The Universe Is 13.82 Billion Years Old

  • metta

    Posts: 39104

    Mar 23, 2013 4:28 PM GMT
    The Universe Is 13.82 Billion Years Old

    http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/03/21/age_of_the_universe_planck_results_show_universe_is_13_82_billion_years.html


    The Universe is 4.9 percent normal matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy.

    Normal matter is what we call protons, neutrons, electrons; basically everything you see when you look around. Stars, cashews, dryer lint, and books are all made of normal matter. So are you.

    Dark matter is a substance we know exists, but it’s invisible. We see its effects through its gravity, which profoundly alters how galaxies rotate and clusters of galaxies behave. There’s more than five times as much of it as there is normal matter.

    Dark energy was only discovered in 1998. It’s very mysterious, but acts like a pressure, increasing the expansion rate of the Universe. We know very little about it other than the fact that it exists, and it’s a bigger component of the universal budget than normal and dark matter combined.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 23, 2013 5:19 PM GMT
    Ah, to look at modern scientists and realize they've forgotten logic again....

    The determination of the age based on the cosmic background radiation has been fundamentally flawed from its discovery.

    Can anyone else see the logical error? Actually, trick question, because there are at least two major ones I can think of just reading this article; three if you think about it further.
  • heyom

    Posts: 389

    Mar 23, 2013 10:44 PM GMT
    Lukehiker saidAh, to look at modern scientists and realize they've forgotten logic again....

    The determination of the age based on the cosmic background radiation has been fundamentally flawed from its discovery.

    Can anyone else see the logical error? Actually, trick question, because there are at least two major ones I can think of just reading this article; three if you think about it further.


    Please tell me, all I can think of is the fact that I don't see the logic of measuring the age of the universe based on background radiation, because that implies that if the background radiation is light from the beginning of the universe, that light should be expanding outwards constantly and we should therefore never see it, whereas the background radiation is heading in our direction from all sides, from about the same distance as well, (as if we are truly the centre of the universe, something else I do not get) icon_confused.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 10:51 PM GMT
    Happy Birthday, Existence!
  • Lucky350

    Posts: 167

    Mar 23, 2013 11:06 PM GMT
    Thats alot of birthdays... =P
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 11:10 PM GMT
    Lucky350 saidThats alot of birthdays... =P

    That's a lot of cake! icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 11:45 PM GMT
    The universe is older and wider than previously assumed. That's also how I consider online profiles.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 24, 2013 1:20 AM GMT
    heyom said
    Lukehiker saidAh, to look at modern scientists and realize they've forgotten logic again....

    The determination of the age based on the cosmic background radiation has been fundamentally flawed from its discovery.

    Can anyone else see the logical error? Actually, trick question, because there are at least two major ones I can think of just reading this article; three if you think about it further.


    Please tell me, all I can think of is the fact that I don't see the logic of measuring the age of the universe based on background radiation, because that implies that if the background radiation is light from the beginning of the universe, that light should be expanding outwards constantly and we should therefore never see it, whereas the background radiation is heading in our direction from all sides, from about the same distance as well, (as if we are truly the centre of the universe, something else I do not get) icon_confused.gif


    You touched up on one of the logical inconsistencies: if the background radiation is all we see in every direction, and at the same distance, that makes us at the center of the universe....oh wait...

    Ok, here is the breakdown:

    The Cosmic background radiation is a specified distance from Earth, and thus, this distance is how we measure the age of the universe; but the Observable universe is almost 4 times larger. So, unless the universe at one time moved 4+ times the speed of light(as physics say is impossible), Logically, it could not have crossed that distance in only 13.82 billion years.

    Then you have the red shift involved, which much of the theory says is due to AGE, but red shift is a aspect of Distance; therefore what we are detecting originated 13.82 billion years ago, but is not consistent, or even related, to the age of the universe.

    In recent years, Logic has seemed to left much of the theoretical physics community; dark matter for example....don't even get me started, ugh....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 1:43 AM GMT
    metta8 said...
    The Universe is 4.9 percent normal matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy.
    ...
    That's racist! icon_mad.gif
  • Montague

    Posts: 5205

    Mar 24, 2013 1:46 AM GMT
    paulflexes said
    metta8 said...
    The Universe is 4.9 percent normal matter, 26.8 percent dark matter, and 68.3 percent dark energy.
    ...
    That's racist! icon_mad.gif


    That's a menage a trois!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 1:55 AM GMT
    upstart_brophet said
    Lucky350 saidThats alot of birthdays... =P

    That's a lot of cake! icon_razz.gif

    That's a hell of a lot of candles.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 3:34 AM GMT
    The background radiation is not a picture of the beginning of the universe. It is a picture of 380,000 years after the beginning. Those photons actually traveled to the telescope, carrying the information from that time period. That information is then used to figure out what the universe was like at that time.

    We are not at the center of the universe ... there is no center to the universe. All matter was once all at one point (and it couldn't actually exist as matter at that point, but instead was energy), and the Big Bang was the moment when space began expanding. A process called inflation expanded the universe much more quickly than it would have otherwise, long before this background radiation was emitted. (There is a loophole on the speed limit of the universe -- it says that particles moving in space cannot move faster than the speed of light, but it does not restrict spacetime itself from moving faster than light -- which is exactly what happened during that inflationary period.) As the telescope sits in space, it is able to receive photons from 380,000 years from the beginning from every direction because the light has been able to travel through the inflation-expanded space to us over the time between then and now. There is no logical inconsistency there.

    As an illustration, the universe was like

    . . . . . .
    . . . , . .
    . . . . . .


    when the light was emitted, but it has uniformly expanded since then, to look like

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..



    . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . ..



    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..


    That light, when it was emitted--during the time the universe was more compact-- was around our position on all sides, before Earth was in existence at that position. Pick, for example the spot 4th in from the left in the middle row, where I used a comma instead of a dot. In the time between then and now, the universe has expanded, meaning that the light has had to travel through more and more space. It redshifted, meaning its wavelength became stretched out, due to the expansion, so that we see it at a lower energy today than when it was emitted. But, we see it today because it was present everywhere in the more compact universe, and is still everywhere in the current larger universe -- just that the light has become more dilute due to that expansion. The amount by which the light has redshifted (and, also therefore, the amount by which the light's energy or temperature has gone down) is directly related to how much the universe expanded between then and now -- knowing that allows you to figure out a timeline, and an age, when you couple that with our understanding of the dynamics of the universe (how it is expanding and how fast it is expanding). Once all of these things are considered, there is no logical inconsistency.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 4:21 AM GMT
    Lukehiker saidAh, to look at modern scientists and realize they've forgotten logic again....

    The determination of the age based on the cosmic background radiation has been fundamentally flawed from its discovery.

    Can anyone else see the logical error? Actually, trick question, because there are at least two major ones I can think of just reading this article; three if you think about it further.


    You're the only logical error around here. Science does not make absolute claims and if you have a better theory to determine the age of the universe, it surely will be supported by the scientific community. You just got owned by the PHD in physics above so I doubt you can make a come back of any sort.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 6:04 AM GMT
    LeapHigher said...the speed limit of the universe -- it says that particles moving in space cannot move faster than the speed of light, but it does not restrict spacetime itself from moving faster than light ....


    Traveling without moving, folding space and warp bubbles, oh my!


    If expanding universe is the unfolding of space, then maybe its original form can be determined.....

    ImageOrigamiYoda.jpg
    Just as we suspected.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 6:12 AM GMT
    It literally blows my mind, I just don't get it and when it's explained to by scientific theorists i am more lost than before.... What was outside it, how can it expand from nothing, where are the edges....etc! I remain confused but doff my cap to those brilliant minds that attempt to unravel its mysteries......You know The Truman Show makes sense!!!! ;)
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 24, 2013 6:13 AM GMT
    @LeapHigher; lets do an experiment, shall we?

    Take a laser pointer, and point it at the wall. You see the red(or whatever color) dot it makes? Assuming you do, set the laser on a table and leave it on, pointing at the same wall, and walk around to the other side of the wall. Do you see the red dot? Assuming you don't have infrared vision, or the wall isn't transparent, the answer would be no. This is because, while light exhibits characteristics of a Wave, it also exhibits characteristics of a Particle; this is important to note, because a Wave can be infinite, and a Particle cannot. In the case of Photons(light), the Wave characteristics do not overwrite the limitations of a Particle, therefore, in order for Light from X years ago to reach us, it must be X light years away; and if the source producing it existed X years ago, but stopped X + 1 second, after that one second, you Wouldn't see it anymore. A perfect example of this is a gamma ray burst.

    And therein lies the first logical inconsistency, in order for the Light from to reach us from the beginning of the big bang, it must have existed X years ago, it must have occurred X light years away, and it must still exist X + Y time After its initial interaction with the telescope, or it will cease to interact with the telescope.

    The second(though you listed this first) is that there is no center to the universe; a geometric impossibility; to every three dimensional object, there MUST be a center, a point in which every known edge is exactly equidistant(or less) from all others. However, the odds of inhabiting something even within 100,000LY of this point, in a universe 40+ Billion LY across, is roughly .... 640,000 to one, assuming a few things that are likely unlikely. Oh and don't do the infinite soccer ball routine; this isn't a game of asteroids, its the Universe.

    Third(and tied to number one) is that IF expansion of the Universe affects red shift(which we think we do; there is a hole in this theory though), then the so called "light of the big bang" logically is NOT as old as it seems, because who is to say that a second expansion didn't happen 1 million years ago, stretching the light by a factor of two....or more? What if there has been more than one such expansion? Logic abhors an unknown; it also dictates that the Simplest solution must be the truth when the impossible is eliminated to fill such an unknown.

    You can play logical gymnastics all you want to explain something that you want it to mean, but that doesn't make it what you want it to be. Keep this in mind; I'm not saying there aren't unknowns, but think about it for a second: just HOW much energy would it take to create an expansion of space? More accurately, think about what that would DO to preexisting matter? You can argue that the big bang had no matter, and started from a singularity, but every day we are discovering more and more about what we call "matter" and it is far more primordial than electrons, protons and neutrons. If space expanded in such a manner to enable expansion to 40+ Billion LY, from a single point, wouldn't that create some truly massive particles in the process? After all, space is more than just the stuff Between particles, no?

    Ultimately, logic rules; and as we define several things NOW, many theories are logically impossible.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 24, 2013 6:25 AM GMT
    charlitos said
    Lukehiker saidAh, to look at modern scientists and realize they've forgotten logic again....

    The determination of the age based on the cosmic background radiation has been fundamentally flawed from its discovery.

    Can anyone else see the logical error? Actually, trick question, because there are at least two major ones I can think of just reading this article; three if you think about it further.


    You're the only logical error around here. Science does not make absolute claims and if you have a better theory to determine the age of the universe, it surely will be supported by the scientific community. You just got owned by the PHD in physics above so I doubt you can make a come back of any sort.


    I'm studying physics myself, and to be honest, logically, very little of the newest stuff coming out of the community makes sense.

    My personal theory is one far more practical: the cosmic background radiation(CBR) is a residual energy signature created by the bowshock of this segment of the universe itself. Radiation, random particle formations, black holes; you name it, and it is likely the cause of the CBR.

    There is also another logical inconsistency that I didn't mention before, because I'd have thought it obvious: estimated size of the universe is 40+ Billion LY across; so even if you cut that in half, we can still see objects that are 20 billion years old at the farthest edges of the known universe.....if the published age here is correct, those objects shouldn't be visible...and yet, they are....

    You should see some of the debates I have with people(most notably my physics instructor) ... to be honest, a PHD isn't everything. I draw your attention to:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msZ790rgN7g

    He uses no logic other than "it is what we use, so it cannot be....and it would be bad if it was, so we'll never try..." It is Logic like that which stagnates and kills the pursuit of the truth.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 6:43 AM GMT
    Lukehiker said...who is to say that a second expansion didn't happen 1 million years ago, stretching the light by a factor of two....or more? What if there has been more than one such expansion? Logic abhors an unknown; it also dictates that the Simplest solution must be the truth when the impossible is eliminated to fill such an unknown.....


    This seems to be what you're saying:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
    Because of the changing rate of expansion, it is also possible for a distance to exceed the value calculated by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe. These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists

    Question: Would such varying waves of expansion have left traces?
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 24, 2013 6:50 AM GMT
    theantijock said
    Lukehiker said...who is to say that a second expansion didn't happen 1 million years ago, stretching the light by a factor of two....or more? What if there has been more than one such expansion? Logic abhors an unknown; it also dictates that the Simplest solution must be the truth when the impossible is eliminated to fill such an unknown.....


    This seems to be what you're saying:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
    Because of the changing rate of expansion, it is also possible for a distance to exceed the value calculated by multiplying the speed of light by the age of the universe. These details are a frequent source of confusion among amateurs and even professional physicists

    Question: Would such varying waves of expansion have left traces?


    Yes and no.... I'm more accurately talking about the assumption that something we see must be what we say it is, rather than looking into other, often more logical, options.

    As to the traces, there are several theories:
    Density waves
    Distortion fields, or areas of different physical properties
    Super objects
    Areas of hyper compression(Black holes the size of galaxies)

    Unfortunately, none of the above have been thus observed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 6:58 AM GMT
    Very interesting. So the expansion isn't necessarily a stretch but could be a spasm. Not necessarily a breath but more of a hiccup. Somehow that seems to make sense. It certainly would account for the humor.
  • Lukehiker

    Posts: 161

    Mar 24, 2013 7:04 AM GMT
    theantijock saidVery interesting. So the expansion isn't necessarily a stretch but could be a spasm. Not necessarily a breath but more of a hiccup. Somehow that seems to make sense. It certainly would account for the humor.


    Exactly.

    Though I fall into the camp of space separate from time(which negates all expansionist theories); its an essential keystone to my work.
  • ASHDOD

    Posts: 1057

    Mar 24, 2013 7:10 AM GMT
    there is so much we dont know yet , that's scary....
    we are still in the middle ages in some aspects.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 7:38 AM GMT
    Lukehiker said
    theantijock saidVery interesting. So the expansion isn't necessarily a stretch but could be a spasm. Not necessarily a breath but more of a hiccup. Somehow that seems to make sense. It certainly would account for the humor.


    Exactly.

    Though I fall into the camp of space separate from time(which negates all expansionist theories); its an essential keystone to my work.


    Fascinating stuff.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=splitting-time-from-space
    then the universe didn’t bang—it bounced. “A universe filled with matter will contract down to a small—but finite—size and then bounce out again, giving us the expanding cosmos we see today,” he says. Brandenberger’s calculations show that ripples produced by the bounce match those already detected by satellites measuring the cosmic microwave background, and he is now looking for signatures that could distinguish the bounce from the big bang scenario.

    That coincides with some mystic stuff about a universe breathing in and out. It plays well into the Buddhist idea of no beginning and no end and it also touches on some Kabbalistic stuff...

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sefer_HaTemunah
    the creation of more than one world. The author of Sefer HaTemunah believed that worlds are created and destroyed, supporting this theory with a quote from the Midrash, "God created universes and destroys them

    Complete coincidence of course. But interesting that people had whatever intuitive sense of how things might work or at least a convenient imagination, predating Newton by at least 1000 years.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Mar 24, 2013 8:01 AM GMT
    I always thought it looked older.
  • barriehomeboy

    Posts: 2475

    Mar 24, 2013 8:04 AM GMT
    Seriously? Is there nobody here with a sense of humour?