It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Age of the 'known' universe inncorrect?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
This is a curiousity question......

Supposedly scientists have determine the 'known' universe to be approximately 13 billion years old.

They have used various instruments to 'look back' in time; they have determined that the light waves we receive are ~13 billion years old.

Some questions come to mind......

Which direction is the 'center' of the universe?
How was that determined?
Using the same instruments, what is viewed in the opposite direction?
Is the Milkyway galaxy considered to be on the fringe of the universe, making it one of the oldest?

Wouldn't the 'age' of the universe depend upon the Milkway's position?

A galaxy farther out would obviously have different readings showing the universe to be older......right?

This is something which has been in my head for the past few days.....




posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
to my thinking, it's that 'we' have presently reached a limit
of 13-14 billion light years, because that is the limit of our imagination & comprehension, & the technological tools we have invented to explore the 'observable' universe.

the furtherest back we can see, is Galaxy size globs of light some ~13-14 billion years old....
its our limited supposition that the 'unseen/ indistinguishable' era,
guessed at as being around 500million years, is when smaller stars & groups of stars just began grouping into galaxy sized clusters.

if our concepts & consciousness grows enough to develop even greater & radical sensing and optical devices, to 'see' into that era of Pre-Galaxy building,
'we' just might discover that there are more levels in the creation process

maybe even that there were many Billions of years of universe restructuring & supernova scale building processes underway to even get to the faint globular Galaxies we 'see' as the faintest beginning of our 'knowable' universe...and not a mere 500million years.

[edit on 30-1-2007 by St Udio]

[edit on 30-1-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 10:13 AM
link   
The age of the unverse at 13.7 billion years old is "assuming" the Big Bang theory is correct.

New Theory Provides Alternative to Big Bang Princeton



So welcome to infinity, where time is an illusion.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
On the big bang theory.


We know nothing can travel faster than light in a vaccum.

We know that nothing can escape the gravity well of a blackhole, not even light, therefore the escape velocity is impossible to acheive from the singularity/centre of the blackhole.

We know that the universe must have comprised particles of mass far exceeding that of black holes, and therefore the gravitational effects.


Even though time dilation may occur in extreme gravity wells - that shouldn't make a difference as gravity force exerted on anything is independant of time.


Right, the force between two bodies is F = (G m1 m2)/(L^2)

G = gravitational constant
m1 = first mass
m2 = 2nd mass
L = distance between masses.


We also know F = ma -or- F/m = a

so if we take F/m1 = a we get.


a = (G m2)/(L^2)


From a singularity L is increasing from 0, so a is approaching infinity
From the size of the universe m2 is absolutely massive as well.

So for all intentional purposes, a is infinity.

Even if time is distorted, the distance travelled is dependant on time, so how did the big bang actually occur - surely everything should have instantly collapsed back on itself...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I do love numbers...but we can only end up with a calculation with the knowledge we have. Honestly, no one knows the age of the Universe, hell we don't even know what is in the Universe let alone how old it is...All a guessing game. We've gone far but have billions of years to travel.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 11:30 AM
link   
A plasma dynamics physicist named kalvin Alfenes (sp) claims that the universe has to be much older than 13.7 billion years, upwards of 100 billion years in his estimation.

He cites a photograph taken of the entire know universe that scientists call the 'Cosmic Tapestry' because it looks like interwoven filiments, all composed of billions and billions of galaxies.

He argues that Electo magnetism which controls plasma and high energy sources in general are responsible for the shape of almost all particles and that the process extrapolates upward to the size of galaxies and universes without any interuption in the fidelity of the forms.

Basically he says that if there is a electromagnetic field around all particles and plasmas will be guided most significantly by those fields over the others. particles will align themselves along electromagentic filiments. Extrapolating that up in scale he says that galaxies act like particles too and form long supper clusters along filiments dictated by the electromagnetic fields generated from within and outside of the galaxies. They all reinforce each other to eventually form these long filiments of galexies. The process is scalar to the smaller particles and so the large galaxy filiments have to take a certain amount of time to form. His estimation is that for the present complexity of the filiments would have to have taken about 100 billion years to form.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316
On the big bang theory.

We know nothing can travel faster than light in a vaccum.

We know that nothing can escape the gravity well of a blackhole, not even light, therefore the escape velocity is impossible to acheive from the singularity/centre of the blackhole.

We know that the universe must have comprised particles of mass far exceeding that of black holes, and therefore the gravitational effects.

Even though time dilation may occur in extreme gravity wells - that shouldn't make a difference as gravity force exerted on anything is independant of time.

Right, the force between two bodies is F = (G m1 m2)/(L^2)

G = gravitational constant
m1 = first mass
m2 = 2nd mass
L = distance between masses.

We also know F = ma -or- F/m = a

so if we take F/m1 = a we get.

a = (G m2)/(L^2)

From a singularity L is increasing from 0, so a is approaching infinity
From the size of the universe m2 is absolutely massive as well.

So for all intentional purposes, a is infinity.

Even if time is distorted, the distance travelled is dependant on time, so how did the big bang actually occur - surely everything should have instantly collapsed back on itself...


Ah but things have not escaped from the singularity at all. The original singularity comprised the entire universe, all of space, all of time, and all of energy-matter. We live in that universe now. All the places and locations in our universe were in the singularity. The geometry of the spacetime singularity has changed, but nothing has "left" the universe.

Does that answer your query, or do you mean something else?

Rob.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ferretman2
Which direction is the 'center' of the universe?


No where and everywhere - best models think we started out as a singularity. The whole thing inflated, much as a balloon does so that everything and everyone would consider themselves as the starting point of the universe.


How was that determined?


Doppler shift of light waves and the uniformity of the background radiation (even if it is a little lumpy)....


Using the same instruments, what is viewed in the opposite direction?


More stuff - best data to date says we live in a "flat" universe. Not flat as in a piece of paper but one in which goes on forever. i.e. you would not run back into your self if you went to the edge.


Is the Milkyway galaxy considered to be on the fringe of the universe, making it one of the oldest?


No - nothing remarkable about our galaxy....


Wouldn't the 'age' of the universe depend upon the Milkway's position?


Nope.... By the inflation model - everything and anything is able to measure the distances (we do it via type 1a supernovas) and the fact the relativity so far has held....


A galaxy farther out would obviously have different readings showing the universe to be older......right?


Nope - as above. We are viewing things to the limit of our telescopes (type 1a supernovas) and anyone else can do the same and get the same result.

Good questions but so far the theories are holding nicely and coming together quite well too. Read the books by Brian Greene for a nice easy to read explanation of the current state of cosmology or any other works that talk about the "inflationary model" general and special relativity and for the latest and greatest - string theory or my eaxtly superstring theory....



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:18 AM
link   
Just a note to say that the previous poster, UofCinLA, has provided the best answers to the OP's questions (based on current physics and cosmology) and has done so in a very clear, concise and comprehensible way.

I'd like to endorse those replies, which agree with what I believe I know on the subject, and congratulate UofCinLA for having delivered them so well.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 02:45 AM
link   
I dont remember who said it in here but someone suggested a better telescope would mean we could see farther. thats not true. I once emailed a nasa scientist with a question. How far exactly can hubble see? his response was there is no limitation as to how far hubble can see. the only limitations are posed by the VISIBLE universe itself. therefore a better optical telescope would offer very little other than maybe a little aditional clarity. which is still a good thing! But its not as important these days as our ability to observe and anylize other spectrums of electromagnetic radiation such as infra red, x rays, and gamma rays.


also as this video suggests the universe is much older than previously thought. the video says the universe is 78 billion lightyears across. that suggests it is in fact about 100 billion years old

www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
Ah but things have not escaped from the singularity at all. The original singularity comprised the entire universe, all of space, all of time, and all of energy-matter. We live in that universe now. All the places and locations in our universe were in the singularity. The geometry of the spacetime singularity has changed, but nothing has "left" the universe.

Does that answer your query, or do you mean something else?

Rob.


But why did all material inside the singularity "expand"/spread-out (with the singularity)?

Surely gravity forces should have kept it all in one spot



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Originally posted by d60944
Ah but things have not escaped from the singularity at all. The original singularity comprised the entire universe, all of space, all of time, and all of energy-matter. We live in that universe now. All the places and locations in our universe were in the singularity. The geometry of the spacetime singularity has changed, but nothing has "left" the universe.

Does that answer your query, or do you mean something else?

Rob.


But why did all material inside the singularity "expand"/spread-out (with the singularity)?

Surely gravity forces should have kept it all in one spot


I don't know the answer to that in practical terms. One can create mathematical propositions that provide for an expansion force though. It is very hard to talk about cause-and-effect at the early stages though, as time itself came from the Big Bang. As time is required for causality how does one say what "caused" time to flow in the way it appears to now?

I would hazard a caution that it might not be completely helpful to compare the Big Bang singularity with a black hole singularity. The black hole one is a point comprised of mass/energy, wrapped up in curved space (but not much of it). The Big Bang was comprised of wrapped up space itself. In the case of a black hole you are asking why the matter does not all come out of the hole. However with the Big Bang you are asking why space expanded (*not* why matter expanded away from it). The two questions are different and might not work well as analogous.

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 08:27 AM
link   
UofCinLA

Thanks for the consice answers. Very interesting.....I think I have a new book to read.....


You have voted UofCinLA for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by ferretman2]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
Thanks for the props!

As to the inflation bit - suffice it to say it works in terms of the math and the known physics and theories. Alan Guth was the scientist that lead the inflationary model and so far it is the best one available. Sadly all known physics break down at time 0 so we will probably never know the how and why it all began. As to the light and how far - we should be able to see back to the point that the first photons lit up, but we are not there yet....

I always had an interest in this stuff but went down the bio route. The thought that we are literally living in a science fiction story with so much unknown is mind boggling to me. I was lucky to be around some of the pioneers at the UofC. It was fun to see Chandra sitting in his office in the math building staring at a blackboard. Got to go to a Hawking lecture, etc....

We are lucky that Brian Greene (and others) have taken the time from the day to day research to write things that are understandable by most of us....



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by d60944
In the case of a black hole you are asking why the matter does not all come out of the hole. However with the Big Bang you are asking why space expanded (*not* why matter expanded away from it). The two questions are different and might not work well as analogous.

Cheers.


Thanks for the answer - but did the galaxies expand from a central point*, and if so, how?


*Are the universe expansion theories not based on this assumption?



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by kilcoo316

Thanks for the answer - but did the galaxies expand from a central point*, and if so, how?

*Are the universe expansion theories not based on this assumption?


No, there is no central point. All points are moving away from all other points. As might be coming clear, theories of spacetime and the expansion of the universe are at heart theories of geometry. The geometry of the universe is like the surface of a sphere. Where is the centre of the surface of a sphere? Where is the end of a ring?

Trying to imagine this shape breaks down though. Becuase when you imagine a surface of a sphere (which is only in two dimensions, north-south and east-west, if you like) you can't help but add a third dimension (up and down from the surface). And then you will conclude that the sphere has a centre, and wonder if the universe has one. That is because your mind has evolved to imagine topology in 3D space. Abandon any image you try to construct in your imagination. We are not talking about a sphere; we are talking just about the curved 2D shape (which just coincidentally bounds a sphere in 3D space).

What actually happens is a quite bizarre shape in which the up-down dimension is also curved exactly the same as the NS/EW ones. I can't draw it on a piece of paper for you. But that is the shape of space. There is no centre if all dimensions are curved.

(Incidentally, if that is not the shape of space, then the onky conclusion is that our planet earth occupies the ludicrously unlikely position of actually sitting right in the centre of the entire universe. But this is so unlikely and so militated against by the obervation of the universe itself that it is not a valid interpretation.)

Cheers.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I see what your saying.

The universe is like a ball being pumped up as a perfect sphere, with the galaxies being specks of dirt on the ball.


However, gravity wells causes indentations on the surface of the ball, and if something gets caught in the gravity well, they will circle it, or they will fall into it. Obviously, there is a depth to the surface to give localised 3 dimensionality to the universe, but in reality it is 4D (at least).

If that was true - I wonder what would happen if we burst through the "surface" into the interior of the ball - subspace?



posted on Feb, 1 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
(looking up at the sky) what if C.A.T really spelled dog?

-ogre



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join