Age of the Universe

doubtingthomas · Apr 26, 2005

I have always wondered about the so called "age of the universe". I always see it pegged at "around 13 billion years". This seems highly suspect to me. The age of our solar system is said to be about 5 billion years. Our solar system is but an extremely miniscule speck in the vast universe, so it is extremely difficult for me to believe that the whole universe is only 3 times the age of our solar system. Can you shed any light on this seeming incongruity?

tfwthom · Apr 26, 2005

September 27, 1999: Dr. Eyal Maoz of NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, and astrophysicists from a variety of U.S. and Canadian institutions have found evidence suggesting that the universe may be younger than scientists had previously thought, and that it is expanding faster than expected. Their findings are reported in the September 23 issue of Nature magazine. Many current estimates put the age of the universe at about 15 billion years. Maoz' research indicates the universe may be as young as 12 billion years, nearly the same age as its oldest stars. This implied relatively low age of the universe could revive an old paradox in the field of astrophysics that the universe seems to be younger than some of the stars in it. Maoz and his team used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe the pulsing of giant stars called "Cepheid variables" in the galaxy NGC4258. Researchers used a standard "Cepheid measurement" technique that allowed them to measure the distance from Earth to the galaxy. However, this measurement was different from another independent, highly accurate distance determination to that galaxy made using masers (the microwave equivalent of lasers), which are located at the galaxy center and orbiting a supermassive black hole. This means that the Cepheid distance scale may need tweaking. A revision of the standard Cepheid measurement method would mean that estimates for the age of the Universe would have to be revised downwards by 10-15%, experts say. Measuring galactic distances using Cepheid variables has been a standard since 1929. They are useful because their rate of pulsation is closely linked to their brightness. This means that a galaxy's apparent brightness can be used to gauge its distance from Earth. Maoz and his colleagues used the Cepheid method to estimate the distance from Earth to the benchmark NGC4258 galaxy as 8.1 megaparsecs (Mpc), significantly farther than the geometric estimates der <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> www.siriuslookers.org </div>

Saiph · Apr 26, 2005

I don't see anything odd about that. There are many planetary systems out there (finding more all the time!). It takes only so much time to build up the elements required, in the amount required, for life to exist. You could look at it this way. There are billions of people on this planet, how is it that I'm here, interested in astronomy, when the field is beginning to take off, a mere 80 years after we discovered there were different "galaxies" out there? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

ac15 · Apr 26, 2005

Just around 6,000 years old.

kmarinas86 · Apr 26, 2005

I have always wondered about the so called "age of the universe". I always see it pegged at "around 13 billion years". This seems highly suspect to me. The age of our solar system is said to be about 5 billion years. Our solar system is but an extremely miniscule speck in the vast universe, so it is extremely difficult for me to believe that the whole universe is only 3 times the age of our solar system. Can you shed any light on this seeming incongruity? Is there really a limit to size? Think of the particles speeding around an atom. They are very fast. Imagine if we were situated living amongst those particles and were looking outside our own "atom universe". What would you observe if you had the faculties to "see" the electromagnetism surrounding you? If our atom is part of a gas, we would have trouble seeing other "atom universes" until the time when we have acheived the faculties to see other atoms and how they are different. This would happen before any other atoms had a chance to move significantly closer to us. The same applies to primitive humanity when it learns about other tribes, towns, and civilizations. http://www.google.com/search?q=electrons+"many+places+at+once" http://www.google.com/search?q=radius+of+earth+%2F+29.8+kilometers+per+second http://www.google.com/search?q="orbital+velocity+of+the+sun"+"220..230" http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=radius+of+sun+%2F+220+kilomet

alokmohan · Apr 27, 2005

Interesting .Please elaborate.

alokmohan · Apr 28, 2005

Creationist point of view or James Usher?

newideas · Jul 9, 2005

Why do scientists think that the universe is about 14 billion years old? Or do they think it is older or younger, and why?

kmarinas86 · Jul 9, 2005

Why do scientists think that the universe is about 14 billion years old? Or do they think it is older or younger, and why? There are many estimates on the Age of the Universe: http://www.google.com/search?q="age+of+the+universe"+assumptions

alokmohan · Jul 11, 2005

The age of the universe in big bang model is only 14 billion years,but in stedy state theory it is infinite.

majornature · Jul 11, 2005

As I recall, I thought that the universe is older than 14 billion years. I think it is estimated to be at least 16 billion years old. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

alkalin · Jul 11, 2005

Alokmohan, I agree to some extent. The most popular steady state theory tried to find evidence for an infinite age, and there indeed might be some. I think the steady state was written off too soon. The version of steady state that I prefer is that the universe is much much older than we think, but does have a beginning. Big bang’s popularity derived from the relatively simple expansion notion based on the red-shift. There are other alternate reasons for all observed phenomenon we see out there, especially since we have learned a few things about light since the 1930’s, so we are a looooooong way from settling any of this yet. Here is a serious flaw in the thinking that the CMB is evidence of big bang. If the universe started from a bang at some point somewhere, yet here we are in the middle so to speak, why is there still radiation from the bang hanging around as if caught in a web. EM travels in straight lines to the furthest places faster than matter. So actually we should see none of the CMB from a big bang. We should actually see what comes into the not so empty space between the galaxies and stars everywhere that pour out their energy into the universe as we speak. Guess where that energy is going? Sorry, but to me, we are somewhat into the field of sci-fi, not reality when people talk about big Boooooooooooiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnggggggggg, oops, I mean big bang. Alkalin The reason I’m rather negative on the BB theory is that it has proven to be extremely inaccurate at predicting anything. For example, the early universe looks nothing like big bang has predicted. Yet every time this happens, there is the unproven math kludge to ‘correct’ the situation.

weeman · Mar 26, 2007

Whether it's 13 billion years, 14 billion years, or 16 billion years, they're all still estimates. No one knows for sure. Astronomers get their estimate of around 14 billion years, because that is how far in lightyears we have been able to see into space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

astralimage · Mar 26, 2007

Assuming Big Bang, how does the distance we can see indicate the age of the Universe? Very distant galaxies (beyond 14 BLYs) moving away from us faster than light speed (relative to us) woudn't seem to exist at all. Since we are also moving away from them, their photons (images) may simply not have reached us yet, and won't unless things slow down. Even under BB, that would open up a much larger Universe and a far greater age.

Saiph · Mar 27, 2007

alkalin: The reason we can see the CMBR now, is because of time dilation as well as the redshift. The extreme redshift of the CMBR goes hand in hand with a very high relative velocity, thus extreme time dilation. Most of the CMBR has indeed dissipated, and past us by. As for prediction of the early universe by BB...it's far more accurate than any other model out there. Nothing else, for instance, has been able to correctly outline the nucleosynthesis required to get current elemental ratios. It's also done a good job of predicting the existence, shape, and general tempreature of the CMBR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

alokmohan · Mar 27, 2007

Universe reborn in this forum.Read steady state also.

weeman · Mar 28, 2007

Assuming Big Bang, how does the distance we can see indicate the age of the Universe? When astronomers look 14 billion lightyears into space they see galaxies that appear to be at younger stages in their lives. When we look far enough into space we see galaxies that have been formed not long after the end of the Universe' dark ages. I understand what you're saying though. There could be galaxies that are 10's of billions of lightyears away who's light simply hasn't reached us yet. This current theory states that the most distant visible galaxies are at a much younger age. This is why astronomers assume that they might be the first galaxies of the Universe, and that the Universe must have formed not long before these galaxies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

astralimage · Mar 28, 2007

Ok, I know I'm nothing but questions, but this one really irks me. Under BB, it's believed that all the superclusters of galaxies are moving away from each other, right? So let's say we have a situation like this: A -- B -- C, where our supercluster containing the Milky Way is B, A is to our "west" and C to our "east" -all on a nice neat line. Now, to move away from supercluster A, we (B) need to move east. But that means we are moving towards supercluster C! We should also be moving away from C, which means going west towards A. How can we have it both ways? Is just that none of the galactic superclusters are expanding within themselves, but the space between them is? But then that would mean they're not really moving! Someone please help me before my head explodes.

weeman · Mar 28, 2007

It's ok, asking questions is what this board is all about <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Not all superclusters are expanding apart, it is more on a Universal scale where we see the expansion. In fact, the Milky Way is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy as we speak, even though this won't happen for another 2-3 billion years, so don't worry <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Anyways, many people see this as a large flaw in the BB theory. Some people might ask: "Why is space expanding on a large scale but not on a small scale?" Why isn't the expansion of space even pushing apart our own solar system? Is gravity powerful enough within our solar system and supercluster to overcome the expansion? The way I see it, to apply the expansion to a line of A -- B -- C is thinking two-dimensional. When describing the expansion of space, we have to apply it to three dimensions. Position B can move in more directions than just east or west. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Techies: We do it in the dark. "Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." -Albert Einstein </div>

SpeedFreek · Mar 28, 2007

The problem you are having is due to the difference between inertial motion and the expansion of space. In your example, you have B moving away from A, towards C. But our observations tell us that A is moving away from B and C is moving away from B by the same amount (if we are B!). So A -- B -- C becomes A ---- B ---- C. But unless we are at the centre of universal expansion we have to assume that the same is true from any viewpoint. So A -- B -- C -- D -- E becomes A ---- B ---- C ---- D ---- E. This can happen because the expansion of space is not moving objects apart through inertia (gravity). The space in between objects is growing. The expansion of space actually means the metric that defines distance is changing over time. So any given unit will change by the same factor as any other given unit over the same length of time. What this means is that over a given time, if 1 meter expands to become what used to be 2 meters, then 1 billion km expands to become what used to be 2 billion km and the universe would double in size. All distances double over the same time period. But this only really applies at intergalactic distances. The expansion of space is a very weak force when compared to gravity, so it only has a measurable effect where there is very little, or no gravity at work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> _______________________________________________ SpeedFreek </div>

Age of the Universe

doubtingthomas

Guest

tfwthom

Guest

Saiph

Guest

ac15

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

newideas

Guest

kmarinas86

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

majornature

Guest

alkalin

Guest

weeman

Guest

astralimage

Guest

Saiph

Guest

alokmohan

Guest

weeman

Guest

astralimage

Guest

weeman

Guest

SpeedFreek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page