How was the age of the universe determined?

[mattenoukon]

I remember learning not too long ago that the age of the universe is 16-20 billion. Now it has been modified to 11.5 billion or thereabouts. How exactly do we determine the age of the universe?

[C1ay]

Have you read through any of this yet?

[UncleAl]

About 14.7 billion years with excellent observational consistency.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Dark matter candidates

 

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html

Carroll on what it all means.

[coldcreation]

About 14.7 billion years with excellent observational consistency.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Dark matter candidates

 

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll/frames.html

Carroll on what it all means.

 

last i heard it was but a mear 13.7 Gyrs old. I recomend using the age of some globular clusters here in the milky way. And then add a billion years or so. See what comes up.

my calculation usung simplr addition gives me 20 Gyrs. Older than the universe. Wow, Pow, How?

[UncleAl]

I recomend using the age of some globular clusters here in the milky way.

You have no technical qualfiications, no academic certifcations, and no empirical knowledge.

[coldcreation]

You have no technical qualfiications, no academic certifcations, and no empirical knowledge.

 

I recomend again using known astrophysics to measure the age of objects in the visible universe. This will not give the age of the universe. Something that has been around for an infinite amount of time has no age (it was never born, there was no beginning, no t = 0). To extrapolate using an interpretation of redshift would be far from empirical and so it is not recommended, it would be pure specious speculation. Go with what we know (more or less), the age of stellar objects, but not to give an age of the universe, to show only the the age of certain stars is greater than the suspected age of the universe according to the standard model, which would be 13.7 Gyrs. The age problem has been around since the onslaught of Lemaìtre, the prelate. The age problem is not going away anytime soon, it will get worse as more observations come in, especially with the new space telescope set to sail in 2011.

 

Geoffrey Burbidge and Fred Hoyle co-authored a paper that was published in the Astrophysical Journal (1998) entitled The Origin of Helium and the Other Light Elements. Although they have an elegant manner of presenting their material, with words like; “This result strongly suggest…” and, “there are good arguments for believing…” or, “it is very likely that…” as well as; “We shall show that another approach leads to the conclusion that…” etc., one thing remains perfectly clear: Hoyle and Burbidge have reached the definitive conclusion that not just the light elements, but all of the chemical elements of the periodic table were generated ‘astrophysically,’ explicitly synthesized in stellar processes, which conceptually is in diametrical opposition to the generally acknowledged primordial creation (or big bang nucleosynthesis).

 

Furthermore, they argue that the energy contained in the cosmic microwave background radiation is exactly equal to the energy released in the synthesis of cosmic helium 4 from hydrogen. Their results show that the observed abundance of helium was produced by hydrogen burning stars: not in the early stages of the singular big bang. The conclusion is that all of the elements and the CMB were produced by hydrogen burning in stars, over a time span of approximately 100 billion years.

 

The abundance of light elements and the microwave background radiation are used as primary evidence in favor of the standard hot big bang cosmological model. However, as Hoyle and Burbidge point out, “this argument is only powerful if there is no other way to explain the helium abundance and the microwave background radiation.”

 

That blows away the 13. 7 or 14.7 Gyr old universe hypothesis. I can guarantee you the even 100 billion years is a very short time as far as the universe is concerned, try 650 billion years ago; that's when, according to the Cold Creation theory, the first hydrogen atoms emerged from the cold vacuum, by a very specific mechanism, a known one. Nothing more for now...

coldcreation

[keshav_1983]

remember Einstein's theory, energy can never be created nor destroyed, though energy can change forms from mass to potential energy, kinetic energy , light, sound, and various other forms. And universe is hollow beyond time and energy.

 

energy as mass when comes under its own gravitation creates a lot of pressure inside itself causing an explosion, which might be called a new birth.

similarily when all these masses are scattered in the universe they gradually implode into one large mass which explodes again, this goes on and on.

 

so there is no age of universe.

[bumab]

energy as mass when comes under its own gravitation creates a lot of pressure inside itself causing an explosion, which might be called a new birth.

similarily when all these masses are scattered in the universe they gradually implode into one large mass which explodes again, this goes on and on.

 

so there is no age of universe.

 

However the unverse is expanding, and accelerating (apparently). Thus, it won't implode... so, there might not be a big crunch, so no eternally rebounding universe.

[Aleph-Null]

I apologize for imposing, but I must intervene to provide a correction which scientists I know have been trying to implement. It is the Big Bang which occurred billions of years ago. The effects of the "Big Bang" or "The Inflation" can be postulated to have occurred billions of years ago. This does not tell us "the age of the universe" but only a "minimum age of the universe" which could well extend into infinity.

 

If the universe 20 billion years ago was two p-branes waiting to collide to faciliate inflation then the universe was around 20 billion years ago but existed in a state different from today. Time was not created with the Inflation but rather a pre-existing condition which allowed for the Inflation to occur, its inclusion must therefore be integrated into any theory.

[Aleph-Null]

Again, I would merely like to suggest a correction in our language.

 

The "age" of the "Universe" has not been determined and is theoretically infinity. The "Big Bang" or "Observable Inflatationary Region" is who's age we have estimated. So, I would have named the thread "How long ago did the Big Bang occur?" or "How long of an effect has the Big Bang had on the universe?"

 

There is a difference between aging the Big Bang and aging the Universe. The Big Bang is an event which exists in the Universal Set. Trillions times Trillions of light years distance there could be other Big Bangs occuring and there is nothing to discredit this theory.

 

As far as the Universe goes, nobody knows its age.

[xersan]

I remember learning not too long ago that the age of the universe is 16-20 billion. Now it has been modified to 11.5 billion or thereabouts. How exactly do we determine the age of the universe?

 

 

We must develop a method to reduce a single value of Hubble constant (40-80 km/s/mpc).

 

It is extremely to determine the age of universe by an organism that called human. It is awfully for me. Therefore I want to live all of determining advanture step by step. And I developed a new method to determine the age and diameter. My method can reduce all values of Ho to a single value. And results:

 

The age : 19.30 +/- 0.60 Gyr

 

Diameter: 28.86 +/- 1.80 Gly

 

Ha : 43.7 +/- 1.30 km/s/mpc

[coldcreation]

We must develop a method to reduce a single value of Hubble constant (40-80 km/s/mpc).

 

It is extremely to determine the age of universe by an organism that called human. It is awfully for me. Therefore I want to live all of determining advanture step by step. And I developed a new method to determine the age and diameter. My method can reduce all values of Ho to a single value. And results:

 

The age : 19.30 +/- 0.60 Gyr

 

Diameter: 28.86 +/- 1.80 Gly

 

Ha : 43.7 +/- 1.30 km/s/mpc

 

My suggestion is to fix the Ho at a definity value and not move it. That value is zero: As in zero velocity. That then simply gives you the amount of time t the universe has been evolving: Infinity.

[UncleAl]

As far as the Universe goes, nobody knows its age.

Ineducable lout. Screw your butt into a chair and read:

 

The universe is 14.7 billion years old with excellent observational consistency.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Dark matter candidates

 

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/leve...oll/frames.html

Carroll on what it all means.

[coldcreation]

Ineducable lout. Screw your butt into a chair and read:

 

The universe is 14.7 billion years old with excellent observational consistency.

 

The Embarkation of Cosmos: A primeval dumb-bomb of extreme temperature and density sprouts from the void some 13 billion years ago; the suspected age of the universe changes almost on a daily basis and depends on the source.

 

The age problem is well known. It is not going away.

 

’The age of the universe is Tu = 15 ± 2 Gyr based on the age of Galactic globular clusters at 14 Gyr plus 1 Gyr if Ho = 50 ± 2 as in Table 8.4 of Lecture 8 (Sandage 1993) and therefore Ho-1 = 19.5 Gyr. It was comforting to know that the universe was older than the Earth…almost.

 

Cold Creation predicts that the spectra of the most distant objects visible in the universe will show lines of C, N, and O, proving that nucleosynthesis was already well underway prior to this look-back time, that these heavy elements had been spread by the massive explosion of stars that themselves had to evolve over time scales that surpass the suspected age of the universe. The enriched material would eventually find its way to the core of parent galaxies (and old globular clusters), proving that considerable stellar evolution had already taken place (at those ‘early’ times), that the universe is much older than suspected, and that the theory of primordial creation and nucleosynthesis of the light elements (that would eventually fuse to form the heavier ones) from an initial state a short time ago is false.

 

Coldcreation

[keshav_1983]

However the unverse is expanding, and accelerating (apparently). Thus, it won't implode... so, there might not be a big crunch, so no eternally rebounding universe.

Bumab, the universe is decelerating. thus all the mass that is scattered around the universe will attract each other towards the centre of mass. and this mass is so huge that it will compress in its own gravity and again will cause a big bang. this is just a cycle.

 

gravitational force of the universe is towards the centre.

this force causes a deceleration (which is negative acceleration). the universe is moving away from the centre now, after that it will contract.

[Aleph-Null]

Ineducable lout. Screw your butt into a chair and read:

 

The universe is 14.7 billion years old with excellent observational consistency.

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0403292

http://arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310723

WMAP + Sloane Digital Sky Survey

 

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404175

Dark matter candidates

 

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/leve...oll/frames.html

Carroll on what it all means.

 

Absolute non-sense. The effects Inflation can be measured to 14.7 billion years. That says absolutely nothing about the age of the Universe.

[coldcreation]

According to quasi-steady state cosmology QSSC the universe oscillates. Each time it oscillates it becomes slightly larger. The cycle takes about 40 billion years to complete, 20 billion years from the maximum to the minimum, and 20 billion years from the minimum to the maximum. It takes about 800 billion years and 20 oscillations for the universe to double its scale. With this outlook, the universe is much older than the 13.7 or 14.7 billion years put forth by standard models and revamped with inflation. The Milky Way is closer to 300 billion years old than 10 billion years previously claimed. An alternation of major episodes of mania and depression in a cyclical pattern is one of the most distinctive clinical features of QSSC.

 

On its topography alone, the steady state universe would qualify as one of the most desirable of contending theories. This fertile universe has an almost human feature within it, as if it were breathing, with a large inhalation followed by a long exhalation, with a cosmic climate that always seems to be neither to hot nor to cold. It’s an appealing thought. You can see why the steady state model has long been a popular choice for the layman on the lookout for a slice of fine cosmology: by the sound of it, there can be few better alternatives.

 

Something has only just begun.

 

Coldcreation