How is the Age of the Universe Determined?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the determination of the age of the universe, exploring the implications of different observers' measurements and the concept of time in cosmology. It touches on theoretical aspects, observational methods, and the implications of relativistic effects on time measurement.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the age of the universe can be determined without an absolute measure of time or distance, suggesting that time's expansion complicates measurements.
  • Others clarify that "the age of the universe" refers to the elapsed time as measured by idealized "comoving" observers since the Big Bang, noting that different observers in varying states of motion would measure different ages.
  • There is a discussion about the meaning of "the correct age" of the universe, with some arguing that there is no single correct age, only the age measured by specific observers.
  • One participant asserts that measurements associated with co-moving observers yield consistent results across the universe, estimating the age to be approximately 13.8 billion years based on data from the European Space Agency's Planck Mission.
  • Another participant discusses how observers moving relative to the CMB frame experience time dilation, leading to different age measurements, and suggests that the age measured from the CMB frame could be considered a "minimum age." However, this claim is contested by others who argue that such observers would measure a younger age.
  • Some participants mention that isotopic abundance measurements are not affected by observer reference frames, while others discuss the implications of directional measurements relative to the CMB and the observed dipole anisotropy.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the measurement of the universe's age, with no consensus on what constitutes the "correct" or "actual" age. The discussion remains unresolved, with various interpretations of relativistic effects and observer-dependent measurements.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of "age" and the complexities introduced by relativistic effects and observer motion. The discussion highlights the challenges in reconciling different measurements and interpretations of time in cosmological contexts.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
It means you don't see the CMB as isotropic; you see a higher temperature in the direction you are moving, and a lower temperature in the opposite direction. We actually observe this here on Earth; the usual term is "dipole anisotropy" in the CMB. But practically all published data on the CMB corrects for this by subtracting out the dipole in order to display what the CMB would look like to a "comoving" observer at our location.
So it appears the CMB would be relative to our frame of reference. What effect would another frame of reference have, say near a black hole?
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
Daleri Mc Rileda said:
So it appears the CMB would be relative to our frame of reference.
I think perhaps you still misunderstand what a frame of reference is. Or, perhaps that sentence doesn't quite reflect what you want to ask.

What effect would another frame of reference have, say near a black hole?
same comment.

To say "the CMB would be relative to our frame of reference" as a stand-alone statement just doesn't make sense. You can define a frame of reference in which the Earth is at rest, or at most is rotating, and you can define a frame of reference near a black hole and the computations on getting the age of the universe for a co-moving observer would be more complicated for the frame of reference near the black hole because you would have to account not only for the speed of the black hole relative to the CMB, you would also have to account for the fact that your space-time path is in a deep gravity well.
 
  • #33
Daleri Mc Rileda said:
So it appears the CMB would be relative to our frame of reference

I'm not sure what you mean by this, but it doesn't look correct to me.
 
  • #34
Daleri Mc Rileda said:
So it appears the CMB would be relative to our frame of reference. What effect would another frame of reference have, say near a black hole?
There's very little practical difference between CMB observations made by one observer and those made by another.

First, nobody can live close enough to a black hole for the time dilation to become significant (as there are no stable orbits very close to a black hole).

Second, velocities with respect to the CMB of astronomical objects just aren't large enough to have a significant impact. For example, most galaxies don't have velocities with respect to the CMB that are greater than 2,000km/s, a speed which results in time dilation of only 0.002%. Even a speed of 10,000km/s only results in time dilation of 0.05%.

Third, when we measure the age of the universe we don't actually look at any sort of physical clock, as nothing that could be used as a clock existed until long after the CMB was emitted. The idea of the age being different for a particular observer assumes a clock that has traveled along a particular worldline from the beginning of the universe to today, but no such clock exists. Instead the age is inferred based upon various observations of the expansion history.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Bandersnatch

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 54 ·
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K