Actual Age of the Universe

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can't know the actual age of the universe...only the known universe...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

kmguru---

This is not accurate. You will find no scientists today who would agree with this analysis. As far as I know, the most recent data confirms that the universe is 14 billion years old.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Our knowledge of the subject is growing, but still in its infancy. We know what we can see. What I'm curious of is how you could put a number on it, and how that number is somehow "reasonable".

 

There are several ways to test that the universe is, in fact, 13.7 billion years old.

You never have to take anyone's word for it---check the data yourself.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html

 

The way you measure the age of the universe is by using the light that travels to us from the earliest known galaxies....so the age given is definitely inaccurate...the universe is probably much older...

 

This is not entirely true.

For example:
The age of the oldest stars is now converging on a value in the range from 12 to 15 thousand million years. However, a large uncertainty still exists and a value as a large as 17 to18 thousand million years cannot be totally ruled out.
Source: Clementini, G. et al The oldest stars and the age of the Universe European Review, vol. 10, Issue 02, p.237-248 2002

or,
At present, based on the latest isochrones, the derived ages of these stars {HD 84937, HD 132475, and HD 140283} are all close to 14 Gyr, uncomfortably close to or higher than current estimates of the age of the universe.
Source: Vandenberg, D. Parallaxes of Extreme Halo Subgiants: Calibrating Globular Cluster Distances and the Ages of the Oldest Stars
HST Proposal ID #10480 2005

 

I'm still curious where this "trillion" number came from. When we have evidence that some stars range from 12 to 15 billion years old, why the jump to "trillions", or the assumption that the universe must be so much older than what we think? A few billion years isn't that great of a difference, is it? Compare billions to trillions, and now you're talking, but 13.7 billion to 15 billion?

 

Ok, so I will recant the statement that no scientists support a figure higher than 13.7 billion years. We should be clear that this is not the majority opinion, and the consensus is 13.7 billion years.

 

Where are you getting a figure of 180 billion years for the width of the Universe?
Why are you postulating black holes significantly older than the agreed approximate age of 15 billion years +/- a couple of billion, when there is no evidence for them?

 

I think he mistook a black hole with a carbon atom... And billions of year simply with years. (kidding)

 

In steady state theory, the universe has no age.

The general consensus still says the universe is 13.7 billion years old. Black holes could have formed at the start of existance, large quantities of matter joining together in abundance to form a black hole. Like clots.

Nasa's method in which measurement is made by using the location of the first acoustic peak in the background microwave spectrum, to determine the size of the decoupling surface (Initial size of the universe). The light travel time to this surface (depending on the geometry used) yields a reliable age for the universe. Assuming the validity of the models used to determine this age, the residual accuracy yields a margin of error near one percent.

 

And if this assupmtion is flawed then the possible conflict with stellar ages derived with different assumptions disappears.

It is dangerous to manipulate/distort/massage the observations to agree with ones prejudicies.

 

The validity of individual geometric models is in question, not the method being used.

In any case variance in geometric models used in these calculations dos'nt vary that much, the generated error is'nt sufficient. The WMAP project itself is an accurate method, and agrees with individual experiments which generate a similar number in their method.

 

Nevertheless that is using a single method to arrive at the age of the Universe. Stellar age estimates suggest that it may be flawed. It is potentially misleading to make an a priori assumption that one method is preferable to another because it fits the current cosmological paradigm.

 

The age of the universe based on the "best fit" to WMAP data "only" is 13.4±0.3 billion years (the slightly higher number of 13.7 includes some other data mixed in). This number represents the first accurate "direct" measurement of the age of the universe (other methods typically involve Hubble's law and age of the oldest stars in globular clusters, etc).

It is possible to use different methods for determining the same parameter (in this case – the age of the universe) and arrive at different answers with no overlap in the "errors". To best avoid the problem, it is common to show two sets of uncertainties; one related to the actual measurement and the other related to the systematic errors of the model being used.

I tried to add some information to your discussion, I really don't care how old the universe is and don't want to argue about experimental validity in a subject which is extremely theoretical.

The method used is'nt a single one. But if you don't like the outcome for some reason you're welcome to argue the validity of this with hubble's law as you have been;which is a single method. Unlike the WMAP.

 

Like you I don't give an Aardvak's anus for the precise age of the Universe. I do however rail against slavish and dogmatic adherence to established paradigms.
My singular point is that we have observational data that appears to be in conflict with the current consensus opinion on the Universe's age. This conflict needs to be resolved. I suspect it will be resolved through improved data on stellar ages. Until it is we should be sceptical about those consensus results.
Since this is precisely the point you don't want to argue about, I guess we are done.