What is the correlation between the age and size of the universe?

AI Thread Summary
The universe is approximately 13.8 billion years old, but its observable size is estimated at 93 billion light years due to its expansion. The light we receive from distant objects was emitted when those objects were much closer to us, not at their current distance. As the universe expands, the photons travel through increasing space, leading to a greater observable radius than the age of the universe would suggest. The 46 billion light years figure represents the current distance to the farthest objects we can see, factoring in ongoing expansion. Understanding this expansion clarifies why the observable universe is larger than the simple calculation of light travel time.
somebodyelse
Messages
15
Reaction score
3
Please help me understand this.

The age of the universe is given as being about 13.8 billion years. The size of the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years
( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe)

Since the oldest light to reach us comes from 13.8 light years away, why do we estimate that the universe has a radius of 46+ billion light years instead of 13.8 ?

I know that the universe expanded faster than the speed of light but why do we think that and why 93 billion light years?

Thank you.
 
Space news on Phys.org
somebodyelse said:
Please help me understand this.

The age of the universe is given as being about 13.8 billion years. The size of the universe is estimated to be 93 billion light years
( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe)

Since the oldest light to reach us comes from 13.8 light years away, why do we estimate that the universe has a radius of 46+ billion light years instead of 13.8 ?

Thank you.

First of all, it is important to emphasize this is the size of the observable universe, the part of the universe we can receive light from.

Second, the radius is larger than 13.8 light years since the universe expands during the journey the photons make to reach us. So, the point where a photon that reaches us today started from can be 46+ billion light years away since it was much closer to us when the journey started.
 
If the universe were static, that is not expanding, then you could indeed do the simple calculation of the speed of light times the age of the universe to find out where the farthest objects you can see were at the time of emission (and still are).
However, since the space in-between the source and the observer has been expanding, such calculations won't give you the right answer. The light has to travel the extra bits of space, so it takes it more time to reach us than it would in a static universe.

In the expanding universe the light coming from faraway objects that you see was emitted closer than c*t, and the objects are at this very moment farther than c*t. The 46 billion ly figure is the distance to the farthest objects we see now, if you could stop the expansion and measure the distance as it is NOW. The distance to those objects at the time of emission was much closer - about 42 million ly.

@Doug Huffman : I think inflation doesn't need to be invoked here, the confusion stems purely from not taking into account the regular expansion.
 
Thank you all.
I forgot that the universe is expanding further during the 13.8 billion years it takes for the oldest light to reach us.
 

Thread 'Matter density right after the decoupling'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
View full post »

Thread 'Rutgers finds a transparent Einstein Cross - apparently a dark matter "halo".'

The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
View full post »

Thread 'Big Bang and Infinite Universe'

Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...
View full post »

Similar threads

B What is conformal time?
Replies
10
Views
313
B Size of universe - rewinding big bang versus "flat" universe
2
Replies
54
Views
5K
I How do we know age of the universe?
Replies
14
Views
3K
Inflation and measurement of cosmic bodies
Replies
2
Views
2K
I Questions about the Location of the Big Bang and the Age of the Universe
Replies
8
Views
3K
I Understanding the Age of the Universe
Replies
8
Views
2K
B Age of Universe: 13.8 Billion Years
Replies
7
Views
3K
B What is the age of the universe relative to?
Replies
8
Views
2K
I Why do we still see the CMB today?
3
Replies
103
Views
10K
B Clarification on how old the Universe is
Replies
11
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top