How do you calculate an intuitive date and time from the BIG BANG to NOW? :-)

[Wulgulmerang]

How do you calculate an "intuitive" date and time from the BIG BANG to NOW? :-)

For you Drum and Bass heads :-)


Unfortunately Professor Hawking is a busy man who cannot be a hub to the world. Until we can query his brain electronically that is.

Dear Professor Hawking,

Is it possible to calculate the "real" date and time, based upon the time from the BIG BANG to now?

For example the Gregorian Calendar says that it is currently Sunday 12th September 2010 20:58:34 to 1 second accuracy.

Is it possible to come up with a calendar signature that would reveal cosmological "real" time? I would like to write a program that calculates this every millisecond, as an alternative to the Gregorian B.C.E and C.E conventions.

Please could you shed some light on my thinking? Ideally it would be a simple way a reading the current time from the BIG BANG to NOW, in YEARS, MINUTES, SECONDS, and MILLISECONDS.

Do you think that I could use quantities greater than YEARS to make the calendar more readable e.g. would LIGHT YEARS make sense somehow?

Best Wishes,

Dave Kirkby.

If you'd like to hear a good drum and bass track. Search for B-Complex Beautiful Lies on YouTube :-) It's a "sick" tune! As Generation Y like to say.

Peace out to K-Pax (my favourite mathematical film).

You see, Professor Hawking's "might" like Drum and Bass. I like to imagine him rocking out to it in Cambridge Uni whilst thinking about Black Holes.

 

[Danger]

Welcome to PF, Dave.
What you ask for is simply impossible, I'm afraid. The methods by which we try to determine the age of the universe do not lend themselves to anything approaching that level of accuracy.
I love the music in your link, so thank you for introducing it to me, but I'm not sure that it is appropriate for a serious science sub-forum. Perhaps you should delete it from this thread and re-post it in the General Discussion section. There are a few music threads there already, to which you can add it.

 

[russ_watters]

Welcome to PF.

Is it possible to calculate the "real" date and time, based upon the time from the BIG BANG to now?

...Ideally it would be a simple way a reading the current time from the BIG BANG to NOW, in YEARS, MINUTES, SECONDS, and MILLISECONDS.

As Danger said, scientific measurments always have some error margin associated with them and those measurements are the basis of the theory. So it won't ever be possible to know the timing of the Big Bang to that level of precision.

Do you think that I could use quantities greater than YEARS to make the calendar more readable e.g. would LIGHT YEARS make sense somehow?

A light year is a unit of distance, not time. We can use scientific notation to relatively easily list the years...billion isn't that big of a number anyway, though.

 

[MikeCB]

What level of accuracy is possible?

Btw OP Light Years is distance not time

 

[diazona]

Last I heard, the age of the universe was quoted as 13.7 billion years. I forget the exact uncertainty but I think it's around a couple hundred million years, so that's how precisely we know the current age of the universe.

 

[russ_watters]

According to the wiki on the subject, it is 13.75 ± 0.17 billion years.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Could anybody explain why the calculation is approximate to $$\pm$$ 0.17 billion years?

Are there satellites / NASA projects which seek to increase the accuracy of this measurement?

Thank you for making clear that LIGHT YEARS is distance.

Taking that onboard though, would it be reasonable to ask what the current "real time" distance is from the epicentre of the BIG BANG? That's changing all the time right?

 

[Chronos]

We already are at the center of the big bang, as is every other observer in the universe.

 

[russ_watters]

Could anybody explain why the calculation is approximate to $$\pm$$ 0.17 billion years?

Every measurement has an accuracy associated with it. That number is based on a measurement of the red shift and therefore distance and recession velocity of galaxies. Essentially, 13.75 ± 0.17 means the measurements (or the combination of all of the measurements) must have an accuracy of .17/13.75 = 1.2%

Are there satellites / NASA projects which seek to increase the accuracy of this measurement?

Yes.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

We already are at the center of the big bang, as is every other observer in the universe.

I think there was a BIG BANG in my cerebral cortex after reading that.

I don't understand.

When dynamite/TNT explodes and the explosion is slowed down on video, you can clearly see an almost perfectly spherical shock-wave. Debris is scattered in all directions away from the epicentre of the blast.

What am I missing from my conceptual framework? (other than the 99.9% of things that could be put in a conceptual framework )

 

[diazona]

That idea does throw everybody for a loop the first time Here's the difference: when you look at a TNT explosion, for example, the explosion takes place in a preexisting space, and the shockwave expands into that preexisting space. Every part of the explosive process can be located with respect to that space. But the Big Bang is different: it was the origin of space itself. There was no other space that existed "before" or "outside" the Big Bang, that you could use to identify the "location" of the bang. The only way to define any sort of location is with respect to the space that emerges from the bang itself. And since every location in that space started out from the bang (just as every part of the shockwave started out from the TNT), every location in space is equally entitled to be considered the center.

If you're confused by that, here's another way to think about it: imagine the process of zooming in or out on a picture, for example. The software you'd be using to zoom in or out basically just rescales the dimensions of the picture by some factor. The evolution of the universe is roughly represented by the same sort of process: there is a scaling factor that gets larger with time. Now imagine what would happen if the scaling factor were zero - that is, if you zoomed out to 0%. Every part of the picture would "collapse" onto the same point. (This is called a Big Crunch) Now imagine that happening in reverse: instead of collapsing onto a point, the picture (universe) starts as a single point and expands out. That's basically the Big Bang. Again, note that every point in the picture started out at the same place, and thus every point has an equal right to be considered the location of the Big Bang.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

I kind of get the GIST of what you're saying. That there wasn't any space before the BIG BANG. It's just completely counter-intuitive. I cannot get my head round it. I keep visualising the BIG BANG as an expansion into empty space. I know that the empty space isn't there. But my mind keeps filling in the empty space with black space.

Is there a better way to explain this concept so that people do not fall into this pitfall?

It's the same for the BITMAP explanation. My mind cannot imagine there being no pixels around the collapsed image.

 

[Chronos]

The big bang created curved space. But, it expanded so fast we will never see the backs of our own heads [due to the finite speed of light]. Our best observations to date indicate the curvature of the universe is nearly dead flat [i.e., enormous]. It is considered possible the initial 'singularity' that formed this universe was an infinitesimal part of a larger entity that is forever beyond our ability to observe.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

The big bang created curved space. But, it expanded so fast we will never see the backs of our own heads [due to the finite speed of light]. Our best observations to date indicate the curvature of the universe is nearly dead flat [i.e., enormous]. It is considered possible the initial 'singularity' that formed this universe was an infinitesimal part of a larger entity that is forever beyond our ability to observe.

So when popular scientists use the balloon to explain the BIG BANG, they're showing that the curved space-time which contains the stars and galaxies, is the surface of the balloon? (I am imagining a spherical black balloon). And when you say that the observable curvature is nearly dead flat, they're calculating that from the position of the furthest objects we can observe i.e. objects that are on the balloons horizon (13 billion light years away).

So what's inside the balloon?

 

[SHAMSAEL]

It doesn't matter what's inside the balloon since what we define as reality, time and space are the surface of the balloon.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

But there must be something inside the balloon. The galaxies and stars in space-time are on the surface of the balloon. If we look out to the horizon of the balloon, it's nearly dead flat.
What happens if move perpendicular to the horizon - if we move towards the centre of the balloon?

 

[diazona]

That would be like moving perpendicular to space. It's a completely nonsensical concept. Can't happen.

To relate the balloon analogy to the actual universe, you have to keep in mind that the entire universe corresponds to the surface of the balloon only. There is nothing in reality that corresponds to the inside of the balloon. As far as the stars and galaxies are concerned, there is no such thing as "inside" or "outside" the balloon, since their entire existence is on the surface of the balloon.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

So you're saying that all stars and galaxies only exist on the surface of the balloon in curved space-time. Intuitively I'm thinking that there's a thickness to it? But carrying on with the thread, because the Universe is expanding at the speed of light, if we travel towards the centre of the balloon, we're effectively treading water?

Stay with me guys. I'm sure I'll have a Eureka moment :-)

Saying that, the fact that there's a curved horizon in the observable Universe is pretty amazing. Most people think that we exist in a sphere, because of the spherical shape of stars and planets. But you're saying that we actually exist inside the surface of a sphere/balloon?

 

[diazona]

So you're saying that all stars and galaxies only exist on the surface of the balloon in curved space-time. Intuitively I'm thinking that there's a thickness to it? But carrying on with the thread, because the Universe is expanding at the speed of light, if we travel towards the centre of the balloon, we're effectively treading water?

umm... what? Not sure I get what you're saying there.

The universe is expanding, but not at the speed of light. At least, that's position-dependent: the apparent speed with which two points in the universe move away from each other is related to their distance.

Remember that the balloon thing is just an analogy. It's meant to show how something can be expanding without any particular point being the center of the expansion. But the surface of the balloon is two-dimensional, unlike our real universe, which is three-dimensional. We're not actually saying that the universe exists on (or inside) the surface of something.

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

The contents point to a "flat" Euclidean flat geometry, with the ratio of the energy density in curvature to the critical density 0.0179 < Ωk <0.0081 (95%CL). The WMAP measurements also support the cosmic inflation paradigm in several ways, including the flatness measurement.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/CMB_Timeline75.jpg"

Shape of the Universe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_Universe

Analysis of data from WMAP implies that the universe is spatially flat with only a 2% margin of error.

Diagrams of three possible geometries of the universe: closed, open and flat from top to bottom, corresponding to a density parameter Ω0 which is greater than, less than or equal to 1. The closed universe is of finite size and, due to its curvature, traveling far enough in one direction will lead back to one's starting point. The open and flat universes are infinite and traveling in a constant direction will never lead to the same point.

Even if the universe is not exactly spatially flat, the spatial curvature is close enough to zero to place the radius at approximately the horizon of the observable universe or beyond.

Thanks Diazona :-)

But the surface of the balloon is two-dimensional, unlike our real universe, which is three-dimensional. We're not actually saying that the universe exists on (or inside) the surface of something.

From my point of view, if you're inside the surface of a balloon, and the surface has height, you're in 3D space.

I cannot imagine the shape of the Universe.

WMAP and Chronos suggest that the curvature is nearly dead flat. And that if the spatial curvature is close enough to zero, the radius of the flat space-time, is either at the horizon or beyond.

How can we live in a flat Universe? Doesn't flat imply 2D space? Can anybody on this forum contemplate the the true shape of the Universe. I know that special relativity makes this difficult. We're observing the past as we increase the distance. But can calculations compensate for special relatively and give us our best guess at the true shape of the Universe?

 

[Suk-Sci]

The idea of a balloon like universe is a bit wrong....in an explosion the matter thrown out is not same in all direction...it should somewhat look like a face filled with pimples...

 

[Suk-Sci]

if it is a balloon like then the concept of ISOTROPY is wrong...the fact is that if we stand on any point in the universe...it looks same in all direction...but if we move inside a balloon...then at some point one part of the edge will be nearer than the other...you can imagine the universe may somewhat look like a straight line extending from -infinity to plus infinity on a graph...and zero is the beginning ...

 

[Suk-Sci]

[PLAIN]http://demo.activemath.org/ActiveMath2/LeAM_calculusPics/Hyperbola1.png?lang=en or even a hyperbola of equation y=1/x
here the graph extends in both the direction uniformly and infinitely...

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Remember to type your responses in NotePad or TextPad first. Because this forum has just asked me to login again after a massive edit, which I cancelled, to supposedly return to editing, and my edits were lost. 30 minutes of finding links, weaving it together, LOST. Now I'm having to go through the whole edit again.

Suk-Sci.

Thanks for your pictorial representation of -infinity to +infinity :-)

I understand what you're saying about f(x) = 1/x extending uniformly and infinitely. Thanks for the graphic.

I am doing the Calculus Life Saver - which is a free video series you can download online.
I am so grateful to Adrian Banner and the production staff who helped create this.
http://press.princeton.edu/video/banner/

These forums ROCK (except the system itself, which "at the time of posting" SUCKS :-).

From the first 2 videos in the series, I can tell from your f(x) = 1/x graph, that the function is ODD, because it is reflected 180 degrees around the origin.

The WMAP image - Astronomy Picture Of The Day - see link.
Explanation: Analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come.
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030212.html

So...

The red (the pimples :-) and yellow pixels represent the 4% atoms?

What is the difference between the red and yellow pixels?

The blue pixels represent the 23% cold dark matter?

The green pixels represent the 73% dark energy?Nasa have a good animated explanation of why the WMAP satellite thinks the Universe is FLAT. Why it isn't hyperbolic (the saddle) or spherical (the football) :-)
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/030639/index.html

They also have a great explanation of how the WMAP satellite made it to the L2 Langrage elliptical orbit (fixed orbital plane?)

This has got me thinking…

Is it true to say, that the WMAP image is elliptically flat, because the sensors collected data from a fixed orbital plane? That the equatorial line is congruent with the fixed ortibal plane, and the North and South poles are perpendicular to it?

If this is the case, why did NASA fix the orbital plane?

What would have happened if NASA had used a perpendicular fixed orbital plane, which had focused the sensors on the North and South poles?

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Suk-Sci.

Thanks for your pictorial representation of -infinity to +infinity :-)

I get what you're saying about f(x) = 1/x extending uniformly and infinitely. I am doing to the Calculus Life Saver - which is a free video series you can download online.
I am so grateful to Adrian Banner and the production staff who helped - this is the future of education - the next step is mathematical / science education, which is interactive and visually lucid.
http://press.princeton.edu/video/banner/

These forums also rock!

From the first 2 videos in the series, I can tell from your f(x) = 1/x graph, that the function is ODD, because it is reflected 180 degree around the origin.

The WMAP image - Astronomy Picture Of The Day.
Explanation: Analyses of a new high-resolution map of microwave light emitted only 380,000 years after the Big Bang appear to define our universe more precisely than ever before. The eagerly awaited results from the orbiting Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe resolve several long-standing disagreements in cosmology rooted in less precise data. Specifically, present analyses of above WMAP all-sky image indicate that the universe is 13.7 billion years old (accurate to 1 percent), composed of 73 percent dark energy, 23 percent cold dark matter, and only 4 percent atoms, is currently expanding at the rate of 71 km/sec/Mpc (accurate to 5 percent), underwent episodes of rapid expansion called inflation, and will expand forever. Astronomers will likely research the foundations and implications of these results for years to come.

http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap030212.html

The red (the pimples :-) and yellow pixels represent the 4% atoms?

What is the difference between the red and yellow pixels?

The blue pixels represent the 23% cold dark matter?

The green pixels represent the 73% dark energy?

Nasa have a good
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/030639/index.html

 

[Stanwyck66]

Sorry to burst everyone's balloons but..

terra incognita

come back in 50 years

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Terra incognita or terra ignota (Latin "unknown land," with incognita stressed on its second syllable in Latin, but with variation in pronunciation in English) is a term used in cartography for regions that have not been mapped or documented. The expression is not found in ancient texts, and occurs first in the sixteenth century. The equivalent on French maps would be terres inconnues (plural form), and some English maps may show Parts Unknown.
Similarly, uncharted or unknown seas would be labeled mare incognitum, Latin for "unknown sea".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_incognita

If I'm alive in 50 year times, with the possibility of continuous life, I'm sure that I'll be cusping a HD shape of the Universe in my hands, through a manipulatable holographic 4D image.
Like the CAVEman project.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070527093838.htm

Until then...

I have emailed the WMAP team for assistance.

Dear Sirs,

I am involved in a Physics Forum thread that has turned into a discussion about the shape of the Universe. This has naturally led us to the discussion of the WMAP satellite and the data it has produced.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=428409&page=2

Your Trajectory and Orbit page said that the WMAP satellite had orbited around he L2 Lagrange Point in the Lissajous 3D curve.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/mission/observatory_orbit.html

On the WIKI page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lissajous_curve

In the EXAMPLES section, I can get a idea of the shape of the curve, from the 2D curves, with their respective ratios of a to b.

Please can you inform this forum (and your page) about the ratio used in the Lissajous curve. To give us an idea about the shape of the Lissajous Orbital Pattern.

In the discussion, I argued the case, that the reason for the Elliptically Flat Image, produced by the WMAP satellite - the image that looks like a 2D world map - was because the WMAP satellite had kept to fixed orbital plane around the L2 Lagrange Point. And that was the reason why the North and South Poles of the image didn't contain much data.

I asked what would have happened, if the NASA scientists had chosen a different fixed orbit plane - one that would have focused the sensors on the North and South Poles.

However, after discovering that the satellite actually followed a 3D Lissajous Curve, I am much less confident that the satellite had engaged in a fixed orbital plane around the L2 Lagrange Point.

And that is more likely that the Lissajous 3D Curve taken, would be like the Lissajous 3D Curve that used to explain the orbital paths of electrons moving around the atom, before the discovery of quantum electron shells.
http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1672/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1672R-12085.jpg

If this is the case, why do the North and South Poles of the image contain much less data, than the equatorial line?
http://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/product/map/current/map_images/ilc_7yr_gal_moll_2048.png

Best Wishes,
Dave Kirkby B.Sc. (Computer Science)

 

[Wulgulmerang]

Could somebody explain how one goes about deleting a post. I would like to delete #25, because it got through, half-finished.

 

[diazona]

Ask one of the mentors if they will do it for you. I think you might be allowed to use the "Report" button to contact them in this case, although I'm not sure the forum policy allows deleting posts that have been replied to.