Stupid Question....

harrisfrank · Aug 7, 2006

I read in the news today about the error that affects the age and the width of the universe and here is an excerpt: "Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang) and about 156 billion light-years wide. The new finding implies that the universe is instead about 15.8 billion years old and about 180 billion light-years wide." But I was wondering...if the age of the universe is just 15.8 billion years...how can the width of the universe be 180 billion light years? Suppose in the best case scenario that the midpoint is the location fo the big bang...it means matter should have traveled the distance that light travels in 90 billion years to reach the edge. But the age of the whole universe is just 15.8...how is the possible???

Saiph · Aug 7, 2006

simple, the expansion of the universe is not bound by the speed of light. <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>

michaelmozina · Aug 7, 2006

Well, first of all, it's not a stupid question at all, it's actually a very good question. Current Big Bang theory suggests that inflation/expansion fields are not limited to the speed of light, but the existence of such fields are only a "theory", and they are not required in QM, particle theory, or general relativity, just astronomical "theory". It may be however that Halton Arp in correct and there is an "intrinsic" redshift to objects, in which case the universe may be infinite, and eternal. I don't personally buy the whole BB concept, so I don't personally believe that matter can travel faster than light. It's a good question actually, and the answer isn't as "simple" or as certain as it sounds. <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>

drwayne · Aug 7, 2006

Either we had one person registering two different accounts, or the same question has been asked in close proximity, suggesting homework. Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher </div>

Saiph · Aug 8, 2006

I thought I ran across this in the news recently. Micheal: While FTL inflation/expansion isn't required by general relativity, it is a valid solution within it's framework. I.e. GR allows for, and can describe both a general BB scenario (expansion etc) and the inflationary period. So, that's a point in it's favor, or rather it isn't against it. As for intrinsic redshift: That's another subject entirely (and one I think we've discussed) so I'll let that pass for this thread. Thanks for fleshing out my response! <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>

olivebird111 · Aug 8, 2006

ya under some circumstances it depends on the light, because we can see more things outside of this universe than before, so actually what it means is that the light is traveling outward continously till we see something..

harmonicaman · Aug 8, 2006

Olivebird111 - "...it depends on the light, because we can see more things outside of this universe than before, so actually what it means is that the light is traveling outward continuously till we see something..." The universe is an infinitely small point -- a singularity. Within this singularity; mass exists, space is being created and time is expanding. We cannot observe an outside to the universe and we can only see about two-thirds of the way back in time to the point of our origin because the expansion of space is accelerating faster than it takes the light to reach us.

harrisfrank · Aug 8, 2006

No I didn't register twice...I registered here specifically to ask this question. Later on I read some analysis on some websites about the subject but none where convincing. There are alot of theories but no real explanation. Alot of theories about the ability of exceeding the speed of light if we aren't seeing light from a object or the lack of frame of reference. Just not too convincing.

why06 · Aug 9, 2006

THIS IS STUPID! No!!! not the question, but the idea.... You can't put an age on the universe -- and definitely not a mere 15 billion years (I think thats younger than Earth!) there's no way!!!!!! The universe is infinitely old even if our perception is NOT!!! ------------------------------------<img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" />------------- <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

derekmcd · Aug 9, 2006

in your opinion, of course? Making statements as facts like that is pretty bold. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Aug 9, 2006

well, one thing that might help is the fact that earth is only 4.5 billion years old or so, so only 1/3 the estimated lifetime of the universe (under the BB model). <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The universe is infinitely old even if our perception is NOT!!! <hr /></blockquote> Except there is plenty of evidence ot indicate that this isn't the case. For instance, the further from earth you get (and thus the further back in time we observe, sorta like a time-delayed video) the younger and less developed galaxies are. There's less metals, less structure, and more (but smaller) galaxies in the clusters. If the universe was infinite, we should see no noticable trend with distance. We should see young mixed with old at random, everywhere. <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>

why06 · Aug 9, 2006

we'll maybe its that old from our spot, but how could you even tell.... How can the universe be infinitely big yet have a finite age?!!! And from what basis can they mesure the age of the univerese if there there is no finite point in the entire universe to base it on you can't measure anything if you don't have a point to start from.... Now matter may - POSSIBLY ( I mean possibly!!!) - be that old but a universe can not have an age if there is no time without it.... Do you get my Point ....??? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

Saiph · Aug 10, 2006

who says the universe is infinite? If the universe only appears to be 13.7 billion years old from here, and the distance vs age relationships I described only hold here....why are we such a special spot? That seems to be a bigger question to me, why this spot? why now? As for measuring the age of the universe with no finite spot: I ask you to measure the circumference of a circle, can you do it? Is there any specific point upon which to base it? Or are all the positions on the circle just as good as the rest? We can measure the age and properties of the universe from here, because this point is just as good as any other (and if it isn't...what so special about some other point?) But, here's how it's done in general: The universe is expanding, at a measured rate. If it's expanding today, and tommorow, and it was expanding yesterday, that means it's getting bigger all the time, and it used to be smaller. So, the question now becomes: How long can we run in backwards before we get so small were basically at zero? <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>

nojocujo · Aug 10, 2006

Saiph A thought problem: Two points inspacetime....A rubber band stretched between them.... both ends connected to a fishing reel. If the reels spinning together represented the hubble velocities on the rubber band as they stretched the band between them......Could you still say that the universe that contained those two points was expanding? As long as the band continued to stretch (Hubble velocity), the distance between the two points could be decreasing,static or expanding. How would we know?

why06 · Aug 10, 2006

If your comparing the universe to a circle than there is a point... its called the center... But any way it doesn't matter, the universe has no boundaries because that is all there is and ever will be... You can't put a number on all of space- time.... This is not simply a galaxy or something made of matter that can be measured...this is our universe...a group of dimensions 3 dimensions of space and one of time which makes a 4-D Universe <img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

derekmcd · Aug 10, 2006

If your comparing the universe to a circle than there is a point... its called the center... When using the Circle analogy with the Universe, you are only referring to the 1 dimensional line. There is no inside or outside the circle, only the line... hence no center or starting point. The 2 dimensional surface of a balloon is similar... no inside our outside the balloon... just the surface, hence no center. Our 3 dimensional universe may also have a slight curve to it with there being no inside or outside... again, no center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Saiph · Aug 10, 2006

derek's pretty much got it in one. I asked about the circumference of the circle. Do you begin measuring that from the center? Odd way of doing it if you ask me. One extension of the circle/balloon analogies is that the radial direction (i.e. towards and away from the center) is time, as this is the direction along with the balloon/circle surface travels, while the surface expands. In this version there is a center to the universe, it just isn't on the current surface, as it's somewhere else in time as well (back where all the radial lines intersect). However, there is no center to the surface, and the surface is the physical 3 dimensions we normally think of. <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>

lroux · Aug 10, 2006

Actually, this is a good question with a simple answer. Light has a limit as to how fast it can travel in space, but there is no limit as to how fast space can expand. Think of it this way: You have a boat that can travel 50 MPH. Nothing you do can speed that up. But, lets say you suddenly are swept up in a river travelling 80 mph. Not a great example, but you have to separate the concept of space-time from the limits of energy/matter. The limit as to energy/matter travelling within space is not related to any limits on space itself.

PistolPete · Aug 11, 2006

Could it be that the speed of light is a variable that is dependant on the size of the universe. In other words, when the universe was younger and smaller, could the speed of light been faster, and as the universe expanded and cooled, the speed of light "cooled" with it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

harmonicaman · Aug 11, 2006

PistolPete - Rather than a variable dependent on the size of the universe, could it be a variable based on the expansion rate of space? Time and light slows as an inverse function of the accelerating expansion of space and the universe. Just throwing out an ideation...

PistolPete · Aug 11, 2006

Hmm, good thought. I wonder if we could get a real physicist or two in here to verify the possibility. Either way, it seems that the speed of light may not be an absolute constant. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai </div>

alkalin · Aug 11, 2006

Light is the messenger of what is going on out there. It has a finite speed to do so, therefore time.

why06 · Aug 11, 2006

Are you guys crazy who even says the universe has a shape....??????<img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

why06 · Aug 11, 2006

and even in this analogy the universe has a center....its just not evident in three- dimensions, but with the added dimension of time the balloon does has a center.... Take this: Imagine the air coming out of the balloon more and more until it reached an infinitely small point back in time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ </div><div><ul><li>your move...</li></ul></div> </div>

derekmcd · Aug 12, 2006

Are you guys crazy who even says the universe has a shape....?????? My state of mind is irrelavent <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> I never implied the Universe has a specific shape, though current observations lead scientists to believe the observable universe is essentially flat. That, of course, is not to say that the Universe in it's entirety may or may not have some negative or positive curvature to it. We just don't know. Balloons are only used as mere analogies in an attempt to explain an expanding universe. Another common analogy is a loaf of expanding raisin bread. The problem with using the balloon analogy is due to it being a 2 dimensional analogy for a 3 dimensional situation. The correct way to use the balloon analogy is only to visualize the events on the surface of the balloon and relate that to our 3 dimensional universe. and even in this analogy the universe has a center....its just not evident in three- dimensions, but with the added dimension of time the balloon does has a center.... I don't think you can use time as a geometric frame of reference. Time is used to measure the interval between 2 events. You might say the balloon has a beginning... not a center. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div> <div>"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</div> </div>

Stupid Question....

harrisfrank

Guest

Saiph

Guest

michaelmozina

Guest

drwayne

Guest

Saiph

Guest

olivebird111

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

harrisfrank

Guest

why06

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

why06

Guest

Saiph

Guest

nojocujo

Guest

why06

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Saiph

Guest

lroux

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

harmonicaman

Guest

PistolPete

Guest

alkalin

Guest

why06

Guest

why06

Guest

derekmcd

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page