Doubt in the calculation of the age of the universe?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of the age of the universe, specifically questioning the reference frame used for its calculation and the implications of different models and measurements. Participants explore theoretical and observational aspects related to cosmology, including the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and various models of the universe's expansion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reference frame used for calculating the universe's age, noting the commonly cited age of 14.4 billion years.
  • Another participant suggests that the CMB provides a unique reference frame where the universe appears isotropic, allowing for consistent age calculations across different locations.
  • There is mention of a specific age determination from WMAP7, which is 13.77 ± 0.13 billion years, with a note on the need to update this figure slightly.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about whether the CMB reference frame can be used to determine the age of the universe back to just after the Big Bang, questioning the implications of the 380,000-year mark.
  • Some participants clarify that the CMB only provides information about the universe's state after 380,000 years post-Big Bang, while the age of the universe is often defined in the context of the Lambda-CDM model.
  • There is a discussion about the different modeling approaches used to derive the age of the universe, including quantum modeling related to the recombination of charged particles.
  • Participants note that various scientific models are interconnected, relying on different theories and approximations, and express a desire for a unified theory of everything.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the CMB reference frame or the significance of the 380,000-year mark in relation to the universe's age. Multiple competing views and uncertainties remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some limitations are noted regarding the assumptions underlying different models and the precision of measurements related to the universe's age. The discussion highlights the complexity of cosmological calculations and the interdependence of various theoretical frameworks.

Vineeth T
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
Hi guys! I have a small doubt in the concept of age of our universe.Everyone say that our universe is 14.4 billion years old.Now I can't understand with what frame as reference this calculation is made.

Is there any global reference frame with which these calculations are made?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The frame of the cosmic microwave background can be used - it is the unique frame (for a specific location) where the universe looks the same in all directions. You get the same value for the age of the universe everywhere (within measurement uncertainties of course).

Alternatively, you can use earth, or any other star or planet - their velocity relative to the cosmic microwave background is so slow (~400km/s for earth) that time dilation is negligible with the current level of precision.
 
Everyone say that our universe is 14.4 billion years old.
The latest determination from WMAP7 is 13.77 ± 0.13 Gyr. But that was reported in Oct 2011, so add a year.
 
MFB, I thought that the CMB reference frame would only get us back to the age, less 380k years. Does it actually get us back to (just after) the big bang / start?

Regards,

Noel.
 
I thought that the CMB reference frame would only get us back to the age, less 380k years. Does it actually get us back to (just after) the big bang / start?
Yes, the CMBR only goes back to some 380,000 years after the big bang. The CMBR confirmation means we have experimental confirmation from WMAP about the age of the relic radiation itself.

The "age of the universe" is usually taken to mean the duration of the 'Lambda-CDM' expansion, that is, the elapsed time since [just after] the Big Bang. [Other models yield different calculated ages for our universe.]

You can get an explanation of the standard [FLR, or FLRW] model used.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freidmann_equationAlexander Friedmann found an exact solution of the Einstein Field Equations
[ Equations of General Relativity] using the assumptions of large scale homogeneous and isotropic characteristics for our universe. These findings scrubbed Einstein's attempt to force a 'static' universe and strongly suggested the universe would either expand or contract. Hubble confirmed expansion by his observations.

The modern version of the FLRW solution is called the lambda-CDM model...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LCDM_model

where parameters have been developed to 'fine tune the FLRW model to better match modern experimental observations.
 
Thanks Bcrowell & Naty1.

Regards,

Noel.
 
Lino said:
MFB, I thought that the CMB reference frame would only get us back to the age, less 380k years. Does it actually get us back to (just after) the big bang / start?.
Note that 380k is a couple of orders of magnitude short of mattering to the precision with which the universe's age has been measured...
 
russ_watters said:
Note that 380k is a couple of orders of magnitude short of mattering to the precision with which the universe's age has been measured...

Thanks Russ. Do you know why it is generally quoted so frequently (with such certainty and without caveats)?

Regards,

Noel.
 
  • #10
Do you know why it is generally quoted so frequently (with such certainty and without caveats)?

you mean the 380,000 years, right?

That's based on different modeling, of 'recombination' of charged particles, rather than the GR based FLRW overall 'age of the universe' model.

It's based on quantum modeling and has its own set of approximations about when photons could escape from the charged plasma of the big bang...which blocked photon emission for approximately the first 380,000 years.

More here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology )

edit: A number of of our scientific models are glued together like this...with different parts explained via different theories and mathematics. We await a unified 'theory of everything'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Lino, Vineeth...PS:

Marcus, of these forums, has posted great and numerous explanations over the years, about 'age of the universe calculations' ...assumptions,methods,models,etc...

If you are interested, here are a few I saved for my notes:
The LCDM FLRW is built into Ned Wright’s calculator…

In our approximately flat universe, dark energy plus all matter, .73 plus .27 [.23 plus .04] equals 1.

Th Ned Wright UCLA FAQ Cosmology
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#ct2Some sample calculations, via Marcus:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showt...=Effort+page+(balloon+analogy+anyone?)&page=3 Post 39
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Thanks Naty1. Much appreciated.

Regards,

Noel.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 41 ·
2
Replies
41
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K