The Universe Could be Younger by 2 BILLION Years???

[nPeace]

Yes, the expansion rate would be changed, clearly. The cooling time of the BB not so much, and by definition, the time of the BB. The formation of the solar system not so much.



There are several different methods for determining the age of the universe.

The most direct method is using the expansion rate and our models of gravity to 'work backwards'. This method is subject to a lot of measurement errors: first of all there are 'peculiar motions' of galaxies caused by their gravitational interaction in clusters. These peculiar motions are on the other of a couple hundred kilometers per second and are a significant effect for galaxies close to us.

The other problem with this direct method is that we have to get good estimates of the distances of galaxies. This has traditionally been done by looking for stars called Cephiad variables, which have the property that their brightness and the time for a cycle are correlated. Knowing their brightness and how bright they look in the sky will give their distance.

In any case, this direct method was the main one used until fairly recently (because it was the only one we had data for). When I was young, the range of possible ages consistent with this was 'between 10 and 20 billion years'. Toward the end of the last century, the age estimates had improved to 'between 11 and 15 billion years'.

The real breakthrough in precision cosmology came when we used satellites to measure the cosmic background radiation. The details in the fluctuation of that background give a lot of information about the early universe. it is because of the data from COBE and WMAP that we now have the 13.8 billion year estimate (actually, 13.77 with a possible error of .4%).

For lower estimates of the age of the universe, we look at very old stars (usually white dwarfs) and try to figure out their ages using models of how stars change over time. We know of stars over 10 billion years old. So that is the youngest the universe can be.

Of these, the data from the background radiation are the most likely to be accurate. There are just too many ways the other methods can go wrong.

In particular, the article in the OP used the traditional, expansion method. That method still has *huge* error bars compared to using the CBR. That is where the 2 billion year age difference came from. But, as has been pointed out, the results are still consistent with the CBR data (because of the size of the error bars on the expansion method).

I'll just watch the debate, as it progresses over the years to come... that is, as long as I live.
Perhaps some day it will be settled permanently... or perhaps not.
I can't figure out what's the big deal.
Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?

 

[We Never Know]

Actually, the first generation of stars formed in the first few hundred million years. There were already plenty of stars just 2 billion years after the expansion started. So how you got that 6-8 billion year estimate is curious.

Given how large and quickly those stars went through their cycle, the solar system could have started forming pretty much any time after the first 3-4 billion years, and maybe even earlier.

So, no, cutting off 2 billion years would not significantly affect the formation of the solar system. The basic materials were there long before our solar system formed.

I'm not much on astronomy which is why I said "say formed".

I also don't understand how you believe 2 billion years off the universe wouldn't impact much.

Stars, galaxies, ect that formed from 13.5 to 11.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 11.5 to 9.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 11.5 to 9.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 9.5 to 7.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 9.5 to 7.5 billion years ago would have formed until 7.5 to 5.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 7.5 to 5.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 5.5 to 3.5 billion years ago.

Etc etc etc.

 

[Polymath257]

I'll just watch the debate, as it progresses over the years to come... that is, as long as I live.
Perhaps some day it will be settled permanently... or perhaps not.
I can't figure out what's the big deal.
Money $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ ?

Curiosity. Pure and simple. The goal to understand. I can assure you the monetary awards are minimal for most researchers.

 

[Polymath257]

I'm not much on astronomy which is why I said "say formed".

I also don't understand how you believe 2 billion years off the universe wouldn't impact much.

Stars, galaxies, ect that formed from 13.5 to 11.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 11.5 to 9.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 11.5 to 9.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 9.5 to 7.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 9.5 to 7.5 billion years ago would have formed until 7.5 to 5.5 billion years ago.

Stars, galaxies, etc that formed from 7.5 to 5.5 billion years ago wouldn't have formed until 5.5 to 3.5 billion years ago.

Etc etc etc.

Think of it like this. Suppose you are going on a plane trip. You expect it to be at 7pm, but you get up and pack at 8am and are done by 11am. It takes you an hour to get to the airport. So, you are expecting to leave at 6pm.

Then you find that there is a flight at 5pm. The only real change is that you leave for the airport at 4pm instead of at 6pm. Everything that was required for going was already done by 11am, so there is nothing different except for the time when you leave.

Everything required for the formation of the solar system was done pretty early on (after the first generation of stars). After that, it was simply a matter of which gas cloud would lead to our particular system. So, that cloud formed around 5 billion years ago. By most estimates that was just over 8 billion years after the BB. If the other estimate is correct, it would have been 6 billion years after. Nothing else was *required* for the formation after about 3-4 billion years, so that is really not a big deal either way.

 

[nPeace]

Curiosity. Pure and simple. The goal to understand. I can assure you the monetary awards are minimal for most researchers.

Curiosity? Didn't that kill the cat?
I think curiosity in this case equals fame,because I think there are just some things impossible for man to know with any certainty. So the fact that he spends so much time and valuable resources that can be used for other important benefits on earth, suggests to me, he just wants to make a name, during his meager life on earth. My opinion.

 

[Polymath257]

Curiosity? Didn't that kill the cat?
I think curiosity in this case equals fame,because I think there are just some things impossible for man to know with any certainty. So the fact that he spends so much time and valuable resources that can be used for other important benefits on earth, suggests to me, he just wants to make a name, during his meager life on earth. My opinion.

Fame? Really? Most scientists get no 'fame' at all. They are attempting to piece together what we know and compare to what we conjecture and figure out what has been demonstrated and what has not.

The actual amount spent on scientific research pales in comparison to how much is donated to religions, or spent on sports, or spent on gasoline. Most research dollars go to purchasing the equipment that will give the data we need to use to figure out what is happening. The rest usually goes to pay some poor graduate student a slave wage or to pay the secretaries for their work in getting things to publication.

Why people think that scientists are getting rich off their research is baffling to me. And to think it is fame that is motivating them is just silly (for the most part. There are exceptions).

Yes, curiosity is usually the dominant factor. We want to know and understand how the universe works. And each new answer brings up at least 10 new questions.

For example, I am a mathematician. I have never had a government grant. I have never been paid anywhere close to what I would get in the business world. I certainly haven't had any fame. But the subject interests me and I like to think about it. I am always amazed that someone is willing to pay me enough to teach it that I can live reasonably comfortably. But I would think about math and explore new aspects of it whether or not I was paid for it.

I think most scientists are like that for their chosen field. They simply want to understand some new aspect of the universe. And I think they simply are interested and want to figure out the answers.

 

[nPeace]

Fame? Really? Most scientists get no 'fame' at all. They are attempting to piece together what we know and compare to what we conjecture and figure out what has been demonstrated and what has not.

The actual amount spent on scientific research pales in comparison to how much is donated to religions, or spent on sports, or spent on gasoline. Most research dollars go to purchasing the equipment that will give the data we need to use to figure out what is happening. The rest usually goes to pay some poor graduate student a slave wage or to pay the secretaries for their work in getting things to publication.

Why people think that scientists are getting rich off their research is baffling to me. And to think it is fame that is motivating them is just silly (for the most part. There are exceptions).

Yes, curiosity is usually the dominant factor. We want to know and understand how the universe works. And each new answer brings up at least 10 new questions.

For example, I am a mathematician. I have never had a government grant. I have never been paid anywhere close to what I would get in the business world. I certainly haven't had any fame. But the subject interests me and I like to think about it. I am always amazed that someone is willing to pay me enough to teach it that I can live reasonably comfortably. But I would think about math and explore new aspects of it whether or not I was paid for it.

I think most scientists are like that for their chosen field. They simply want to understand some new aspect of the universe. And I think they simply are interested and want to figure out the answers.

Why do runners run in a race - the Olympics, for example? How many can win, and place? Yet they run.
However, while the scientists are trying to figure out things I am trying to figure out things myself - like why spend so much $$$ on research that, as you said, has no "significant" impact on the the solar system, or earth, and... more importantly cannot be found out with any certainty.
Of course there is scientific research that has significance and can discover things, with much accuracy, and... more importantly, is beneficial to the general public. I can think of a lot. (e.g. the garbage problem is quite huge).

Billions of dollars are spent in science. The age of the universe affects nothing... unless of course it's significantly younger - like 10 billion years younger.

 

[We Never Know]

Think of it like this. Suppose you are going on a plane trip. You expect it to be at 7pm, but you get up and pack at 8am and are done by 11am. It takes you an hour to get to the airport. So, you are expecting to leave at 6pm.

Then you find that there is a flight at 5pm. The only real change is that you leave for the airport at 4pm instead of at 6pm. Everything that was required for going was already done by 11am, so there is nothing different except for the time when you leave.

Everything required for the formation of the solar system was done pretty early on (after the first generation of stars). After that, it was simply a matter of which gas cloud would lead to our particular system. So, that cloud formed around 5 billion years ago. By most estimates that was just over 8 billion years after the BB. If the other estimate is correct, it would have been 6 billion years after. Nothing else was *required* for the formation after about 3-4 billion years, so that is really not a big deal either way.

And as for our solar system, if it took roughly 9 billion years after the universe formed even with everything there needed for it to form, wouldn't it still require the roughly 9 billion years before it began to form with 2 billion years off the universe?
If so it's 3.5byo instead of 4.5byo or everything we've dated is off by 2 billion years and formed at different times than we think.

Example if the universe is 11.8byo instead of 13.8byo and our solar system is 4.5byo, it only took 7 billion years to form instead of 9 billion years.

Of course all that is based on the universe being off by 2 billion years.

 

[nPeace]

And as for our solar system, if it took roughly 9 billion years after the universe formed even with everything there needed for it to form, wouldn't it still require the roughly 9 billion years before it began to form with 2 billion years off the universe?
If so it's 3.5byo instead of 4.5byo or everything we've dated is off by 2 billion years and formed at different times than we think.

Example if the universe is 11.8byo instead of 13.8byo and our solar system is 4.5byo, it only took 7 billion years to form instead of 9 billion years.

Of course all that is based on the universe being off by 2 billion years.

Personally, I think @Polymath257 is just playing hop scotch around this. The only way I can see the evolution of the solar system wouldn't change, is if they tweak everything but that... which would involve perhaps speeding up inflation to be much more super, or speeding up the cooling time of the CMB. They have to carry forward the BB, so there seems to me, no getting around it.
However, you are talking to @Polymath257 so don't expect him to budge. imo

 

[Curious George]

I agree, but what point are you trying to make?

That while it is fine to group beliefs, it is important to note the difference between well reasoned beliefs and those that lack reasoning.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Personally, I think @Polymath257 is just playing hop scotch around this. The only way I can see the evolution of the solar system wouldn't change, is if they tweak everything but that... which would involve perhaps speeding up inflation to be much more super, or speeding up the cooling time of the CMB. They have to carry forward the BB, so there seems to me, no getting around it.
However, you are talking to @Polymath257 so don't expect him to budge. imo

Then you have not been following along. The conditions were right for the formation of the systems like ours probably after only the first 5 billion years or less. Our solar system is at least a third generation solar system. But large stars age quicker than smaller stars like ours. Do to their large mass they burn much hotter and faster. And it is the larger stars that go supernova and make the materials needed for planets. A two billion year younger universe still leaves plenty of time for our solar system to be formed.

 

[nPeace]

That while it is fine to group beliefs, it is important to note the difference between well reasoned beliefs and those that lack reasoning.

I do that all the time, but I don't know if you do, so I am still in the dark as to what you are really trying to say, so maybe an example might make it clear.

 

[nPeace]

And as for our solar system, if it took roughly 9 billion years after the universe formed even with everything there needed for it to form, wouldn't it still require the roughly 9 billion years before it began to form with 2 billion years off the universe?
If so it's 3.5byo instead of 4.5byo or everything we've dated is off by 2 billion years and formed at different times than we think.

Example if the universe is 11.8byo instead of 13.8byo and our solar system is 4.5byo, it only took 7 billion years to form instead of 9 billion years.

Of course all that is based on the universe being off by 2 billion years.

Oh. Actually, I forgot. They use a similar method to dating the solar system, as they do the earth - dating rocks. So that means they would not change the evolution of the solar system.
Oops. Sorry @Polymath257 a little sleep jolted my memory.
Lesson: Get some sleep at night.

Back to bed. Bye.

 

[Polymath257]

And as for our solar system, if it took roughly 9 billion years after the universe formed even with everything there needed for it to form, wouldn't it still require the roughly 9 billion years before it began to form with 2 billion years off the universe?

Why would it? Our solar system i one of many that formed through a fairly long stretch of time. There are systems being formed today. After the basic elements formed (from the first generation of stars), there is nothing else *required* for the formation of our solar system. That 9 billion years has a gap of several billion years where not much happened.

If so it's 3.5byo instead of 4.5byo or everything we've dated is off by 2 billion years and formed at different times than we think.

Example if the universe is 11.8byo instead of 13.8byo and our solar system is 4.5byo, it only took 7 billion years to form instead of 9 billion years.

Right. Which isn't an issue at all. The basic elements were there long before the system actually formed. The only question was which of many gas and dust clouds would condense to give our particular system.

Nothing particularly relevant to the formation of the solar system happened between the time when the basic elements formed and when our particular gas cloud started to condense. There is nothing that says that condensation couldn't have started 2 or 4 billion years earlier.

Of course all that is based on the universe being off by 2 billion years.

Exactly. A number I am quite skeptical of.

 

[Polymath257]

Personally, I think @Polymath257 is just playing hop scotch around this. The only way I can see the evolution of the solar system wouldn't change, is if they tweak everything but that... which would involve perhaps speeding up inflation to be much more super, or speeding up the cooling time of the CMB. They have to carry forward the BB, so there seems to me, no getting around it.
However, you are talking to @Polymath257 so don't expect him to budge. imo

OK, in the time line, the first generation of stars is what produced the basic elements we need for the Earth (carbon, oxygen, iron, etc). That was accomplished by around 4-5 billion years after the BB.

Once that happened, the solar system *could* have formed immediately. The gas and dust clouds required for stars and planets to form were there. Other stars and planets *did* start to form at that point.

It's just that our sun and planets (including the Earth) didn't actually form for another few billion years.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do runners run in a race - the Olympics, for example? How many can win, and place? Yet they run.
However, while the scientists are trying to figure out things I am trying to figure out things myself - like why spend so much $$$ on research that, as you said, has no "significant" impact on the the solar system, or earth, and... more importantly cannot be found out with any certainty.

How do you know it cannot be determined with any certainty unless you try? And, what we have found is that we *can* determine a great number of things to much more certainty than was supposed from the start.

Do you realize how much of an advance it is that we are discussing a 2 billion year difference in possible ages? When I was a kid, there were estimates for the age of the universe that ranged from 10 billion to 20 billion years. And, by the way, even that 10 billion year estimatre didn't cause a problem for the solar system (which is a very, very small scale thing in cosmological terms).

Of course there is scientific research that has significance and can discover things, with much accuracy, and... more importantly, is beneficial to the general public. I can think of a lot. (e.g. the garbage problem is quite huge).

One aspect of basic research is that we don't know how it will affect the future. Faraday certainly had no idea that the world less than 200 years later would be based on his discoveries. Bohr and Einstein didn't know how their work in quantum mechanics would affect the design of computers decades later.

And, figuring out how to make the instruments that will give the data answering our questions often *does* lead to spinoffs that benefit society later.

Billions of dollars are spent in science. The age of the universe affects nothing... unless of course it's significantly younger - like 10 billion years younger.

And do you support money going to the arts? They 'affect nothing', but it is a very human thing to seek out and make art. In the same way it is a very human thing to want to learn and know about the universe around us. Given how much we pour into sports, the small amounts that go into science are well worth the money.

 

[nPeace]

OK, in the time line, the first generation of stars is what produced the basic elements we need for the Earth (carbon, oxygen, iron, etc). That was accomplished by around 4-5 billion years after the BB.

Once that happened, the solar system *could* have formed immediately. The gas and dust clouds required for stars and planets to form were there. Other stars and planets *did* start to form at that point.

It's just that our sun and planets (including the Earth) didn't actually form for another few billion years.

I think you are missing the point of @We Never Know's argument. If you measure the age of the solar system by the same / similar means, by which you measure the age of the universe, if the age of the universe changes, then automatically, the age of the solar system might change, or else you have to shrink time before the solar system began to form.
Since the age of the solar system is estimated by other means, separate to the expansion rate, etc., then that is what makes the difference.
That is all needs to be stated, otherwise you two will be talking around each other, which seems to be the case.

How do you know it cannot be determined with any certainty unless you try? And, what we have found is that we *can* determine a great number of things to much more certainty than was supposed from the start.

Unless we try? Ha ha.
Man is too small. They have big dreams though.
The proof is in the pudding. Not true?
Look at the earth. What do you see?
I will believe man can do it, if he fixes all the problems on earth. He would have proven his wisdom.
Now that's some dream.

Besides that, we know - no need to guess... We know that man guesses, assumes, and believes that his opinions are right. You don't have the "tools" capable of being absolutely certain.

There is energy, and there is matter. What else is there?
From the form of energy man is familiar with, we can get various forms of matter. How many forms of energy are they?
Man is not an ultimate entity. He doesn't even understand the organ in his head, which allows him to do anything. He refers to it, as the most complex organ in the universe.

Why is there something on earth too complex for man to understand, if he is so capable of understanding with certainty things receding eons before his existence?
Sorry, but that's a laugh.
I say, dream on.

Do you realize how much of an advance it is that we are discussing a 2 billion year difference in possible ages? When I was a kid, there were estimates for the age of the universe that ranged from 10 billion to 20 billion years. And, by the way, even that 10 billion year estimatre didn't cause a problem for the solar system (which is a very, very small scale thing in cosmological terms).



One aspect of basic research is that we don't know how it will affect the future. Faraday certainly had no idea that the world less than 200 years later would be based on his discoveries. Bohr and Einstein didn't know how their work in quantum mechanics would affect the design of computers decades later.

And, figuring out how to make the instruments that will give the data answering our questions often *does* lead to spinoffs that benefit society later.



And do you support money going to the arts? They 'affect nothing', but it is a very human thing to seek out and make art. In the same way it is a very human thing to want to learn and know about the universe around us. Given how much we pour into sports, the small amounts that go into science are well worth the money.

When science reaches a point where it never gets anything wrong, we can talk about this some more.