The age of the universe

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,285
thank you , I feel better that Im not the only one that struggles with this ,
Oh, the subject is a rather complex one. And all we truly have is the consensus of respected world experts around a data set that is still in its infancy. That is why I think this science is highly speculative in general ... it's one of the reasons why I find it so fascinating.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,717
Ok, trouble getting head around this
if the universe is now older than we thought, and as far as I have read, we can see back to "within a few million years " / almost the big bang time,
is the universe now bigger than we thought ?
the I read here, that astrominers can see back 46.5 billion light years,
so they can see past the beginning of the universe if its "only" 27 billion light years wide !
confused,
Hi,

Yes, this is a mystery and hard to understand because everything in human experience has involved time and space that already exists, or rather, is ALREADY there. We have no direct experience with something that isn't actually there yet. In these cases, all we can do is accept it as different than what we normally experience and accept that our understanding could change at any future time.

What we need then is some sort of analogy.
Imagine that you are in a bubble that is inside a huge tank of acid. The bubble is filled with oxygen so you can breathe so no problems surviving, and the bubble is expanding so you are getting more and more living space. If you venture outside of the bubble though you get instantly annihilated.
What this means is that you are stuck in the bubble forever because you can't go out or else you die instantly. This also means that if you want more living space you are FORCED to wait for the bubble to expand on its own.
Now imagine that the acid is really nothingness ... no time (no evolution of processes) and there is no space outside the bubble for you to go into anyway. You cannot exist outside the bubble because there is absolutely nothing there YET. Now if there was space but no time you might get out there but then freeze into a constantly still mass, which is almost like being dead, and if there was time but no space there would be absolutely nothing to go into in the first place. Since there is no space and no time there's no way to get outside the bubble.
So, it's kind of like the acid in a way, but with space time there just isn't anything there yet to go into.

So, what is space time expanding into. It's not expanding into anything because there's nothing there yet. It's being created for the first time from our point of view. So, we are inside a bubble with nothing outside the bubble yet, and as the bubble expands, we get more and more space, and more and more time.
It's a creation story from the perspective of 'science'.

On the issue of the age of the universe though, we can't even see the farthest regions, but that's not actually accurate because we don't even know what the farthest regions are. It's the same story again, we are in another bubble the 'observable' universe where we can't see outside of it even though it is believed that there is more universe beyond that, so we are in a bubble inside another bubble.
There could even be a bigger bubble called the multiverse. Not sure if this has been proven though.

All this begs the question, what exactly is happening at the edge of our total universe bubble. It must be pretty amazing and we can probably only guess. Is there a place where time and space are only partially formed yet, where time is very slow or very fast and space has very different, more delicate properties such as having different magnetic and electrostatic constants, and the speed of light is different.
I don't know if we will ever be able to answer these kinds of questions because we are so limited in what we can and cannot do right now.
 
Last edited:

LowQCab

Joined Nov 6, 2012
4,296
An excellent analogy,
my version of all this supposed "Scientific-Supposition",
( doesn't that automatically make it an oxymoron ??? ),
is vaguely similar, but looks at the situation from the point of view
of being trapped inside of a Video-Game, sort of like "The-Matrix" movie(s).

There are also other "Movies" running simultaneously that we are simply not aware of,
that is,
the people not willing to consider the possibilities of other realities may never be aware of.
.
.
.
 

drjohsmith

Joined Dec 13, 2021
852
Ok
been reading up on the hubble constant
which seems to be related to the mass of the universe and space time
and had been used to estimate the universes age,
so if the univers is now older, does that mean hubble constant is now re evlauated ?
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,285
Ok
been reading up on the hubble constant
which seems to be related to the mass of the universe and space time
and had been used to estimate the universes age,
so if the univers is now older, does that mean hubble constant is now re evlauated ?
The Hubble constant is just one of other metrics that try to put a number on the expansion of the Universe. The many methods used to estimate the Universe's rate of expansion have strong inconsistencies between them.



 

drjohsmith

Joined Dec 13, 2021
852

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,285
Thanks
I'm getting a much better understanding of the complexities of this
I did not realise how "un fixed" this all was.
Thank you
There are a couple of points that every respectable scientist agree upon, though:
1.- The universe is expanding​
2.- The universe had a "starting point" in Time, commonly called The Big Bang.​
 

drjohsmith

Joined Dec 13, 2021
852
There are a couple of points that every respectable scientist agree upon, though:
1.- The universe is expanding​
2.- The universe had a "starting point" in Time, commonly called The Big Bang.​
random thought
and I have not thought more than a thought
if space time is being created
and we define movement by the Doppler shift,
which is frequency , which is related to time
wonder if the universe is actually static, but appears to be moving as time is being created ?
Thats it, my brain is now over loaded ..
 

LowQCab

Joined Nov 6, 2012
4,296
Unfortunately, both of those points are suppositions,
based upon other suppositions,
based upon further "apparent" suppositions,
which are all based upon our very limited-Senses.

The final "bottom-line" suppositions,
may, or may not, have some future usefulness.

It may be possible for another person to replicate the apparency of the expansion of the Universe,
therefore it may be called a "Scientific-Observation",
but, the "Big-Bang" theory is just that,
nothing but a "theory" or a "conclusion",
which is not based on "Scientific-Methodology".

Just because a "Scientist" agrees with a "Theory", doesn't make it a fact.
The theory still remains only one "possibility".

Possibilities "can" be useful,
but just because a "Scientist" says it's "the most likely" scenario,
doesn't make it a demonstrable fact.
The whole situation is muddied by the fact that
most of the Scientists who espouse these suppositions as fact,
refuse to even entertain any other possible scenario,
even when other scenarios can be demonstrated to be
quite useful in helping to gain a better understanding of our environment.
.
.
.
 

shortbus

Joined Sep 30, 2009
10,049
Just because a "Scientist" agrees with a "Theory", doesn't make it a fact.
The theory still remains only one "possibility".
Just like the speed of light. It and many other things are measured in out planetary system, but there is no real reason to say that it's the same every where in the universe.

They say our sun is new version of old ones that exploded and reformed many times. If that is true, that means it may have happened with other stars in other galaxies. Each of those would be able to expand the universe.
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,717
There are a couple of points that every respectable scientist agree upon, though:
1.- The universe is expanding​
2.- The universe had a "starting point" in Time, commonly called The Big Bang.​
Hi,

But isn't all of that being brought into question now?
 

MrAl

Joined Jun 17, 2014
11,717
random thought
and I have not thought more than a thought
if space time is being created
and we define movement by the Doppler shift,
which is frequency , which is related to time
wonder if the universe is actually static, but appears to be moving as time is being created ?
Thats it, my brain is now over loaded ..
Hi,

Yes that and LowQCab post right after yours makes you think.
If time and space or 'spacetime' was not here yet how can we use notions of spacetime to calculate back to something before there was any spacetime. Maybe that is why the theories keep changing.

I always like to say, and not sure if this is a completely accurate analogy, but if we cannot determine what the weather was 200 years ago for certain (based on pure calculation) then we can't accurately calculate what it was 14 or more BILLION years ago. This is almost laughable.
With that I also like to say that if we can't determine what the weather will be a week from now then we can't determine exactly what the weather will be like 100 years from now. That's for people who like to calculate climate change (chuckle).

Maybe it is a matter of scientists wanting to have some form of reference to allow their reasoning to evolve into a better and better approximation, if that is possible though when it comes to time periods that long ago, like billions of years.
Everything we read has to be proceeded by, "Based on current scientific knowledge...".
 

nsaspook

Joined Aug 27, 2009
13,554
Just like the speed of light. It and many other things are measured in out planetary system, but there is no real reason to say that it's the same every where in the universe.
We've looked hard for cracks in SR but so far, nothing.

We've compared distant (in time and space) em speed of light signals to gravitational waves using LIGO.
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024028#:~:text=The speed of gravitational waves for a single observation can,produce a more accurate result.

The speed of gravitational waves for a single observation can be measured by the time delay among gravitational-wave detectors with Bayesian inference. Then multiple measurements can be combined to produce a more accurate result. From the near simultaneous detection of gravitational waves and gamma rays originating from GW170817/GRB 170817A, the speed of gravitational wave signal was found to be the same as the speed of the gamma rays to approximately one part in 10^15.

https://www.space.com/15830-light-speed.html#:~:text=Light is a "universal speed,(186,000 miles per second).

What is the speed of light?
By Vicky Stein
last updated May 17, 2023
The speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Or is it?
 
Last edited:

LowQCab

Joined Nov 6, 2012
4,296
Scientists generally do their significant research ON THEIR OWN TIME !!!,
the majority of their time is spent on finding solutions to
something that some massive multinational conglomerate wants a monopoly on.

Scientists have to make a Pay-Check.
Who is providing that Research-Grant that supports that Pay-Check ???
Do You really believe that it comes from some gregarious philanthropist with
Billions of Dollars to burn that needs to find a Tax-Shelter ???
That only happens in the movies,
the real-world-politics involved in materializing that Grant are complex beyond your imagination.

Sometimes Scientists are paid to "discover" a completely fictitious "Red-Herring",
to distract from information that could be costly to "The Status Quo",
and some subjects are known to cause the instant death of your career if you reference them.

The term "Conspiracy-Theorist" was coined by the "Clowns-In-America" to specifically
discredit any messenger of information that the "Clowns-In-America" don't want disseminated.

The current difference between Conspiracy-Theory, and Conspiracy-Fact,
is now around ~3-months, sometimes less, and the time keeps getting shorter every day.

Soon, Scientists will be protected against such EVIL shenanigans,
but there are other more important issues to be "demonstrated" to the world.
Most people only wake-up after they have been "shown" what has been going on in this world.

Probably ~90% of the serious problems have already been handled completely,
what is going on now is a fake "Movie" of what "would-have" happened without HEAVY intervention.
"Heavy-Intervention" refers to "Military-Intelligence-Intervention",
all very much "by-the-Book", and completely within the Constitution.

The "after-the-fact" "Movie" is designed to
gently "wake-up" the sleeping masses to what has already previously taken place,
without causing complete Worldwide screaming-mayhem in the streets.
There are no known specific dates as to when particular information-bombs will be dropped.
All dates/times are strictly speculative.

For a very small taste of what has been going on,
go watch the new Movie "The Sound of Freedom" ( based on a true story ).
Here is a random over-view of the Movie ............
.
.
.
 

LowQCab

Joined Nov 6, 2012
4,296
We are leaving the "Age-of-Pisces", and entering the "Age-of-Aquarius".
Now I've never been much interested in Astrology,
but I don't poo-poo-it either.

The Universe operates in observable "Cycles" that may be thousands of "years" long.
These "Cycles" affect everything, and they are very well documented and codified.

It would seem to me that any discussion concerning "The-Age-of-the-Universe"
would have to include many references to Astrology.
The fact that it usually doesn't,
( at least in supposed "Scientific" circles ),
speaks volumes about "who's calling the shots".

Who, or What, says "don't look over there" that's all just superstition ??????

"The Age of the Universe" is explained in great detail in Astrology,
but it's a daunting task to take on such a huge and complex subject.

For an interesting thought exercise .......
Does the Universe operate on "AC" ?, or strictly "DC"only ?, or could it be a combination of the two ?
.
.
.
 

Thread Starter

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
8,285
We are leaving the "Age-of-Pisces", and entering the "Age-of-Aquarius".
Now I've never been much interested in Astrology,
but I don't poo-poo-it either.

The Universe operates in observable "Cycles" that may be thousands of "years" long.
These "Cycles" affect everything, and they are very well documented and codified.

It would seem to me that any discussion concerning "The-Age-of-the-Universe"
would have to include many references to Astrology.
The fact that it usually doesn't,
( at least in supposed "Scientific" circles ),
speaks volumes about "who's calling the shots".

Who, or What, says "don't look over there" that's all just superstition ??????

"The Age of the Universe" is explained in great detail in Astrology,
but it's a daunting task to take on such a huge and complex subject.

For an interesting thought exercise .......
Does the Universe operate on "AC" ?, or strictly "DC"only ?, or could it be a combination of the two ?
.
.
.
*facepalm*
 
Top