A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Improved birthdate of the universe?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 27th 14, 09:44 PM posted to sci.astro.research
stargene
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default Improved birthdate of the universe?

This seems an appropriate query for the 'birth' of a new year.

In early December, 2014, Nazzareno Mandolesi, the lead author of
the Planck Probe team announced that they now have a 'new and
improved' age for the universe, not to mention slightly older.
This is because they have fully parsed the complete Planck data
set, which was only partially done when they gave a best age of

~ 13.798 x 10^9 billion years

back in 2012 (?).

Presumably the paper will be "made public in late January".

But... like many of you, I follow these kinds of things closely,
and I can't wait! Soooo:

Has anybody out there had a peek at the brand new age value?!
Or do we all have to wait 'til late Jan.?

Cheers,
Mr. Hopeful
  #3  
Old December 31st 14, 08:03 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Jos Bergervoet
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 126
Default Improved birthdate of the universe?

On 12/30/2014 10:48 AM, Eric Flesch wrote:
On Sat, 27 Dec 14 20:44:15 GMT, wrote:
~ 13.798 x 10^9 billion years


13.8 billion years? That's 3 x the age of the Earth, which is 4.6
billion years.


No! That is 3x10^9 times the Earth's age:

(13.798 x 10^9 billion) = 3x10^9 * (4.6 billion)

Is that the best we can do? I'm not buying.


I do not see what is bad about the numbers, except
when you referred to the typo..

A minority view of the theorists (which I have recently seen but do
not have a citation) is that the universe is doubling in size per each
characteristic period T.


Now you are talking about the *size*, not the age.
It's just exponential inflation! That isn't really
a minority view, I would say. One of the mainstream
views is the "new inflationary universe" model
of 1982: (making its *age* 42 years :^) )
Linde, A.D. (1982), Phys. Lett. 108B, 389.
Linde, A.D. (1982), Phys. Lett. 114B, 431.
It describes bubbles forming in an exponentially
expanding matrix (IIRC, I didn't re-rerad it!)
And we are just inside one big bubble. Some other
regions are still inflating very fast, so for the
total system your claim about the size is then
correct.

Note, however, that the claim about the age that
we started with, is just meant for the timespan
after the formation of the bubble we live in.

To talk about the whole system you would have to
describing the percolating expanding bubbles in
one total metric (and perhaps some detached child
universes need to be included as well). I think
the term "universe" in age of the universe is just
not meant to include all that, but just refers to
the elapsed time after inflation stopped in our
local region.

but in either case sets the universe's birthdate back a few googol.


Some people call the total system a "multiverse"
and indeed its age could be substantially larger
than that of our universe. But it is unrelated
to the number 13.798 x 10^9, which measures
something different.

--
Jos
  #4  
Old December 31st 14, 08:04 AM posted to sci.astro.research
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Improved birthdate of the universe?

G says "not quite"

too many billions


feel the millions



  #5  
Old December 31st 14, 02:00 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Eric Flesch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 321
Default Improved birthdate of the universe?

On Tue, 30 Dec 14 09:48:22 GMT, Eric Flesch wrote:
A minority view of the theorists (which I have recently seen but do
not have a citation) is that the universe is doubling in size per each
characteristic period T.

[Mod. note: citations would really help move this discussion forward.
I know of no evidence to support this picture -- mjh]


Sorry, but it was an article, maybe BBC, about 6 months ago, in which
researchers were interviewed and this was one scenario briefly touched
on. I remembered it because I once posted an article on that topic.
Perhaps I should have said "fringe view" instead of "minority view".
  #6  
Old January 1st 15, 05:00 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 273
Default Improved birthdate of the universe?

In article , Eric Flesch
writes:

~ 13.798 x 10^9 billion years


13.8 billion years? That's 3 x the age of the Earth, which is 4.6
billion years. Is that the best we can do? I'm not buying.


Why not? Do you have any evidence that the universe is older?

A minority view of the theorists (which I have recently seen but do
not have a citation) is that the universe is doubling in size per each
characteristic period T.


Try to come up with some information.

I would amend that to "seen to be" doubling,
but in either case sets the universe's birthdate back a few googol.


No. Maybe what was meant is that the universe is asymptotically
approaching the de Sitter universe, which has exponential expansion.
However, the behaviour of R(t) in the past was not exponential. (If it
were always exponential, as in the de Sitter universe, then of course
the universe would be infinitely old.)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Sky at Night improved James Harris \(es\) UK Astronomy 0 July 13th 13 07:07 PM
Improved Saturn from the 4th... Pete Lawrence UK Astronomy 10 February 9th 06 02:48 PM
Improved SETI Ray Vingnutte Misc 0 January 1st 05 03:39 PM
The new and improved SETI Martin Andersen SETI 0 December 31st 04 02:32 AM
Improved Isp Rocketry II Mike Miller Technology 6 December 15th 03 01:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:05 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.