Jump to content

SkySurveyBanner.jpg.21855908fce40597655603b6c9af720d.jpg

Is our Universe 13.7 billion years old ? I'm not quite convinced

Nigel G

Recommended Posts

Herzy

Herzy

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Pippy said:

Why do photons behave as they do ?

Why do planets orbit as they do ?

.....

 

Again, why presumes purpose. 

How do photons behave as they do?

How do planets orbit as they do?

Say, for example, someone asked me "why does the universe exist?". The word "why" doesn't belong there because it is assuming that the universe exists for a purpose. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 355
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Herzy

Herzy

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Pippy said:

Why is there no purpose to the universe existing ?

Why does there need to be? There is, at the moment, no evidence that there is a purpose for the universe. Science relies on evidence, so scientists ask "how, what, when, etc", but not "why".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Herzy

Herzy

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Pippy said:

why isn't science asking why ?

Why is surely as much a fundamental question as any other, even if we don't want to ask it ?

Nobody said it wasn't. You said earlier that it is the most important question. Remember, you said that in a forum that is discussing science-related topics. You're also in a sub forum that is based on physics and science.

Science relies on evidence and on observation. Evidence can answer the question how. For example, "how old is the universe" can be answered with evidence from measuring the acceleration rate of the universe from redshift. 

However, the question "why is the universe as old as it is?" cannot be answered with evidence or observation. 

That is why science uses how rather than why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pippy

Pippy

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Herzy said:

Nobody said it wasn't. You said earlier that it is the most important question. Remember, you said that in a forum that is discussing science-related topics. You're also in a sub forum that is based on physics and science.

Science relies on evidence and on observation. Evidence can answer the question how. For example, "how old is the universe" can be answered with evidence from measuring the acceleration rate of the universe from redshift. 

However, the question "why is the universe as old as it is?" cannot be answered with evidence or observation. 

That is why science uses how rather than why.

I dare not answer the above for fear of veering too far off track Herzy lol

But I do understand what it is you're saying, so don't worry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew s

andrew s

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pippy said:

Why do photons behave as they do ?

Why do planets orbit as they do ?

The reality is science does not address these questions. It builds models that allow us to say "if you do this then photons or planets will do such and such" and even then for photons it will only be a statistical answer. If you want to know why or how then insights from other disciplines will be needed. Personally I am content with the models science provides and seek no further.

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRT

DRT

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pippy said:

Why do photons behave as they do ?

Why do planets orbit as they do ?

.....

 

Perhaps it is a language thing, but I agree with @Herzy that the use of the word why in this context implies that there is some external meaning to the behaviour or existence of things. 

How did we get here? Is a very different question to why are we here?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Pippy

Pippy

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, DRT said:

Perhaps it is a language thing, but I agree with @Herzy that thus use of the word why in this context implies that there is some external meaning to the behaviour or existence of things. 

How did we get here? Is a very different question to why are we here?

Asking 'How' (or where) is not without it's scientific problems though, not if cause and effect has any say in the matter.

possibly ..

1) once there was something which led to such and such which led to the universe coming into existence 13.7 billion years ago .. wheres the 'something' come from in the first place ?

or ..

2) once there was nothing, which led to such and such which led to such and such which led to the universe coming into existence 13.7 billion years ago ... how do we get something from nothing ?

I'm not saying there's a why, just highlighting possible problems with the other wubbulu's and hache'es.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRT

DRT

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, Pippy said:

Asking 'How' (or where) is not without it's scientific problems though, not if cause and effect has any say in the matter.

possibly ..

1) once there was something which led to such and such which led to the universe coming into existence 13.7 billion years ago .. wheres the 'something' come from in the first place ?

or ..

2) once there was nothing, which led to such and such which led to such and such which led to the universe coming into existence 13.7 billion years ago ... how do we get something from nothing ?

I'm not saying there's a why, just highlighting possible problems with the other wubbulu's and hache'es.

Yes, I get all of that - I am simply pointing out that "Why?" can lead down paths that are (quite rightly) not permitted to be discussed on this forum.

If we are talking about causality in a scientific sense then "why did this lead to this?" is a perfectly valid question.

I am quite sure you know what I am talking about :wink:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...
Nigel G

Nigel G

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Sorry to bring this post back but I found this little piece on globular clusters....It suggests the universe is older than 13.7 billion years 

Globular Clusters are symmetrical systems of up to a million stars formed about 13 to 15 billion years ago, and as such they are the oldest surviving stellar subsystems in galaxies. As of 1993, there were about 125 of these known in our own galaxy, most of them in a spherical halo surrounding the wheel-like shape formed by the spriral arms.

http://www.astro.keele.ac.uk/workx/globulars/globulars.html

If globular clusters were formed 13 to 15 billion years ago and everything is moving away from everything, they shouldn't be there and we shouldn't be able to see them :icon_biggrin:

my apologies again.

:happy6: 

Nige 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andrew s

andrew s

Posted
Posted
31 minutes ago, Nigel G said:

If globular clusters were formed 13 to 15 billion years ago and everything is moving away from everything, they shouldn't be there and we shouldn't be able to see them

Gravitationally bound systems don't expand with the expansion of the universe as at the distances involved the "gravitational force" far exceeds the repulsive force of "dark energy".

Regards Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DRT

DRT

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Nigel G said:

Sorry to bring this post back but I found this little piece on globular clusters....It suggests the universe is older than 13.7 billion years 

Globular Clusters are symmetrical systems of up to a million stars formed about 13 to 15 billion years ago

Do you read "13 to 15 billion years" as being a range within which the age of globular clusters falls (i.e. 13.7 billion years now being a more precise estimate) or are you reading it as a period of 2 billion years during which globular clusters formed individually (i.e. some are 13 billion years old and some are 15 billion years old with many falling between those extremes)?

Either way, thanks for the link - I find these objects fascinating.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
Posted

I'd lost track of this thread and only just browsed the debate about the word 'why.' The word can have two meanings.

1) By what means did x lead to y? (Why is there a blister on my hand? Because you spilled the kettle on it.) It might be better, as the posters above did, to replace this kind of 'why' with 'how' but the English language clearly allows both.

2) For what purpose did x lead to y? (This question is valid only where there is a purposeful agent behind the action. There may or may not be.)

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.