Librarium Online Forums banner

Problems with the Age of the Universe

838 views 17 replies 8 participants last post by  Rabbit 
#1 · (Edited)
Most astrophysicist generally agree that the universe is 12.5 billion years old or thereabouts. Agreed? This age is determined by the observation of the most distant light detected in the universe, which reaches us on earth after traveling 12.5 billion light-years (side: a light-year is not a measurement of time, but rather of distance- i.e., 1 light-year is the distance that light travels in 1 year. Simple). Given the following observation, that is, of light that has reached the earth after traveling 12.5 billion light-years, astrophysicists deduce the age of the universe to be 12.5 billion years old.

For me (admittedly, a laymen in astrophysics), there is an inherent flaw with this line of argument; namely, that in order for us to observe light that has traveled for 12.5 billion years, there has to be a distance of 12.5 billion light-years spanning between the earth and the source of this long-traveling light. However, matter does not travel at the speed of light, and in fact, the expansion velocity of all of the observable matter in the universe spawned by the Big Bang is roughly 1-3% the speed of light, depending on the matter at hand. So, here lies the predicament: Since the distance between us and the source of the most distantly observed light is expanding at a velocity of between 1-3% the speed of light, this means that it would take somewhere between 412.5 billion years to 1,250 billion years in order to produce a total distance of 12.5 billion light-years.

EDIT: Spelling mistake. heh.
 
See less See more
#4 ·
Provided the Big Bang model is accurate, then there shouldn't be any stars that are so far from earth that we have yet to observe their light. Without going into too much detail, the Big Bang model requires an expanding universe that originated at a single point. As the matter from the Big Bang expands into space it gathers over millions of years to form stars. Once a star takes shape, fusion occurs, and thus, visible light is emitted. The problem with trying to prove that stars exist beyond our observable scope through the Big Bang model is that the expansion of matter is so much slower than the speed of light; soooo slow in fact, that given the predicted age of our universe, the light from any stars that formed from the ejected material of the Big Bang would have easily reach us.

There would, however, be stars that are too dim for us to observe.

I’m not a proponent of the Big Bang, but since the age of the universe is predicted using the Big Bang model, I’m trying to stay within the boundaries of its assumptive principles. After all, one must first explore the ideas of a current model, before dismissing them as invalid. If this happens to be the case with the Big Bang, then perhaps one can examine other possible scenarios. On this note, here are the primary assumptions based upon the Big Bang model.

1- The universe is expanding from a single origin that was, prior to the Big Bang, an infinitely small point in space that contained neither matter nor energy, but the amalgamation of the two, along with all anti-matter and its matter counterparts.

2- Nothing exists that is beyond the expanding matter ejected from the Big Bang (actually, current observations support this, but this is a side tangent and best left for another day).
 
#5 · (Edited)
Please excuse me while I make an arse out of myself.

Well Rabbit, I am certainly no expert on this, but your philosophy seems to rely on the statement that we measure the age of the universe by light. But, from what I understand it is measured by which galaxies move apart from each other from one point (the origin). The movement of galaxies is linear, this is how we put it on 12.5 Billion years.

Edit: The name for this, as I just remembered, is Red Shift.

One other point, I always thought it was 13.7 billion years.

Or course, I could be completely wrong.
 
#7 ·
Please excuse me while I make an arse out of myself.
I think it's impossible *not* to make an arse of oneself when talking about the age of the universe. I certainly enjoy making an arse of myself and practice it as often as possible :wacko: .

On to the meat.


Well Rabbit, I am certainly no expert on this, but your philosophy seems to rely on the statement that we measure the age of the universe by light. But, from what I understand it is measured by which galaxies move apart from each other from one point (the origin). The movement of galaxies is linear, this is how we put it on 12.5 Billion years.

Edit: The name for this, as I just remembered, is Red Shift.
You're absolutely correct on the 'red shift' observations of galaxies. This is exactly how scientists measure the age of the universe. To clarify a bit more, the 'red shift' (or 'blue shift' if the galaxy is moving towards us, such as Andromeda) is based upon light, that is, the faster an object is moving away from us, the more its light is shifted towards the red side of the spectrum. The faster an object is moving towards us, the more its light is shifted towards the blue side of the spectrum. So yes, we measure the age of the universe based upon the most distant observable objects and the degree in which their light has been 'red shifted,' but the observation of the 'red shift' is in fact an observation of light.

Good point. I should have mentioned the 'red shift' from the beginning. Rep awarded.

One other point, I always thought it was 13.7 billion years.
12.5 billion....13.7 billion...close enough (says in a joking voice). It's only a BILLION years difference :tongue:.

You know, I get such a headache over the disagreement among scientist when it comes to virtually every measurable calculation of our universe. Some astrophysicists say 12.5 billion, some say as high as 17 billion. The fact that there is so much controversy over this subject compels me to suspend judgment altogether. Actually, this was one of the reasons I posted the thread, in order to show the apparent conceptual discrepancies with calculating the age of the universe. At the end of the day, there are just sooo many unknown factors about the way in which our universe functions, that I'm surprised we even made it to the moon (or for that matter, discovered America).
[/QUOTE]


big bang... sounds like a big farse to me.

i believe that the universe never started. it just always was and will always be. time is a mere mortal concept, its all a lie!
There are a number of problems generated by the Big Bang model, least of all is the fact that common usage of the term 'Big Bang' has now posited it as a theory- the Big Bang Theory. The model is far from being a doctrinal theory in any scientific sense of the word.

Anyways, it's just as probable that the universe has been strumming away for eternity, and that our lack of any observable matter beyond the Big Bang may be accounted for by the sheer unlimited size of the universe. It could very well be that other Big Bangs have occurred, and that they are so far from us, that we have yet to observe their light.

Thanks for the comments.
 
#6 ·
big bang... sounds like a big farse to me.

i believe that the universe never started. it just always was and will always be. time is a mere mortal concept, its all a lie!
 
#8 ·
But as you said, first before the star starts to emit light, it is a gas cloud. Then this stuff comes together and becomes and proto star etc etc then becoming the main sequence star that emits light.

Before the light has been emitted the matter has already been moving away from the center of the big bang. Even though it is not very fast movement, they are still further away from each other. Admittedly I don't know much about it, A level physics doesn't touch on the area.

The main thing I dislike about the big bang theory is if a black hole can punch a hole through time and space, why didn't the Big bang ball?
Granted this is a fairly mute question, if it did we wouldn't exist and we wouldn't ask the question. Also according to a talk about the big bang theory I had, we don't really know much about the behaviour of matter at such high densities anyway.
 
#9 ·
if i remeber science correctly isn't all matter and energy concerved. if matter and energy can't be created or destroyed(in the sense of individual atoms and such.), then wouldn't it to have had to always be there. my problem with the big bang theory is:
- why was everything in one place or how could a 'big bang' creat stuff.
- what cuased the big bang if there was nothing around it. (don't say god, becuase if so, what created god....thats deep...)

perhaps at some point the universe was just space with atoms and such floating around, and eventually they began to interact and form into certain materials. perhaps there was/ were big bangs, but i think they would not create the universe, but instead maybe act as a catalyste for the matter to spread and affected its nature in some way. the reason why i think the universe may be eternal are:
- if the universe was created, what was there before. if there was nothing how could a universe be created.
- time is a human concept to measure the periods between moments based on a system that compairs the extent of such moments based on the rotaition of the earth around the sun. in actaullity, i think everything just exists and has always existed, but how things change and interact gives an alusion of time.

thats my crazy theory.
 
#10 ·
Alexpape7, the first scientist able to answer your questions will win a Nobel Prize for it.

Regarding the creation of matter: It's true that in Einsteinian physics, matter and energy can neither be created or destroyed. However, Hawkings has formulated a mathematical proof that softly demonstrates how matter can indeed be created. Appropriately enough, he termed this matter 'Hawking's Radiation.' It involves matter/anti-matter particle pairs that are constantly and spontaneously being created and the annihilated throughout the universe. Most of the time (something like 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the time) the matter/anti-matter particle pairs simply annihilate each other and no additional matter or anti-matter is created. However, on very rare occasions, a pair of these particles will appear on the fringe of the event horizon of a black hole. For example: the anti-particle might appear on inside of the horizon, and the 'positive' particle on the outside (or vice versa). As we know from high-school physics, anything that moves inside of the event horizon, including light, cannot escape the gravitational well of the black hole. Consequently, the anti-particle falls into the black hole prior to annihilating itself and its particle counterpart. As a result, the 'positive' particle is now sustained in the universe. Hawkings dubbed this particle 'Hawkings Radiation,' because upon being generated in this universe, and having no anti-particle pair for producing an annihilation, the newly created particle is shot away from the black hole, due to the enormous gravitational strain of the black hole.

It's been years since I've read up on this stuff, so for all I know, Hawking's Radiation may have been disproved or solidified as a scientific fact.
 
#11 ·
Hawking, ehh? i think this hawing guy should take back his theories. for his own good. i mean, we wouldn't want anything unfortunate to happen to mr. Hawking in the near future, now would we?:shifty:
p.s. i have connections to the mob you know.....

now about this rabbit... i think he sould retract that last statement, unless something unfortunate were to happen to him as well.(anyone in for some rabbit stew:O, vinni tells me it goes great with pasta)
 
#14 ·
who said i was going to beat him up... plus he won't need a wheel chair where he is going, just cement shoes.
ts not my fualt what my lackys do. you didn't hear nothing. don't even try the police, there on my payroll too.
 
#13 ·
So anti-matter actually does exist? I always sorta assumed it only existed in Startrek or Starcraft or something. How magical.

Haha well what do you know. A trip to wiki shows that apparently the stuff is real. Anyway though, how old is the universe? 12 billion years? 13 billion years? Whatever the answer, you're only going to live for 80 or so. GG.
 
#16 ·
So, if I understand the question its:

If the universe was created by the big bang, and that's T=0 for the universe, how could light even travel 1.2 billion years to reach us, in the first place if the universe is ever expanding?

I think it has to do with the fact that at T=0 the universe had a devinite size and volume to it to begin with. At T=0 the big bang expanded the universe to a specific size and thus T=0 was set NOW starting the travelling lightsource when it finally formed(depending on when T=0 was set, of course this is a little subjective because it probably took some time to form the stars, T=0 may be set to the moment astrological bodies came into formation) There in lies the point, as the universe expands, the "new" territory has to take time to formulate bodies of space, in which it won't radiate light for a Very long time, assuming that the earth has existed since the begining and "we" are geologically and astrologically "young" then its a good assumption that the farthest light is in fact the farthest light at the conception of the universe, as it will take time to formulate new ones.

the only thing I see is that what if we aren't in the CENTER of the universe, and we exist on the edge of an eliptical sphere, and the longest travelled light actually had to cross the universe not to the middle, but to the other SIDE, in worst case scenario, wouldn't that cut the universe's age in half?.
 
#17 ·
If the universe was created by the big bang, and that's T=0 for the universe, how could light even travel 1.2 billion years to reach us, in the first place if the universe is ever expanding?
The light at the farthest reaches of the known universe takes '12.5 billion' years, not 1.2 billion. Typo?

The universe is expanding on two fronts: one, the emission of light at the edge of the universe; two, the expansion of matter. The expansion of matter moves at a substantially reduces speed when compared to light, which enable light to easily surpass matter. Did I answer your question?

Also, if we're still going off the Big Bang model, then the universe isn't 'ever expanding,' but rather, it's been expanding for roughly 13 billion years. If, however, the universe was 'ever expanding' then yes, there light from one end of the universe would never reach the other. Of course, if the universe has always been expanding, then I'm not sure we can talk about it having boundaries, or for that matter, I'm not even sure we can say something has 'always' been expanding. For one thing, expansion presupposes finitude at some physical, planar level. In other words, the expansion has to start somewhere; it has to have a point of reference or a beginning.

I think it has to do with the fact that at T=0 the universe had a devinite size and volume to it to begin with. At T=0 the big bang expanded the universe to a specific size and thus T=0 was set NOW starting the travelling lightsource when it finally formed(depending on when T=0 was set, of course this is a little subjective because it probably took some time to form the stars, T=0 may be set to the moment astrological bodies came into formation) There in lies the point, as the universe expands, the "new" territory has to take time to formulate bodies of space, in which it won't radiate light for a Very long time, assuming that the earth has existed since the begining and "we" are geologically and astrologically "young" then its a good assumption that the farthest light is in fact the farthest light at the conception of the universe, as it will take time to formulate new ones.
Based upon the Big Bang, there was a period of around 1 million years after the explosion, when the universe was too hot for any elements to form except hydrogen. Following this period, it would take another million years for basic dust-sized clumps of matter to form from their gravitational attraction. From here, my memory becomes a little fuzzy. If I correctly recall, from dust-sized clumps, it would take another 10 million years before the first stars are born (thus, fusion). All of this is taking place as the universe expands.

As the universe expands, so does all the matter contained within. When we think of "new" territory that is created with the expansion of the universe, one must bear in mind that light has already passed through these new regions from the initial explosion of the Big Bang, but also from the stars. In essence, there isn't a place in the universe that contains any star that has not previously experience a light-wave. Given these things, there shouldn't be sectors of the universe where matter is forming into stars, that has not in some period of its history experienced an influx of light.

Side: Most geologists agree that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, which makes it a mid-child of the universe.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top