How old is the universe?

[alkalin]

WMAP, a more accurate satellite to replace COBE, mapped the CMB (Comic Microwave Background), and has taken data that cosmologists use to infer that the universe is 13.7 billion years old. But this age of the universe is not possible which I will try to explain a little later. Here is more on WMAP:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe<br /><br />WMAP data is used to agree with a 13.7 B (Billion) year age proposed by expansion theory studies. WMAP perhaps can give important clues to the structure of the current universe that we can see, but these researchers seem not to care very much about that issue because it could relate to black body radiation originally coming from stars, which cosmologists deny because it would tend to refute big bang theology. Anyway, the Wikipedia article relates to the ‘ideal’ blackbody instead of the real one that might actually come from stars everywhere. It seems to me a subtle subterfuge.<br /><br />Is the universe 13.7 billion years old?<br /><br />Recent data of very early universe studies at about 11 to12 B years ago refutes the big bang theory completely about the age of the universe because of the finding of large galaxies that long ago. The data studies were conducted by Karl Glazebrook of Johns Hopkins., and a copy of the press release is at the end of this document. Virtually all galaxies are regular galaxies which indicate a standard build such as the Milky Way and Andromeda and most others in our vicinity of space. These take a minimum of 13 B years to form and may take very much longer. There are many indicators that large galaxies have been around for very long periods of time. Even at great distance we see large galaxies that are yellowish with age and rich in metals. Bib bang cosmologists would like to see only small blue galaxies, implying newly forming ones from the early matter soup thou

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What this indicates to me is the institutional pressure to apply big bang theory at any cost even if it is irrational thinking. A very important hindrance to progress exists because of various institutions that have power, prestige, momentum, and especially money spent on research. The peer system is also at fault for only accepting the status quo views, a very strong armed approach to control any new idea. Anything out of the standard view, the consensus, is rejected, even if the consensus is wrong, which it frequently is.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />but it was always like that, progress in past typically had to go against some such barriers<br /><br />also, just look at this forum here, many people have their pet theories that make them blind to any objections whatsoever, they can argue against anything to come out undefeated or seem to come undefeated from any exchange (in their own eyes anyway), why should scientific community be any different? Scientists in paid positions are not always as rational as we like to think and real progress has to defeat them, not expect to be welcomed by them with open arms, it always was like that.<br /><br />Personally, I don't think the age of universe should be jacked up too much despite those mature galaxies being found because I can imagine how that could happen without pushing the age too far back. But that's as it may be. <br /><br />I don't see the field to be so badly off, after all this study came up and others may follow and eventually the community will split and older universe will gain its followers and there will be happy ending and maybe new theory<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Hi vanDivX,<br /><br />Yes I agree and should have added that ALL institutions have a ticket trip to non-change. <br /><br />Since I happen to feel expansion theory is incorrect, this means that the universe is far older than we can imagine. There are mechanisms for this to be possible, but the current climate of cosmology would rather pooh-pooh any such notions, but yet like them that is all my thoughts will ever be are notions.<br /><br />Alkalin<br />

 

[alkalin]

Oops, I missed a good one. Is the ticket to a trip trying to change-a-nun? Sounds a little silly in fact.<br /><br />Most of my life I have been interested in astronomy and cosmology, and sincerely thought the ideas presented had a bit of sense to them. But when cosmologists began ignoring actual astronomy data that refuted them, them I began to see them as religionists depending on a belief system that needed defending by theology, propaganda, or any other means at their disposal. I feel cosmology is now like the convent following a standard set of rules that they find comfort in. I do not object to nuns or their life style, in fact if they are satisfied in this, then fine for them. But Cosmology is science where growth and change is supposed to take place that is solidly based on reality.<br />

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."</i> <br /> <br /><i>"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."</i> <br /><br /> - <b>Albert Einstein</b> (1879 - 1955), <i>"Geometry and Experience",</i> January 27, 1921

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>when cosmologists began ignoring actual astronomy data that refuted them<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>it always pays not to be too quick judging, depends if your position is informed one and by that I mean general knowledge of the field, sometimes amateurs look on and have only a very narrow insight into some science area and are surprised that the field doesn't jump accordingly as daily news of changes come in from experimental field, things don't change that fast and its mostly better that they do not. Experience teaches physicists to be sceptical of anything new even if it is experimental data.<br /><br />It is also not wise to hold physics community in too high regard, majority of scientists are not capable themselves either to develop new theory or even recognize one when it comes unless it is completely clear cut theory which doesn't allow for any doubts but few big theories are like that. Any advances have to be first recognized as such by very few in the field who are able to do so and if they already have some established authority in the field, they might eventually sway others to look at the new theory seriously and accept it and then its only matter of time before whole community accepts it also like parots. From that it follows that such community is very slow to accept further changes straight out, it has to first percolate up to them from those few who are able and courageous to recognize reality when they see it and accept new changes...<br /><br />To mind comes the dark matter theory that had beginning in 1930's when Fritz Zwicky obtained the evidence but nobody listened to him, it took decades till in 1960s V Rubin took a look at his data, so how is that for physics community being open to changes or how astronomical data can be reliable and believable (its not like nobody looked at galaxies all those thirty years to not notice the flat rotation curves, they just didn't expect to see them and so they did <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

What I find annoying about the system is that sometimes there comes along such solid change as in medicine when the microscope was invented, which opened a whole new world of exploration and contemplation for what was found to cause disease. Yet the old professors never changed their views. When they all died the newer ideas finally came into vogue, which ushered in whole new procedures that could actually benefit most people when they went to see a physician.<br /><br />So what if we see large galaxies where they are not suppose to be. But some will not see them if they do not want to. I just had to vent a little frustration over the fact that Big Bang has proven null and void due to its failings to make valid predictions about this issue I brought up, but it has failed on all other accounts as well. If a theory fails miserably to make predictions, then what good is it? I believe that in most areas of study if a theory fails to make predictions, it usually is considered a rather poor theory.<br /><br />One reason I brought this up is that I am a bit prejudiced in favor of a quasi-steady-state universe, one that makes much more sense to me.<br />

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>One reason I brought this up is that I am a bit prejudiced in favor of a quasi-steady-state universe, one that makes much more sense to me. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm afraid that astronomers are not about to admit that their life's work, and current theory is "null and void". For whatever reason, astronomy teachers are loathe to admit that we're still pretty clueless about the makeup of the cosmos as a whole. That fact that the inflation stage of BB theory is predicated on fields and particles (inflaton fields) that are never mentioned in particle physics, QM or GR should be your first clue that BB theory is a "metaphysical" explanation, not an explanation based on any actual physics. There is exactly no evidence that iron and quasars did not exist 13.8 billion years ago, or even trillions of years ago for that matter. <br /><br />I suspect that Arp's notion of intrinsic redshift will have to be accounted for and accepted into the mainstream sooner or later, but unfortunately it will probably not happen until long after his death. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I suspect that Arp's notion of intrinsic redshift will have to be accounted for and accepted into the mainstream sooner or later, but unfortunately it will probably not happen until long after his death.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <br />Problem is that he can't account for the red shift other than claiming its intrinsic, that is, not backed up by some mechanism, some theory. If somebody could come up with a plausible theory of intrinsic redshift, he would get the recognition, not Arp.<br />His 'hunch' might be correct but its like claiming cook is the murderer in detective story without being able to back it up by evidence of some sort and of course the hero will be the detective who solves the case by supplying the evidence (provided it was really the cook)<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Actually there is a mechanism that could be applied to quasars and to the great distances light must travel that would shift light to the red. It was studied theoretically and verified in lab work by some workers in the optics area starting about the mid eighties. These findings were reported in optics journals under light correlation–induced spectral shifts, or some such titles. None of this work made it into any astrophysics journals or any of the other main stream publications that I know of. My guess is this is not welcome news for cosmology, because it would mean an open door to a totally different mechanism for red light implying the universe is not expanding. It would also bring up the issue that they were wrong, and as was pointed out, who likes to admit they were wrong.<br /><br />Darn, we better not tell any cosmologist of this news, they just can’t be wrong!!<br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Actually there is a mechanism that could be applied to quasars and to the great distances light must travel that would shift light to the red. It was studied theoretically and verified in lab work by some workers in the optics area starting about the mid eighties. These findings were reported in optics journals under light correlation–induced spectral shifts, or some such titles. <br /></font><br /><br />I did some information searches on Google, and it referred to Wikipedia. Is this what your talking about?<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_effect<br /><br />Very interesting, from what I could understand. Care to comment?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Kyle_baron,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. There is a need for more work to establish the actual conditions of space and objects such as quasars and how they can influence wavelength changes. Lab work suggests most any wavelength change can be achieved if the experiment is set up for it. At any rate, current lab work has confirmed that wavelength is not an intrinsic property of light, but is influenced by space content. Since quasars are partial coherent sources, they seem rather good candidates for further study.<br /><br />It appears from the Wikipedia article that some of this work was published in the more main stream journals, which I was unaware of. But the credit should go to L. Mandel who first published a theory about this phenomenon in 1961.<br /><br />There has been application in various areas in optics such as spectrographs, interferometers, and other various devises already.<br /><br />I see it as no surprise that reality is more complex than we thought, and I believe we are only still just scratching the surface. We’ll make progress as long as we do not get too carried away in notions that are plain wrong. Halton Arp probably will get much more credit some day, and who knows, maybe like a balloon, the notion of expansion of the universe goes poof eventually.<br />

 

[vandivx]

the way I understand it, those are fairly special conditions at work to put it mildly, not likely mechanism to be at work with majority of quasars, even with those double ones (galaxy-quasar pairs) as said in that article it might be a factor but not a rule, seems to me like catching at every straw <br /><br />age of universe is IMO still very open subject that will go through upheavals yet, for one dark matter and energy problems are not solved yet and those definitely will have major say in this once they get figured out, till then age of universe debates are really suspended and no theory can be regarded as firmly established<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Big bang thory has proved true so far.

 

[alkalin]

The problems of dark matter and energy are resolved with a Quasi-steady-state. What more could you ask for? Oh, I keep forgetting, it is not the consensus view, but I was hoping for a discussion of possible alternatives.

 

[harmonicaman]

Since there has proven to be such a very fine line between the Open, Closed and Steady State Models of the Universe, all three views are probably correct -- depending on ones relative perspective...<img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

 

[alkalin]

Ideas of open, closed, or steady state originate from big bang theory. With quasi-steady-state there is no concern about any of those issues, even the steady state issue, which is so finely balanced on a knife edge, I do not consider it a possibility. For me, quasi-steady-state does not require those notions because the universe has been here for a very, very long time, but still had a beginning. A Doppler based universe is not likely as I have already indicated, and even supplied another mechanism for red light. So we need to look more seriously at other alternatives.

 

[alkalin]

If a theory cannot predict anything with accuracy, then what good is it?

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The problems of dark matter and energy are resolved with a Quasi-steady-state. What more could you ask for? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> I don't know that anything is resolved, all I am saying is that untill those issues are understood (what's at work in them and how does it do what it does) everything is up for grabs and it is premature to favour now either BB or QSteadyState universe <br /><br />those are not some notions that we can disregard once we decide that the right model is QSS universe (how could we decide on that model in the first place anyway), they are observational data that do not fit in with basic physical theories - at least in the case of dark matter and so are critically important for any theory or any model of universe in that we have no idea what their resolution might bring up<br /><br />my bet btw is on one kind of quasi steady state universe - on pulsating universe, but its just bet for those reasons that I don't see how I could take any position now with those major puzzles outstanding because who knows what will come up when they do get solved, entirely new physics may enter the picture that will affect all theories about universe, either supporting QSS universe or some other model<br /><br />ok, it is not just 'bet' since I do have theory to support that (QSS universe), only it is still all in my head and so I can only call that choice a bet on public forum. It involves both - a mechanism that causes redshift (different from the one pointed out above) as well as doppler effect.<br /><br />also, those models (BB, QSS etc) are the results of some theories and one needs to have a theory first which will then by itself determine what kind of universe it represents. It is not good approach to decide which model one likes and then go about interpreting data to build theory that would result in that model. I am not saying that's what you do here but it strikes me as something like that.<br /><br />vanDiv <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[5stone10]

<font color="yellow">For whatever reason, astronomy teachers are loathe to admit that we're still pretty clueless about the makeup of the cosmos as a whole</font><br /><br /><br />Or another view is that this constant admission would be redundent to the point of caricature.<br /><br />Another way of putting this ... it would be ridiculous to continually invoke the qualification that 'we really have so much more to learn about the universe'. Its already implied.

 

[alkalin]

OK, you are starting to make more sense to me.<br /><br />With quasi-steady-state based on correlation for light shift, it is necessary there is matter in the universe in sufficient quantities to cause red shift. This matter is also absorbing some of the light causing very distant objects to appear dimmer. The consequence is that very distant objects appear further from us than they really are, hence-----the unnecessary need to have dark energy. Need I go on? Can we see that matter yet? Not directly.<br /><br />The issue of dark matter is even simpler. If galaxies like the MW have been here for a very long time, then there HAS to be a large number of stars that have used up their fuel and are by now relatively cool to the point of not even detectable with IR. But IR is still very useful for looking at galaxies like Andromeda, which is a younger galaxy than is the MW. Most galaxies exhibit about 90 percent more matter in them than we see in the visible, but non-the-less detectable by the galaxy’s spin rate. Can we see that matter yet? Not directly.<br /><br />Both these items are non-issues as far as I am concerned.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It is not good approach to decide which model one likes and then go about interpreting data to build theory that would result in that model. I am not saying that's what you do here but it strikes me as something like that.</font><br /><br />But that is what everyone is doing. If I’m guilty of this, then I’m not so backward after all. I certainly do not try to confirm theory that cannot predict anything. I try to keep an open mind on the various possibilities, but sometimes I do succumb to various weaknesses.<br /><br />If you feel you have a wonderful theory of how it all works, I can sympathize with your position to not discuss it. Why not get as much information for now as possible, then go ahead and publish. Haha, you cannot count on me not getting ahead of you. <br /> <br />Actually I’m not trying to publish s

 

[vandivx]

you are also starting to make more sense, I haven't been around here too long and am not familiar with your view, hence I didn't get how it is 'non-issue'<br /><br />for one I still see that correlation based red shift as rather exotic thing to play any large, that is universal role, also in both cases you need more matter and from what you say, you hold that to be normal matter and if its normal matter (as brown dwarfs - either exhausted stars or almost-stars that didn't manage to ignite), then even if there was enough of those in galaxies as you say, still that would leave begging the question how that would work in case of aglomeration of galaxies into clusters which also exhibit dark matter behaviour and for which distribution of dark matter was also measured and it was found to exist in intergalactic space within the cluster of galaxies where brown dwarfs hardly come to rescue...<br /><br />next you have the abundance of elements and how that indicates how much (normal) matter there should be for example<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/cfcp/primer/dark.html<br />These discrepant motions, and more modern methods confirming this behavior with greater precision, are strong evidence for unseen matter in galaxies and clusters. Of course, it is natural to imagine that the extra matter is quite ordinary, but simply invisible and transparent (much like air on a clear day). And indeed, observations in different wavelengths have provided evidence for previously unseen gas in galaxies and clusters. However, we have very good evidence that the substantial majority of dark matter is something exotic, rather than ordinary matter that we can't see. This evidence comes from two independent sources -- the abundance of light elements from primordial nucleosynthesis, and temperature anisotropies in the cosmic microwave backgrou</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

I made the remark in my previous post that dark energy and dark matter were non-issues. I need to correct that remark some. I feel they are issues, but in the sense that we are not going to find some kind of exotic thing to explain them. They are issues because we cannot see them directly, and that will for some time be a search among the big boys.<br /><br />But those that hold the consensus view have been tweaking anything they can think of to try to keep alive a theory that is not working. Here is an example: A hint of background radiation (CMB) was discovered some time before it could be accurately measured. Physicists applied blackbody theory to energy coming from the stars everywhere and predicted a value of 1 to 5 degrees K. Cosmologists thought it had to be a higher number of something like 20 K or even 50 K because of the BB. The value eventually measured turned out to be 2.7 K. <br /> <br />Cosmologists had to have every bit of this CMB for the big bang or it would fail again. So they give nothing back to the stars everywhere that pour out energy all the time. It’s as if the stars do not exist. This is why I do not trust consensus views, notions, and theories very much, especially when they say this CMB is the best proof they have of a big bang.<br /><br />For some time astronomers have been in denial that there is abundance of matter types such as gaseous and cooled stars. So to avoid what would be a contradiction in their previously accept view, they need to invent an exotic substance. To me, the CMB, the red shift, the dimming of the very distant galaxies all point in the same direction, that there is abundance of intergalactic gaseous matter of ordinary varieties.<br /><br />Since stars have normally enough fuel to last perhaps about 20 Billion years, then if the universe has aged to over a hundred B years, then there HAS to be many cool ones we do not see. If you say there is not enough matter in the universe to build all those stars, then you ar

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Since stars have normally enough fuel to last perhaps about 20 Billion years, then if the universe has aged to over a hundred B years, then there HAS to be many cool ones we do not see. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> one big virtue of BB cosmology as I see it is that it recycles, that is rejuvenates the universe. So while I wouldn't support current BB theory, the pulsating or oscillating universe would be the next best position to take as I see it (if I allow myself this top-down approach) and the question then is only how far the extreme ends of oscillation go (that's where I disagree with BB theory most, singularity is bull#$ and as irrational as it gets), lower end of oscillation should happen at a point that would allow stars to get chance to rejuvenate, get reborn, else you end up with older and older universe and with elements being transformed more and more into older ones and that just seems contrary to nature LOL <br /><br />I'd be curious to see how would you deal with that, for one thing one can push the age this way or that way but if universe was say those 100 B yrs old and just going to age and age, then why was there any sort of start to that aging, was it some sort of one time happening never again to repeat? I'd rather go with that view that whatever happens in universe is likely repeated again and again regularly or irregularly but if it could happen even once, it is bound to happen many times given enough time<br /><br />cosmologists are bound to have many problems with their theories because some basic mechanisms on which universe operates are still not sufficiently known because the dark matter and energy problems are still waiting to be cleared up<br /><br />it is a big mess because they try to solve those two puzzles (DM & DE) along the lines that would help their cosmological theories and that leads them astray and so those issues don't get solved and so their cosmological theories don't get corre <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

We all have the tendency to view the universe within little boxed views that is then applied to the whole picture, yet the final image we are looking for is hidden just because we like to look at a single pixel among perhaps many thousands of others. And perhaps most of those other pixels are not even known about yet.<br /> <br />Understanding entropy in a non-closed system may be part of the ultimate mystery. The quasi-steady-state has recycle capability from stars that are known to explode. There is also energy in the form of photons that all stars give back to the universe that is somewhere at some time captured by matter. Olbers paradox can be explained in that way. <br /> <br />Since you ask, my guess is that the universe is well over a trillion years in age. Its expansion is continuous at the periphery through a combination of gravity and electromagnetic forces that act much slower than BB expansion and inflation. It also has continuous growth within the universe everywhere as is evident. The important thing to consider in all this is that the universe is not a vacuum. It has lots of matter in it that can be star fuel and once some stars finishes with it; they expel it back in various forms, not just as heavy metals. How do we know that eventually all that spent fuel from all stars is not somehow recycled? It could take many billions of years to happen. If it did not, then the universe might have run down a long time ago and we should see that in certain areas out there. I just do not know all the processes going on yet, which I say applies to everyone. That is currently my best guess. <br /><br />I might mention that the Wikipedia article on light correlation, in my view, was slanted and tilted to have some kind of appeal with the cosmologists, but as of yet they are not buying it, although there will be much more to come in this area in the future.<br />