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

[cloudsweeper]

16 minutes ago, DRT said:

I'm not sure whether or not Schrodinger covered this but I am starting to think we might or might not have drifted away from the original topic. It is very difficult to tell.

Yes, we have drifted. I thought the TDP would have been on to us by now. Heaven knows, I've been slapped a few times!  (Thread Direction Police.)

Doug.

[DRT]

1 minute ago, cloudsweeper said:

Yes, we have drifted. I thought the TDP would have been on to us by now. Heaven knows, I've been slapped a few times!  (Thread Direction Police.)

Doug.

I think we lost them when we jumped over that virtual hedge into the parallel topic. I'm sure they will catch us soon.

Can someone please say something relevant soon and we might just get away with it

 

[cloudsweeper]

OK.  The Universe IS 13.8 bn yrs old!

Doug.

[Nigel G]

7 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

OK.  The Universe IS 13.8 bn yrs old!

Doug.

How can you be so sure ?

I'm not convinced ☺

[Nigel G]

33 minutes ago, Nigel G said:

A couple of doubles has got my mine ticking.

Andromida is 2.5 million light years from our Galaxy and hurting towards us at approximately 402,000 kilometres an hour.  As the universe is expanding faster than I can think and our Galaxy started in the same place as Andromida how has gravity taken over from the immense expansion of our Universe, this seems impossible as each galaxy is also expanding reducing the gravitational pull? 

Second thought.  In the vastness of nothingness outside our expanding universe there has to be other expanding universes I think. What would (will) happen when universes collide, it would (will) be a spectacular sight, it may already have happened,  we may see it tomorrow!!!!

This my previous post was on the general topic, that should keep the TDP happy ☺

[Alien 13]

If my analogy was correct then the universe and I mean all of it not just the observable is 13.8 billion years old but it is getting older.

Alan

[SilverAstro]

37 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

 TDP would have been on to us by now

Is he any relation to DRT ?

 

31 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

OK.  The Universe IS 13.8 bn yrs old!

 

22 minutes ago, Nigel G said:

How can you be so sure ?

I'm not convinced ☺

 

Oh look, this whole thread has been going on for so long that we have all aged 0.1bny  Nige started by doubting it was 13.7bn now Cloudsweeper and he are entangled  convinced/not convinced  13.8    arrrgggh

Akshirly Nige said "What would (will) happen when universes collide, it would (will) be a spectacular sight, it may already have happened,  "   well some bright sparks in the cosmology industry rekn that a great big bruise on the CMBr shows an imprint that it already has ( no I am not jesting, except maybe with the terminology ) also they postulate a "Great attractor" dipole anomaly that suggests similar.

[Stub Mandrel]

Thinking about this dog and cat thing, I have solved the Schrodinger's Cat problem.

Use a glass box

Now how do I claim my Nobel Prize?

[Stub Mandrel]

42 minutes ago, cloudsweeper said:

OK.  The Universe IS 13.8 bn yrs old!

Doug.

Not according to Brian Cox. His book says it's 13.7 billion years old. Of course the book is clearly out of date, but by 100 million years?

[SilverAstro]

1) Nah B. Cox got it from our Nige who started this off at 13.7

or 2) Different frame of reference, B.Cox does it faster.

[SilverAstro]

A controversial claim by Laura Mersini-Houghton is that it could be the imprint of another universe beyond our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.

[Alien 13]

The 13.7 billion year old universe is a human term its already done its thing we are just witnessing a small event in time.

Alan

[cloudsweeper]

26 minutes ago, SilverAstro said:

Is he any relation to DRT ?

 

Direction Rectification Tyrants?? 

(I'll get my steel helmet.  And apologies to Derek.)

Doug.

[ollypenrice]

20 minutes ago, Stub Mandrel said:

Not according to Brian Cox. His book says it's 13.7 billion years old. Of course the book is clearly out of date, but by 100 million years?

How do we know? When did you buy it?

Olly

[cloudsweeper]

Alright, alright - the Universe IS 13.7 bn yrs old.  

Brian also says that a charged battery has more mass than a flat one.  

Doug.

[DRT]

If we round up the nearest whole number we are all agreed that it is 14bn years old - and so is the cat.

[andrew s]

1 hour ago, cloudsweeper said:

Alright, alright - the Universe IS 13.7 bn yrs old.  

WMAP data put it at 13.73 +/- 0.12 which was revised by data from the PLANK mission put it at 13.82 +/- ?? bn yrs. So Cox is out of date.

Regards 

[cosmojaydee]

On 31/08/2016 at 20:37, Alien 13 said:

Talking of the original topic about the observable universe are there any indications/theory's about the size of the whole universe.

its B I G 

 

[Stub Mandrel]

2 hours ago, ollypenrice said:

How do we know? When did you buy it?

Olly

I didn't, it's my wife's. :-)

[SilverAstro]

1 hour ago, andrew s said:

WMAP data put it at 13.73 +/- 0.12 which was revised by data from the PLANK mission put it at 13.82 +/- ?? bn yrs. So Cox is out of date.

Errr, not exactly out of date  -yet- shirly, just guilty of not including the error margin, but you cant put everything in a popular book

He meant to say "between approx 13.61 and 13.85 bny old", so until we know the PLANK error bar he could still be right  ???

Not that anyone on this forum would want to pick nits, would they ,,

[Herzy]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to  express what I've gathered from many documentaries and many books of reading.

The universe may be infinite. People then ask - if the universe is infinite how could it have begun from a single point and expanded?

Here's my take on it:

To explain how the universe could be infinite yet still be compressed to a single point, I will first think of of the numerical infinity. If I was to plot out every single number between 0-1, it would be infinite because you could always add another number (i.e. 0.0001, 0.00011,0.000111). So the numbers between 0-1 are infinite. What about the numbers between 0-100? Wouldn't that be a bigger infinity then the infinity of 0-1?

So as you can see, some infinities can be bigger then others. That same principle applies to spatial infinities (the universe).

Since infinities can be different sizes, the universe is able to have been compressed to a singularity while still being infinite.

I hope that helped, and again, please correct me if I got anything wrong.

Hayden 

[Stub Mandrel]

32 minutes ago, Herzy said:

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'll try to  express what I've gathered from many documentaries and many books of reading.

The universe may be infinite. People then ask - if the universe is infinite how could it have begun from a single point and expanded?

Here's my take on it:

To explain how the universe could be infinite yet still be compressed to a single point, I will first think of of the numerical infinity. If I was to plot out every single number between 0-1, it would be infinite because you could always add another number (i.e. 0.0001, 0.00011,0.000111). So the numbers between 0-1 are infinite. What about the numbers between 0-100? Wouldn't that be a bigger infinity then the infinity of 0-1?

So as you can see, some infinities can be bigger then others. That same principle applies to spatial infinities (the universe).

Since infinities can be different sizes, the universe is able to have been compressed to a singularity while still being infinite.

I hope that helped, and again, please correct me if I got anything wrong.

Hayden 

My take is that the universe wasn't necessarily infinitely small, just infinitely dense - no matter how small it was it filled all of space time and that could be infinite as well, so the big bang is just a process of thinning out as the infinite expanse of spacetime gets bigger(!?) As I understand it this depends on whether spacetime is curved or not (i.e. if you draw a straight line far enough in one direction do you get back to the start point?)

What I can't seem to find anywhere is how big the universe was at the end of inflation.

[DRT]

38 minutes ago, Herzy said:

To explain how the universe could be infinite yet still be compressed to a single point, I will first think of of the numerical infinity. If I was to plot out every single number between 0-1, it would be infinite because you could always add another number (i.e. 0.0001, 0.00011,0.000111). So the numbers between 0-1 are infinite. What about the numbers between 0-100? Wouldn't that be a bigger infinity then the infinity of 0-1?

A quick google reveals...

The example infinities you describe are bounded by 0 and 1 or 0 and 10. Whilst they may have an infinite number of divisions within them they are not in themselves infinite as they have definable boundaries.

 

[Herzy]

27 minutes ago, DRT said:

A quick google reveals...

The example infinities you describe are bounded by 0 and 1 or 0 and 10. Whilst they may have an infinite number of divisions within them they are not in themselves infinite as they have definable boundaries.

 

They are infinite. 

Infinity is just something without an end. You can always divide more numbers, so it would be infinite. You simply pointed out exactly what I was trying to get across. Infinity can have boundaries because some infinities can be bigger then others, right? 

[cloudsweeper]

As I see it, infinities are infinite - no boundaries.  But you are right in saying that some are bigger than others - in fact, there is an infinite number of infinities!

Doug.