High School Age of Universe: 13.8 Billion Years

  • Thread starter Thread starter MikeeMiracle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Age Universe
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The age of the universe is established at approximately 13.8 billion years, measured from the perspective of a comoving observer, who is stationary relative to local space and far from gravitational sources. Observers near black holes or traveling at extreme velocities will perceive the age of the universe differently due to time dilation effects. Specifically, an observer close to a black hole may measure the universe's age as slightly over 400 million years, while those unaffected by significant gravitational influences will experience negligible differences in perceived age. The definition of a year in astronomical terms is based on the SI definition of a second, independent of Earth's existence.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of comoving observers in cosmology
  • Familiarity with time dilation effects in general relativity
  • Knowledge of the definition of a year in astronomical terms
  • Basic grasp of black hole physics and its implications on time measurement
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the concept of comoving distance in cosmology
  • Study the effects of time dilation near black holes using general relativity
  • Explore the SI definition of time and its implications for astronomical measurements
  • Investigate the relationship between velocity and time perception in the context of spacetime
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, physicists, students of cosmology, and anyone interested in the implications of time measurement in relation to the universe's age.

MikeeMiracle
Messages
396
Reaction score
313
TL;DR
Age of the Universe
Summary: Age of the universe

Just a bit of a fun here, not sure how this equates into anything useful.

So we believe the "age of the universe" to be around 13.8 billion years, it seems to me that this is a relative time frame based on the rate of flow of time on earth. I find myself wondering how other observers would measure the "age of the universe."

Assuming the earliest black hole appeared around 400 million years after the big bang and still existed. An observer very near to it would measure the age of the universe slightly more than 400 million years old. Am I correct in this assumption? Or would the observer still think the universe is 13.8 billion years old and it's just as far as we are concerned that observer has only experienced 400 million years?

Likewise if an observer appeared shortly after the big bang and never experienced any time dilation effects from their own velocity or proximity to matter, how old would the universe appear to that observer? I guess this is the same as asking if there is a fundamental rate of flow of time?

I have been told before that we can draw a graph with velocity on 1 axis and time on the other and we travel through this "spacetime" at the speed of light. As we approach the speed of light in velocity our time slows down, if our velocity was zero, what would the flow of time be? This is where I get confused as "travelling through time at the speed of light," does not make sense to me. It does not seem a valid measurement.

I fully appreciate / comprehend that there is no such thing as zero velocity in the "real universe," we are always moving. It's just a hypothetical question.

Like i say not sure there is any point to this question apart from curiosity.
 
Space news on Phys.org
MikeeMiracle said:
I find myself wondering how other observers would measure the "age of the universe."
Google "co-moving observer" and/or do a forum search for same. A good place to start is the set of links at the bottom of this page (I just checked them. They are not what you are looking for)
 
I have read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comoving_and_proper_distances but clearly i must be not understanding something. I still do not have a suitable answer to my question. Does the observer by the black hole measure the age of the universe differently to the observer who has existed since the big bang?
 
MikeeMiracle said:
Does the observer by the black hole measure the age of the universe differently to the observer who has existed since the big bang?
Yes, he does. The age you quoted in the opening post is the age as measured by a comoving observer (stationary w/r to the local space), far away from any gravitational sources. I.e. it's the maximum age any observer can measure. For any observer not traveling at extreme velocities w/r to locally comoving observers, or not in extreme gravitational environments (such as very close to black holes) the difference in perceived age will be negligible. This includes us on Earth.
 
MikeeMiracle said:
So we believe the "age of the universe" to be around 13.8 billion years, it seems to me that this is a relative time frame based on the rate of flow of time on earth.

Indeed. A year is defined as the period of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. Before the Earth existed, there was no definition of a year.

Measuring anything in years that pre-dates the formation of the Earth is simply an extrapolation from our current methods of time measurement. If the Earth is 4.54 billion years old, then by definition there have only been 4.54 billion years. Nothing can be 13.8 billion years old.
 
GuyBarry said:
A year is defined as the period of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun.

That's how that period of time was originally defined, but when cosmologists use the term they just mean a particular number of seconds (using the SI definition of the second, which does not depend on Earth's orbit or even on Earth's existence).
 
  • Like
Likes davenn and PeroK
GuyBarry said:
Indeed. A year is defined as the period of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. Before the Earth existed, there was no definition of a year.

In astronomy, a year is defined as ##31, 557, 600## seconds. And a second is defined in terms of the caesium atom.
 
  • Like
Likes Teichii492
PeroK said:
In astronomy, a year is defined as ##31, 557, 600## seconds. And a second is defined in terms of the caesium atom.

Thanks for clarifying that.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
811
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 103 ·
4
Replies
103
Views
11K