The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Age of Universe  (Read 4024 times)

Offline Dick1038

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Age of Universe
« on: 25/11/2007 19:25:59 »
Supposedly, it's been about 13 billion years to 14 billion years since the big bang.  Yet, astronomers have viewed galaxies out to the 10 billion light years (bly), or more. It probably took more billions of years for the galaxies to form.  Since these galaxies were 10 bly 10 billion years ago, they must be a lot further today, perhaps 15 bly or more. Add the time to form the galaxies and one can conclude that the the BB occurred 17 billion years ago, or more.

Please point out my the error of my conclusion.


 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Age of Universe
« Reply #1 on: 25/11/2007 21:00:33 »
We can measure the original energy of the Big Band and it remains in the background radiation of the Universe. By calculating back to the original temperature and comparing it to the present temperature, the age of the universe can be calculated (see http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=11149.0) there are also other ways to measure the age of the universe and all come up  with about the same age 15 BY.

 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Age of Universe
« Reply #2 on: 25/11/2007 21:23:58 »
The galaxies that are far away from us are traveling away from us faster than the speed of light.
 

lyner

  • Guest
Age of Universe
« Reply #3 on: 26/11/2007 09:36:18 »
Jim Bob: are you a closet Stan Kenton fan and was your typo a Freudian slip?
 

lyner

  • Guest
Age of Universe
« Reply #4 on: 26/11/2007 09:56:23 »
Quote
The galaxies that are far away from us are traveling away from us faster than the speed of light.
That statement may need a little backing up, I feel.
It does rather fly in the face of a lot of established science.
I did find a link which claims the same thing but was disturbed to read the following passage :
Quote
This is the only realistic and rational picture of the universe, because mother nature loves growth as compared with decay, and orders as against disorders. That's why she gives her child nature evolutionary progress.
www.regenerating-universe.org/17)_The_real_age_of_universe.htm
It just screamed the word 'loony' in my head.
He even denies that the Hubble Red shift has ever been measured!
Do we really need that sort of complication when there is a relativistic explanation available?
 

Offline Soul Surfer

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3345
  • keep banging the rocks together
    • View Profile
    • ian kimber's web workspace
Age of Universe
« Reply #5 on: 26/11/2007 17:50:43 »
Dick1038 Apart from the last bit where you think that the formation of galaxies implies that the universe mut be much older what you say is OK

The very oldest galaxies that have been observed look a bit odd and unstructured and are probably in the process of forming.  It does not take all that long to make a galaxy so there is plenty of time for them to form and there is no reason to believe that the experts have got it wrong.

On the faster than light expansion of the universe this is allowable because the normal relativistic rules of velocities do not apply because the distant galaxies are not actually moving at these great velocities away from us they are probably moving in a similar way to galazies locally to us although there are a few differences associated with the early universe.  What is happening is that the space between the galaxies is actually expanding
 

Offline JimBob

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6564
  • Thanked: 7 times
  • Moderator
    • View Profile
Age of Universe
« Reply #6 on: 26/11/2007 18:12:00 »
Jim Bob: are you a closet Stan Kenton fan and was your typo a Freudian slip?

As my father was a big band NUT with all the 78 RPM records he could get his hands on I did listen to a LOT when I was under 7 or 8. My mother was not a fan of anything except church music. I do remember all of this but cannot say it was a Freudian slip, just a typo. I do remember sneaking into the brand new B&W TV room to watch American Bandstand with the shameless dancing that took place. Totally licentious, as my mother would have said.

I do like Big Band music but there is not much around these days. The best left is Bob Wills and Texas Swing, a cross between Big Band and C&W. And it is still played in the night clubs here in Austin.




 
 

lyner

  • Guest
Age of Universe
« Reply #7 on: 26/11/2007 18:56:00 »
Having given this some thought, I would say that to have a Big Band for your origin would be very nice. The Universe is lucky.
 

Offline thebrain13

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
    • View Profile
Age of Universe
« Reply #8 on: 26/11/2007 19:25:19 »
like soul surfer was saying, space itself is expanding, distances that were shorter are now longer, light in the earlier universe didnt have to travel as long.

And an expanding universe doesnt factor into relative velocity. For example you couldnt say that light is traveling away from us at 1c and the universe is accelerating over there at .5c so light is traveling at 1.5c.

The speed of light is constant if you dont count the acceleration of the universe but it is not if you do factor it in. ie scientists were puzzled to find that far away objects appear to travel faster than the speed of light.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Age of Universe
« Reply #8 on: 26/11/2007 19:25:19 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums