/ Age of the Universe
If something had travelled from Earth at 75km/s for about 13 billion years, then it would be about 1 MParsec away now. Which was the basis of the calculation that concludes that the universe is 13 billion years old.
But, it seems to me now that this is purely a coincidence. A point in space that is now 1 MParsec away has not been moving away at a constant 75 km/s. When it was closer, it would have been moving more slowly.
Finally, if the universal expansion is constant (75km/s/MP), then the calculation will give a constant 13 billion years regardless of how old the universe is.
Are there any physicists who can explain this?
I'm not sure I fully understand your question, however: In getting from the current value of the Hubble constant (as you say, around 72 km/s/Mpc) to the age of the universe, one does take into account how the expansion rate has changed over time. One can do that because, given the constituents of the universe, one can calculate how the expansion rate will have changed (e.g. gravity slowing things down).
> constant 13 billion years regardless of how old the universe is.
I'm not sure I understand the question. Given an expansion rate, one then runs things backwards in time to predict the time when all lengths were zero, so everything was in the same place. This was the Big Bang and the beginning of our universe. Thus the current expansion rate and the time since the Big Bang are intimately related.
> Finally, if the universal expansion is constant (75km/s/MP), then the calculation will give a constant 13 billion years regardless of how old the universe is.
I don't fully understand this malarkey but isn't the accepted theory that the expansion is accelerating. Not sure how this effects your calculation.
it is postulated that the expansion of the universe has remained relatively constant after the initial inflation depending on who's model you believe. But to be totally fair cosmology is 96% fudge anyway.
> I'm not sure I fully understand your question, however: In getting from the current value of the Hubble constant (as you say, around 72 km/s/Mpc) to the age of the universe, one does take into account how the expansion rate has changed over time. One can do that because, given the constituents of the universe, one can calculate how the expansion rate will have changed (e.g. gravity slowing things down).
hmmm how can you calculate the change in expansion rate when you don't know what most of the universe actually is?
if that makes any sense?
> initial inflation depending on who's model you believe.
Well no (unless you're taking a very lax interpretation of "relatively constant"), it's more that the changes in expansion rate are factored in to the calculation.
to be fair the hubble constant is one of the least precisely known constants around, its been believed to be fairly much anywhere between 50-100 with differing sizes of error bars over the last decade or so. We've sort of met in the middle somewhere.
my point still stands though cosmology is mostly fudge, rum and rasen where the stuff we know is the rasens and most of the rest of it is fudge :)
We do know quite a bit about how the stuff behaves, even if we don't fully understand it. You can actually trace out the expansion of the universe by looking at very distant objects (supernovae) which, since they are very distant, we observe as they were eons ago, and thus we can see the universe as it was when much smaller. Thus the expansion rate over time is an observed quantity.
That's not true, it's been pretty settled for longer than a decade. If you'd said 4 or 5 decades then you'd have been ok.
Not true, there is plenty of strong evidence for the claims being made.
Some dispersion in SNe luminosities is known and accounted for. What is your point? Cosmologists are well aware of the limitations of their data, where there are limitations.
didn't say there wasn't evidence, just not as much as people in any other field would call enough. If I tried to do my star formation research with as much knowledge as cosmologists have id be pretty stuck.
Yes. Anyhow, much of the constraint on the age come from fluctuations in the microwave background, which are independent of SN1as. There are now several independent lines of evidence all leading to the same result.
I'm willing to bet that Hubble's constant and the age of the universe are known to better accuracy than the mass-radius relation of an M dwarf.
With the CMB results totally backing up the original SN1a results, the evidence for the standard cosmological model is fairly strong now.
With the universal expansion above, objects 13 billion light years away are receding at the speed of light.
Is the fact that this 13 billion is close to the age of the universe purely a coincidence?
As far as I can see (leaving aside possible changes to the expansion rate) objects 13 billion light years away always have and always will be receding at the speed of light. I.e. it's got nothing to do with the age of universe. Or, has it?
If Professor Cox repeated that calculation 7 billion years from now (assuming HC stays constant), he would get he same answer. But, that would no longer be the age of the universe.
MASSIVE cake for all those candles
if you took these out of the mix, how would that effect age of universe estimates and errors?
That shows that points in space are not receding from each other at a constant speed, but accelerating away from each other as they get further away.
And this seems to blow the simple inverse calculation for the age of the universe out the water.
Nobody does a simple inverse calculation for the age, except as a very rough illustration. The usual estimates include the acceleration/deceleration of the universe.
On this site, the author quite clearly states that t = d/v (which is only true for a constant velocity v). The calculation on this page is, on the face of it, nonsensical and it's pure coincidence that it approximates the age of the universe.
Age of the universe from recent WMAP CMB observations ( arXiv:1212.5225 ):
Including SNe 1a data: 13.77 +/- 0.06 Gyr.
Not including SNe data: 13.74 +/- 0.11 Gyr
No it isn't, it is perfectly sensible when teaching a subject to start with simplistic accounts of simple concepts, and then explain why they are too simple and introduce more sophisticated treatments.
No it isn't a "pure coincidence", it says that the current value of H0 is comparable to the expansion rate that has obtained for much of the history of the universe. That is both true and tells us something about our universe.
1 Parsec = 3.26 light years
1m = 3.28 feet
Coincidence, or what?
> Age of the universe from recent WMAP CMB observations ( arXiv:1212.5225 ):
> Including SNe 1a data: 13.77 +/- 0.06 Gyr.
> Not including SNe data: 13.74 +/- 0.11 Gyr
assuming the models are correct?
Much of the data tests whether the models are correct, that's the point of getting the data. It's never a case of simply accepting models, it's always a case of evaluating how far the models can be trusted.
Elsewhere on the site
Perhaps the perfect Xmas gift for the climber in your life... Wild Country's Crack School has two of the worlds best crack... Read more
At a bar in Llanberis an old man chimed in And I thought he was out of his head Being a young man I just laughed it off When... Read more
Rock shoes stink – let’s face it. Boot Bananas are the perfect way to fight the funk and keep them fresh. They help... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more
Tonight's Friday Night Video features the Norwegian town of Rjukan, once believed to be the home of the world's tallest... Read more