How old is the Universe?

[idav]

First we have to understand what time is. Time isn't really linear therefore the age of the universe isn't linear either. Now what about something that is moving at the speed of light, does it really age? If the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light is it aging? With time being non-linear does that mean that the universe is eternal or some sort of time loop where everything exists all at once. Just trying to grasp time in relation to the age of the universe while separating the science from the fiction.

 

[shawn001]

How old is the Universe?

13.7 billion years with a margin of error of less then 1%.

"WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.75 billion years old to within 1% (0.11 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!"

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

When you look at the stars your looking back in time, the time it took the light from a star or galaxy to reach us.

 

[Breathe]

How old is the Universe?

13.7 billion years with a margin of error of less then 1%.

"WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.75 billion years old to within 1% (0.11 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!"

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)

When you look at the stars your looking back in time, the time it took the light from a star or galaxy to reach us.

I see no reason to think otherwise, so this.

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Yes, the above is correct! :yes:

 

[shawn001]

Idav, look at the first picture in this link on the obervable universe.

The Universe within 14 billion Light Years - The Visible Universe


someone else wrote this about it all.

"If you really want a headache (the good kind), take a long look at this "photo." No, this is not a photo of the cosmic microwave background radiation. (which you can actually see for yourself if you change your television channel to one of ...the fuzzy stations) Nor is it a collection of graphs of a cell structure. So, instead of telling you what it isn't, how about I tell you what it is? This is, well... everything. Everything we can see and observe anyway. What you're looking at is the "observable" universe. This particular map has a cellular appearance due to how the galaxies tend to collect into vast sheets and super clusters of stars that are surrounded by stunningly large voids in between them. You and I and everything we've ever known are smack in the middle there, along with our Local group, which is a part of the Virgo Supercluster.

Since the speed of light is a constant in the vacuum of space, there is an outer edge to what is observable from Earth. That outer edge is defined by the objects within 14 billion years away (how old the universe is estimated to be), which is the time it would take for the light from these distant objects to reach us here on Earth. In this sense, the objects that are the farthest away from us are literally some of the earliest stars and galaxies in the young universe. it's quite likely that the stars we're observing are no longer burning and the ones that have sprung up from the gases expelled during the supernova are in another place entirely.

Since the universe has been expanding indefinitely since the big bang, the number of objects seen in the observable universe will shorten with time and it will appear as if the universe is much smaller than it does now - even though the light from these objects will eventually have enough time to reach us. This expansion is also the reason why our solar system appears to lie in the middle of the universe. In fact, every inhabited planet circling a distant star will look out into the universe and they will see that the universe is expanding away from them, giving the impression that they are located smack in the center.

The "observable" universe consists of:
- *10 million superclusters
- *25 billion galaxy groups
- *350 billion large galaxies
- *7 trillion dwarf galaxies
and *30 billion trillion (3X10^22) stars
(of which, almost 30 stars go supernova per second)

According to some math that I have no desire to go into, If you imagine the size of the observable universe (13.7 billion light-years) to be that of one nucleus of an atom and compare that with the size of the observable universe, then the total universe is 10 billion times larger than the size of the observable universe compared to a nucleus of an atom. (and it will continue to get bigger!)

(You can look at those numbers here: Our Universe)

Keep in mind that it's impossible for us to know the exact size of the unobservable universe, so the above is an estimation. It could be much larger than that.

- Jaime

Sources:
The Universe Adventure
Our Real Universe is "250 Times Bigger than What We Observe" (Today's Most Popular)
What is the Observable Universe?
Exploratorium: Hubble: Where is the center of the Universe?
The Universe within 14 billion Light Years - The Visible Universe

For further reading:
Observable universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Note* These numbers may vary source by source, but these estimates came from here:

The Observable Universe: Seven Trillion Dwarfs and Billions of Undetected Galaxies

 

[idav]

How old is the Universe?

13.7 billion years with a margin of error of less then 1%.

My question is also regarding the nature of space-time and the universes expansions. If the universe had been expanding at the speed of light ( which is what we used to get the measurement) then the universe really wasn't aging because time slows down when approaching the speed of light. Also time isn't even linear so is the universe really that old or maybe even older time itself.

 

[shawn001]

My question is also regarding the nature of space-time and the universes expansions. If the universe had been expanding at the speed of light ( which is what we used to get the measurement) then the universe really wasn't aging because time slows down when approaching the speed of light. Also time isn't even linear so is the universe really that old or maybe even older time itself.

Your not understanding the science and physics itself.

space-time are like a fabric woven together.

The universe has gone through different speed stages of expansion. Right now space is expanding faster then light.

You also start with the singularity and go from there. Look up Planck time and the begining of the universe.

"then the universe really wasn't aging because time slows down when approaching the speed of light."

Space itself can travel faster then light, but matter can't.

The speed of light is constant. 186,000 miles per second.
What is a light year?

HowStuffWorks "What is a light year?"

I'll look for some videos on this for you.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

Your not understanding the science and physics itself.

space-time are like a fabric woven together.

The universe has gone through different speed stages of expansion. Right now space is expanding faster then light.

You also start with the singularity and go from there. Look up Planck time and the begining of the universe.

"then the universe really wasn't aging because time slows down when approaching the speed of light."

Space itself can travel faster then light, but matter can't.

The speed of light is constant. 186,000 miles per second.
What is a light year?

HowStuffWorks "What is a light year?"

I'll look for some videos on this for you.

Can you explain to me (in semi simple terms, I studying physics at A-Level) how space could be expanding faster than the speed of light?

 

[paarsurrey]

First we have to understand what time is. Time isn't really linear therefore the age of the universe isn't linear either. Now what about something that is moving at the speed of light, does it really age? If the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light is it aging? With time being non-linear does that mean that the universe is eternal or some sort of time loop where everything exists all at once. Just trying to grasp time in relation to the age of the universe while separating the science from the fiction.

The universe has a shelf life also like everything else; if a part of it, like plants, animals and or humans could vanish, why not the whole of it also.

 

[paarsurrey]

The universe has a shelf life also like everything else; if a part of it, like plants, animals and or humans could vanish, why not the whole of it also.

How Does a Star Die?

How Does a Star Die?

 

[Penumbra]

First we have to understand what time is. Time isn't really linear therefore the age of the universe isn't linear either. Now what about something that is moving at the speed of light, does it really age? If the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light is it aging? With time being non-linear does that mean that the universe is eternal or some sort of time loop where everything exists all at once. Just trying to grasp time in relation to the age of the universe while separating the science from the fiction.

My question is also regarding the nature of space-time and the universes expansions. If the universe had been expanding at the speed of light ( which is what we used to get the measurement) then the universe really wasn't aging because time slows down when approaching the speed of light. Also time isn't even linear so is the universe really that old or maybe even older time itself.

I think one of the things you're asking is, if time is relative and all that, then how can they put a fixed time on the universe, like 13.7 billion years? 13.7 billion years relative to which reference frame?

The answer is that the reference frame they use to determine this age, is one that follows along with the expansion of the universe. It's the reference frame for which the background cosmic radiation has always been nearly isotropic (uniform in all directions). Basically, it's the reference frame that moves along with the expansion of the universe, at rest relative to the universe, from the beginning. If people were to measure the age of the earth, the reference frame they'd use as being most appropriate would be the reference frame that has always co-moved with the earth and therefore never moved relative to the earth. Similarly, if people were to measure the age of the universe, the reference frame they'd use as being the most appropriate would be the reference frame that has always co-moved with the universe, which means never having moved within the universe, and always just moving along with the expansion of the universe itself.

I think the second part of the question has to do with a misinterpretation of what it means for the universe to expand faster than the speed of light. The expansion of the universe through any finite amount of space is relatively slow. The expansion is not itself occurring at the speed of light. However, due to the vast distances in the universe, objects that are very far away from each other can move away from each other faster than the speed of light, due to the cumulative effect of expansion between them.

For example, if I take a rubber band and stretch it at a rate of 1 millimeter per second per centimeter of length, and my rubber band is 1 trillion centimeters long, then two points on each end of this rubber band will be expanding away from each other exceedingly quickly even though the speed of expansion at any one point is quite slow.

 

[Penumbra]

Can you explain to me (in semi simple terms, I studying physics at A-Level) how space could be expanding faster than the speed of light?

The speed of light is a limit for how fast an object can move through space.

But space itself can expand more quickly than the speed of light. It is under no such constraint, because it's not an object moving through space.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, the expansion rate of the universe is measured to be quite slow, relatively speaking. For each amount of distance, there is a small amount of expansion. But over enormous distances, the cumulative rate of this expansion is enormous, and so objects that are very far away from each other can be moving away from each other in distance at a rate that exceeds the speed of light. It's not that they're moving through space at this rate; it's that space itself is expanding between them.

->

For example, if I take a rubber band and stretch it at a rate of 1 millimeter per second per centimeter of length, and my rubber band is 1 trillion centimeters long, then two points on each end of this rubber band will be expanding away from each other exceedingly quickly even though the speed of expansion at any one point is quite slow.

 

[apophenia]

Depends. Do you mean "how long since the big bang" ? If so then the posts above probably cover it. However, science only has a handle on what happened immediately after the big bang. There is still plenty of debate about what went bang, and why. There is the possibility that science will never conclusively answer that. Should the observable universe be cyclic for example, an oscillation of big bangs and subsequent return to singularity, then it would be beyond any concept of time - eternal.

 

[paarsurrey]

Depends. Do you mean "how long since the big bang" ? If so then the posts above probably cover it. However, science only has a handle on what happened immediately after the big bang. There is still plenty of debate about what went bang, and why. There is the possibility that science will never conclusively answer that. Should the observable universe be cyclic for example, an oscillation of big bangs and subsequent return to singularity, then it would be beyond any concept of time - eternal.

I agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

The speed of light is a limit for how fast an object can move through space.

But space itself can expand more quickly than the speed of light. It is under no such constraint, because it's not an object moving through space.

As I pointed out in the earlier post, the expansion rate of the universe is measured to be quite slow, relatively speaking. For each amount of distance, there is a small amount of expansion. But over enormous distances, the cumulative rate of this expansion is enormous, and so objects that are very far away from each other can be moving away from each other in distance at a rate that exceeds the speed of light. It's not that they're moving through space at this rate; it's that space itself is expanding between them.

->

Thank you for this information.

 

[shawn001]

Can you explain to me (in semi simple terms, I studying physics at A-Level) how space could be expanding faster than the speed of light?

Penumbra went through that some with you, here is some more.

Faster Than Light Expansion of the Universe

What Does it Mean for a Galaxy to Recede at Superluminal Speed?

Faster Than Light Expansion of the Universe: What Does it Mean for a Galaxy to Recede at Superluminal Speed? | Suite101.com
​

 

[shawn001]

A little bit more technical

WMAP- Expansion of the Universe

and

Discovery that universe is expanding faster and faster earns physics Nobel

Discovery that universe is expanding faster and faster earns physics Nobel | Alaska Dispatch


Physics 'error' leads to Nobel Prize


Three astrophysicists who discovered that the universe's expansion is accelerating rather than decelerating, as had been expected, win the Nobel Prize in physics.


Physics 'error' leads to Nobel Prize - Los Angeles Times

 

[shawn001]

Depends. Do you mean "how long since the big bang" ? If so then the posts above probably cover it. However, science only has a handle on what happened immediately after the big bang. There is still plenty of debate about what went bang, and why. There is the possibility that science will never conclusively answer that. Should the observable universe be cyclic for example, an oscillation of big bangs and subsequent return to singularity, then it would be beyond any concept of time - eternal.

One of the consequences of the universe expanding faster and faster is gravity won't be able to cause a "big crunch." They have basically ruled it out.

This is what they think now

The Universe Today
The End of Everything

The End of Everything


They are starting to find possible clues to what might have happened before the big bang, so I wouldn't be to sure of it never being figured out. The fact we figured out as much as we have since the 1920's when Hubble discovered the universe was expanding in the first place. Basically overnight we went from our galaxy and a hundred billion starts in it, to 100 billion galaxies.

 

[shawn001]

Something to know here.

The big bang theory itself isn't about the orgins of the universe, just that it was hot and dense in the distant past and is expanding. It was also NOT AN EXPLOSION. Space/time itself was created with the bang.

[youtube]zDQzKTedGNE[/youtube]
The Big Bang - YouTube

The analogy to this would be in evolution, abiogensis and evolution. Two different things. The abiogensis part being the singularity and the expansion being evolution.

Everything has evolved from the big bang onwards in time. The universe and everything biological. Because ancient stars created the heavy elements were made out of with a process called nucleosynthesis by supernova stars. There is big bang nucleosynthesis and stellar nucleosynthesis. The former created the lighter elements, like hydorgen and helium and the latter the heavy elements, like the carbon all life forms are made out of on earth.

 

[chinu]

How old is the Universe?

For example: The construction work of any building is currently going on, Until the construction/finishing work fully gets compleate we cannot say; "how old is the building", How old is the building can only be calculated from the day when it is fully being furnished.

As we can see trees growing every second, We can see water moving in the rivers every second, We can see the non stop construction work of this whole universe going all around us, Seems like the construction work of universe is currently going on, If the construction work is still going on, than firstly let the construction work gets finalise, Only than we can ask "How old is the universe" ?

Thus.. its not the question yet, i think..