Astronomy: Estimate the age of the observable universe

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on estimating the age of the observable universe using the speed of light and its estimated size. Participants clarify that the formula age = distance/speed can be applied, where the distance is approximately 10^26 meters and the speed of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s. There is confusion regarding unit conversion, particularly how to convert the resulting time from seconds to years. It is emphasized that the final answer can indeed be expressed in years after performing the necessary calculations. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding both the speed of light and unit conversions in cosmological measurements.
lelandsthename
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


How does the speed of light's finiteness limit the size of our observable universe? Using the speed of light (c = 3 x 10^8 m/s), estimate the age of the observable Universe in years given its estimated size of about 10^26 m.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


So I'm trying to use age = distance/speed, but I'm not sure how to use it with the speed of light. I know the replacement method with Hubble's constant, but it seems like we need to use the speed of light. Plugging in the given distance and speed of light, I don't see how the units will come out in years. Any tips?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Can't you just convert the answer from seconds to years?
 
Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

Thread 'Confusion regarding a chemical kinetics problem'

TL;DR Summary: cannot find out error in solution proposed. [![question with rate laws][1]][1] Now the rate law for the reaction (i.e reaction rate) can be written as: $$ R= k[N_2O_5] $$ my main question is, WHAT is this reaction equal to? what I mean here is, whether $$k[N_2O_5]= -d[N_2O_5]/dt$$ or is it $$k[N_2O_5]= -1/2 \frac{d}{dt} [N_2O_5] $$ ? The latter seems to be more apt, as the reaction rate must be -1/2 (disappearance rate of N2O5), which adheres to the stoichiometry of the...
View full post »

Thread 'Prove that evolution is constant (Provide at least two arguments to support your position)'

I don't get how to argue it. i can prove: evolution is the ability to adapt, whether it's progression or regression from some point of view, so if evolution is not constant then animal generations couldn`t stay alive for a big amount of time because when climate is changing this generations die. but they dont. so evolution is constant. but its not an argument, right? how to fing arguments when i only prove it.. analytically, i guess it called that (this is indirectly related to biology, im...
View full post »

Similar threads

B Does the age of the Universe differ for observers in expanding space?
Replies
19
Views
2K
B Thought experiment: The twin paradox, observed from far away
Replies
12
Views
2K
I The Boundary of the Observable Universe
Replies
44
Views
4K
I How do you get to the conclusion that there is accelerating expansion?
Replies
23
Views
2K
I 2 objects of enormous volume each in relative motion very close to c
Replies
8
Views
1K
B Age of Universe: 13.8 Billion Years
Replies
7
Views
3K
How Long for a Beam of Light to Reach Earth?
Replies
21
Views
1K
B Estimates — True Size of the Universe?
Replies
17
Views
3K
B Clarification on how old the Universe is
Replies
11
Views
3K
I Mass, Distance & Early Universe: Is It Mere Coincidence?
Replies
5
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top