Author
|
Topic: Universe is 12 billion years old
|
GaryD |
posted 05-26-99 09:59 AM ET
Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday to you. Happy birthday dear universe. Happy birthday to you.Hooray !!!! Universe is 12 billion years old http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_352000/352563.stm
|
Khan Singh
|
posted 05-26-99 10:01 AM ET
It's a grand old universe. It is, in fact, the best and wisest universe that I have ever known. |
Tolls
|
posted 05-26-99 11:38 AM ET
And it doesn't look a day over 10 billion as well... |
jsorense
|
posted 05-26-99 11:52 AM ET
Ahh, one day older and one day closer to the Big Crunch. |
4Horses
|
posted 05-26-99 12:28 PM ET
How old does that make God? |
Picker
|
posted 05-26-99 12:42 PM ET
Pretty damn old. |
The One And Only DarkStar
|
posted 05-26-99 12:43 PM ET
Hmmm...how can we explain the existence of heavenly bodies being older than 12 billion years then?Like stars of 15 billion years of age... |
GaryD
|
posted 05-26-99 01:52 PM ET
Apart from The One And Only Darkstar, the rest lied about their age so they could buy a few beers. |
Thue
|
posted 05-26-99 03:45 PM ET
Isn't it time for the 12 billion hurrays now? Don't forget the long one. |
OhWell
|
posted 05-26-99 04:01 PM ET
Oh no! My system just crashed 'cause of the Y12Billion bug! Shouldn't have looked at this thread! |
DHE_X2
|
posted 05-26-99 09:17 PM ET
Does this mean we have to give all of existence a birthday cake? And what prsent do you buy for that which not only has everything, but is? Haha! I have succeeded in confusing myself! |
Thue
|
posted 05-26-99 09:22 PM ET
(...) hurray (1042) hurray (1043) hurray (1044) hurray (1045) hurray (1046) hurray (1047)... oh never mind. |
MikeH II
|
posted 05-27-99 05:12 AM ET
I am not giving the Universe 12 billion bumps! |
RM
|
posted 05-27-99 05:30 AM ET
We do not know exactly how old the universe is, only that it is somewhere between 12 and 18 billion years old. And it can have different age at different places, because when something travel with relativistic speed, time goes faster. |
Spoe
|
posted 05-27-99 12:13 PM ET
"...time goes faster."ITYM slower, unless you are using some wierd revisionist relativity theory. |
The One And Only DarkStar
|
posted 05-27-99 12:27 PM ET
Let's consider a place where time is MORE distorted than for us and another place where it is less.For us, at places time might go faster than time on Earth. And in other places, it will go slower. Since it as to do with gravity, we can pretty much guess that the Universe would be younger near black holes and older in the intergalactic void, far from any important gravity source. And 12 billion EARTH years... Is there a real time division for the entire universe? If the universe spins, maybe an entire revolution? |
Rong
|
posted 05-27-99 06:16 PM ET
Nah, I'd say the half-life of proton decay. |
Spoe
|
posted 05-27-99 06:20 PM ET
How about something less than the age of the universe, Rong? Half-life of a free neutron? |
MichaeltheGreat
|
posted 06-01-99 11:25 PM ET
RM - Relativistic speeds don't matter in this case, since you are considering a reference frame which encompasses the entire universe, and resolving the age in terms of that specific reference frame - due to gravitational time dilation, relativistic objects will be younger in their own reference frames, but not in a larger reference frame which encompasses other objects or the entire universe.One and only DS: The age of stars issue will likely be resolved more accurately, due to detailed HST surveys of Cepheid variables, and we will likely find the ages of the universe and the oldest structures in it to come into closer agreement. This is interesting in itself, since the early appearance of structure in the universe gives a lot of indication as to mass and the ultimate fate of the universe. Spoe, RM et al: Time dilation is one directional, i.e. time can go slower as an object becomes relativistic, but never faster than when the object is in a rest state. If you work the equations on the other side of c, i.e. faster than light, the same phonomena applies, in the opposite direction, and as the speed approaches infinity, time returns to its non-relativistic, or normal, rate. At precisely c (light speed in a vacuum) time dilation is infinite, i.e. time stops, but quantum theory does not allow an object to be precisely at c - it jumps around a bit, due to the uncertainty relation, so there is always some passage of time, in any reference frame. Relativity is governed by the requirements of Quantum theory and other physical laws, we just can't work the make to quantize relativity. Quantum gravity blows up every time. Solve the problem, and you will be the greatest name in the history of science. Half life of a free neutron is pretty damned short, so that doesn't work. Earth years sounds weird, but it is acceptable for the age of the universe, because it is just the name we put on a lump of time that is x amount long in a non-relativistic time frame. In other words, it doesn't matter where you measure, once you make the adjustment of the reference frames, an "earth year" is the same thing in any part of the universe, or in the whole universe. Also keep in mind that the most objects in the universe are not moving at relativistic speeds, space itself is expanding that way. The entire point to General Relativity is that you can reconcile all objects internal sense of space and time in an absolute four dimensional array of space-time, as developed and proven by Hermann Minkowski in 1908. IIRC the year. Whether the universe as a whole spins is a very interesting question, for a whole plethora of reasons, since angular momentum (in this case, we're really talking about rotation, or angular momentum - you don't want to use the term spin, because of the confusion with the spin property in particle physics) is conserved if (as we have every reason to believe) energy is conserved. Since the universe was born from a singularity, any spin in the universe was there in the singularity, so that would be a demonstration that at least some quantum numbers are conserved in a singularity - that would be a confirmation of our understanding of many issues in physics which would be worthy of a Nobel if it was ever observed. |
MichaeltheGreat
|
posted 06-01-99 11:28 PM ET
TYPO - "work the make" in the above post should be "work the math" I can do physics, I can't type. |