The Age of the Universe

[newolder]

Are you saying that the age of the universe, as valued by ourselves, is pretty close to being absolutely correct?

No. Science does not deal in absolutes. The figures include error bars to cover the uncertainty in the experimental method. Of course, General Relativity theory may not be correct but it is supported (remains unfalsified) by all observations hitherto.

Oh, come on. We should be able to tell the age of the Universe right down to the nanosecond. We just have to consult some holy book or other.

:thumbup:
Changing universe to Universe is asking for speculation beyond current experiment (although the LHC is already into new territory as I write). The Universe may well be infinitely old, who knows?

How a holy book is supposed to help, I have absolutely no idea.

[jamest]

Are you saying that the age of the universe, as valued by ourselves, is pretty close to being absolutely correct?

Want to tell us what you're actually fishing for here. It would save time.

I just don't see how a relative value of universal age can have any significant meaning to the universe itself. It doesn't add up. And yet we use the values that we are privy to, to construct theories about the universe as a whole - big bang theory, predominantly, is the one I'm thinking of.

[colubridae]

If we take on board what Einstein tells us ...

When we understand General Relativity theory, we calculate the first row (Age of universe) - and all the other rows in the linked table - from real world observations of electromagnetic radiation: http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map ... ummary.cfm

Note: This places a lower bound on the Age of the Universe.

Are you saying that the age of the universe, as valued by ourselves, is pretty close to being absolutely correct?

Want to tell us what you're actually fishing for here. It would save time.

Yeah cut to the chase, jim...

(we've only got enough di-lithium for another 14.5 billion years)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Are you saying that the age of the universe, as valued by ourselves, is pretty close to being absolutely correct?

Want to tell us what you're actually fishing for here. It would save time.

I just don't see how a relative value of universal age can have any significant meaning to the universe itself. It doesn't add up. And yet we use the values that we are privy to, to construct theories about the universe as a whole - big bang theory, predominantly, is the one I'm thinking of.

You think that's a deal breaker for the BBT?

[Coito ergo sum]

Maybe one way to address the OP's question is to ask it as follows:

Imagine two scientists, Ein and Stein, who devise a new method to determine the age of the universe. They synchronize their devices to the determined age of the universe and continue ticking off time from that point on. Let's say, their devices measure the universe at 14,543,371,291 years, four months, five days, six hour, seven minutes and eight seconds old.

Ein then builds a near light speed space ship and he heads off, with his device, to travel the cosmos at high speed and eventually returning to Earth. Of course, the time elapsed for Ein will be less than the time elapsed for the earthbound Stein, so when they compare devices they show different ages of the universe.

How old is the universe?

[jamest]

Are you saying that the age of the universe, as valued by ourselves, is pretty close to being absolutely correct?

Want to tell us what you're actually fishing for here. It would save time.

I just don't see how a relative value of universal age can have any significant meaning to the universe itself. It doesn't add up. And yet we use the values that we are privy to, to construct theories about the universe as a whole - big bang theory, predominantly, is the one I'm thinking of.

You think that's a deal breaker for the BBT?

Well, if BBT equates to a universe that has been expanding for 13.5 billion years, but that value is only relative, then how can we be sure that BBT has any absolute merit?

It seems to me that the value of time only has localised meaning. Yet BBT seeks to employ it on a universal scale.

[colubridae]

I just don't see how a relative value of universal age can have any significant meaning to the universe itself. It doesn't add up. And yet we use the values that we are privy to, to construct theories about the universe as a whole - big bang theory, predominantly, is the one I'm thinking of.

Nice one jamest

The BBT is not derived from the age of the universe.

Do you actually say these things to be provocative, or do you really not understand the evidence underpinning the BBT?

(hooray triple figures on possst)

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Yet BBT seeks to employ it on a universal scale.

What makes you think that? The events aren't dependent on our perception of them.

[FBM]

I think you'd have to rule out variable (uneven) gravity before you could claim that 13.7 billion years is accurate to an arbitrary degree of certainty. We've only just begun to measure gravity variances in space, so it may be a while before there is sufficient data to justify coming down on one side of the fence or the other for a while yet.

[beige]

Well, if BBT equates to a universe that has been expanding for 13.5 billion years, but that value is only relative, then how can we be sure that BBT has any absolute merit?

It seems to me that the value of time only has localised meaning. Yet BBT seeks to employ it on a universal scale.

It's more that our unit of time really only means something to us. Time itself is pretty much universal and would continue to still be as "absolute" as it ever was regardless of what unit we measured it in. We've just chosen to express the age of the universe in terms of how many times we would have orbited our sun since it's beginning, this changes nothing about time itself. I assume that's what you were implying... if you weren't, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at.

I'll shy away from specifics because there are probably people here who can easily whip me on my physics knowledge.

[lpetrich]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solutions.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

[cowiz]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solutions.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

And of course Planck is constant.

[jamest]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solutions.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

So, are you saying that the age of the universe is absolute, regardless of the observer's perspective?

[jamest]

The expansion of the Universe has a built-in time reference, which can easily be recognized in the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmological solutions.

So the age of the Universe is measured with that time reference.

And of course Planck is constant.

Walking the planck must be a breeze, then. Poncy sailors!

[beige]

baha. I'm a fool.

Quickly removed that, because it was completely wrong No one can ever know.