Perlmutter presentation : pb on the age of the Universe

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the age of the Universe as presented by Perlmutter, specifically addressing the discrepancies between his presentation and the latest estimations, including those from the Planck mission. Participants explore the implications of different scale factor lines and their relation to the age of the Universe, with a focus on theoretical models and observational data.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that Perlmutter's presentation indicates a scale factor line starting around 15 billion years ago, raising questions about the consistency with the Planck mission's estimate of approximately 13.8 billion years.
  • Another participant suggests that the curves presented by Perlmutter were based on earlier calculations using the Friedman equations, which may not reflect the latest observational data.
  • It is mentioned that the data may still be consistent with the original 15 billion year estimate, despite newer data refining the age to 13.8 billion years.
  • A later reply questions the accuracy of Perlmutter's presentation, suggesting it may have been imprecise to state that the best-fit observations fall within the thickness of the green curve without considering where it starts.
  • One participant points out that significant deviations from Planck's parameters would be necessary to support an age of 15 billion years, specifically mentioning a Lambda contribution of 75% or more to the critical density.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of Perlmutter's presentation and the implications of the age estimates. There is no consensus on whether Perlmutter's figures were adequately updated or accurately represented the current understanding of the Universe's age.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential limitations of the models discussed, including the dependence on earlier observational data and the assumptions underlying the Friedman equations. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties in the field regarding the age of the Universe.

DoobleD
Messages
259
Reaction score
20
I just watched a presentation about the acceleration of the Universe by Perlmutter. At this moment in the video he points the correct line for the scale factor of the Universe.

Aaaaand that lines starts around 15 billion years ago, not 14 billion. So I thought maybe the latest estimations of the age of the Universe are now closer to 15 billions, but internet says the Planck mission gives an age of the Universe of around 13,8 billion years. So, why the line Perlmutter points as correct is the one starting 15 billion years ago, and not the next line starting a bit after 14 billions years ago ?

A very similar figure (but with less data points) is also available here on the Supernova Cosmology Project official website.
 
Space news on Phys.org
DoobleD said:
So why the line Perlmutter points as correct is the one starting 15 billion years ago, and not the next line starting a bit after 14 billions years ago ?
AFAIK, that bunch of curves were based on calculations prior to the latest observations by plugging a variety of possible parameters into the Friedman equations. All it says is that the data is more or less consistent with the original 15 Gyr 'starting point' (age) value. The latest Plank data refined those parameters so that the calculations now indicate a 13.8 Gyr age for the universe, within relatively narrow tolerances.
 
Jorrie said:
AFAIK, that bunch of curves were based on calculations prior to the latest observations by plugging a variety of possible parameters into the Friedman equations. All it says is that the data is more or less consistent with the original 15 Gyr 'starting point' (age) value. The latest Plank data refined those parameters so that the calculations now indicate a 13.8 Gyr age for the universe, within relatively narrow tolerances.

But that conference has been given after 2011 (because they tell about the Nobel Prize that Perlmutter received in 2011). I'd think he'd have updated his figures by then, but well, I can't see a better explanation than the one you gave anyway. Thank you.
 
DoobleD said:
But that conference has been given after 2011 (because they tell about the Nobel Prize that Perlmutter received in 2011). I'd think he'd have updated his figures by then, but well, I can't see a better explanation than the one you gave anyway. Thank you.
Taking into consideration that the talk was not about the age of universe, it was perhaps a little sloppy of Perlmutter to say that the best-fit from observations falls within the thickness of the green curve, given where it starts.

AFAIK, you need quite large deviations from Planck's reported parameters to get to an age of 15 Gyr - something like Lambda 75% or more contribution to the critical density.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: DoobleD

Similar threads

  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
7K
  • · Replies 44 ·
2
Replies
44
Views
8K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K