old. When the universe came into being, it took time for the first massive stars to form and for galaxies to begin to take shape. As time went on, small galaxies merged with others, until you have the large stately galaxies that are near us today. Our own galaxy has gone through many such mergers, and it's age is somewhat ambiguous. At what point do you call a proto-galaxy a galaxy? When do you start to call what formed around the first massive stars proto- galaxies? The rosebush comes before the rose. Just like the son will always be younger than his mother, our galaxy is younger than the universe and that's about all there is to that.

Your thought that “space does not move”, is not entirely correct. Space did not exist before the BB. The BB is the creation of our entire universe including spacetime. It was not really an explosion of just matter as some people think. Our universe literally started from a small point of highly energetic spacetime, which expanded at an incredible speed, and is indeed still expanding at an incredible speed. Our spacetime is expanding in all directions, and all the galaxies, (for the most part) although standing placed in their own little vicinity of spacetime, are actually being carried away from other more distant galaxies by the growth of our universe. So the expansion of spacetime does cause a type of motion in that the galaxies are getting farther and farther apart. They are not moving through spacetime in this example, but are moving with spacetime. Space does move, in that our universe is still expanding.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

Harry Costas — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:54:11 GMT

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.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:45:33 GMT

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.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

fluflu — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:26:49 GMT

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.

Re: 'the Universe is 14 Billion years old" ?

chipdatajeffB — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 10:07:24 GMT

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.