Philisophcal musings. Age of the universe.

[Fritzo]

I don't think that anyone seriously speculates that anymore though. In the 80's, it was wondered if the rate of expansion was sufficient to keep it expanding or not. It was later discovered that not only is it sufficient, but the expansion is accelerating.

Cyclic universes has come back into favor lately due to some new research.

 

[Triumph]

How about we call it by something that is not arbitrary:

The number of times the average atom has been recycled!

If, on average, everything in existence has gone through a cycle of birth death decay and rebirth; then we could age things on an astrological level by the average number of times this should have occurred.

1st cycle, 2nd cycle, etc.


Also:

Why do you need a special astrological time-frame for 6000ish years?

How is that not arbitrary? The choice of how to measure time is arbitrary, not the actual measurement. Your average value based on an unknown process would be much more inaccurate as a unit of time.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Cyclic universes has come back into favor lately due to some new research.

While that is true, unfortunately we can't have a universe which is expanding faster and faster WITH a cyclical model. That points to something causing dark energy to change how it works, or become less effective.

That really just points to how little we understand things. Then again in the short amount of time we have been around, we have learned an amazing amount of the universe and "the big picture."

 

[Fritzo]

While that is true, unfortunately we can't have a universe which is expanding faster and faster WITH a cyclical model. That points to something causing dark energy to change how it works, or become less effective.

That really just points to how little we understand things. Then again in the short amount of time we have been around, we have learned an amazing amount of the universe and "the big picture."

Well, the current model is a bit of a hybrid, saying that eventually everything will be sucked into black holes, and then all of those black holes will eventually merge, creating another universal singularity.

 

[sourceninja]

Unless we are a special point (beginning, middle, or end) Then it is safe to say we are 1/3 or 2/3's into the universes life cycle. So by knowing the age of the universe, we should be able to figure out a range of time in which it will still exist.

For example, I'm 30.

So I'm going to die in the next 30 to 60 years.

Doesn't that sound deep?

 

[Triumph]

Unless we are a special point (beginning, middle, or end) Then it is safe to say we are 1/3 or 2/3's into the universes life cycle. So by knowing the age of the universe, we should be able to figure out a range of time in which it will still exist.

For example, I'm 30.

So I'm going to die in the next 30 to 60 years.

Doesn't that sound deep?

No, only because you know most people (hopefully) die from 70-90 years old. We don't know how old universes tend to be before they die, so how can we know if we're 1/3 or 2/3 in?

 

[sourceninja]

Actually, it's called the 95% Copernican argument. It states that as an observer you have a 50% chance to observe something 1/4 (I used 1/3) into its life cycle or 3/4's into its lifecycle.

I can be used to predict the lifespan of almost anything with results that typically fall within range. Put a bit simpler, the longer something exists, the longer it tends to exist.

Let's apply this to the human race. We can say the human race will die out sometime between 5k and 5 million years. We are assuming that this moment in time is not special (not the beginning, middle, or end)

On September 30th, 1993, in a magazine, this formula was used to predict how long the Conservative government in Britain would continue in power. The government had been in power for 14 years in 1993. So it was 95% likely that their rein would end between 4.3 months and 546 years. They went out of power 3.6 years later and matched that prediction.

This theory obviously (and sillily) holds true to estimate the existence of any object unless you are a special moment in time (95% of the time). If I recall correctly, this was well described a book written by J. Richard Gott.

 

[Soccerman06]

Actually, the age of the universe is quite young, but we might be in the middle of the "habitable" time period of it's age. Some simulations estimate that the universe could keep expanding for about 100 billion years. The problem is, at it's current expansion rate, stars will fade out in about 50 billion years, and the last black hole should fade away about 40 billion years after that.

The universe will rip apart into a cold, lifeless mass of free floating particles. At that point it is speculated that a "collapse" phase begins...then 10's of billions on years later, all the matter collapses into a point and the universe begins again.

Theres so much fail here, you need to stop watching futurama.

 

[Fritzo]

Theres so much fail here, you need to stop watching futurama.

Get up to date with current studies in astrophysics. I'm not making this stuff up.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Well, the current model is a bit of a hybrid, saying that eventually everything will be sucked into black holes, and then all of those black holes will eventually merge, creating another universal singularity.

But from our understanding, at least last I knew, we have no idea how dark energy actually effects black holes. From observations, the universe is expanding and galaxies are getting further away from one another (due to dark energy). That means the black holes are getting further away from one another (at least super massive ones in galactic cores). The only way that everything getting sucked in to black holes which all merge together would work is if dark energy pushes normal matter further away, but for some reason doesn't effect black holes as a neutral force (or perhaps even a semi-attractive force, but has to be less powerful than dark energies repulsive force on normal gravity).

 

[Triumph]

Actually, it's called the 95% Copernican argument. It states that as an observer you have a 50% chance to observe something 1/4 (I used 1/3) into its life cycle or 3/4's into its lifecycle.

I can be used to predict the lifespan of almost anything with results that typically fall within range. Put a bit simpler, the longer something exists, the longer it tends to exist.

Let's apply this to the human race. We can say the human race will die out sometime between 5k and 5 million years. We are assuming that this moment in time is not special (not the beginning, middle, or end)

On September 30th, 1993, in a magazine, this formula was used to predict how long the Conservative government in Britain would continue in power. The government had been in power for 14 years in 1993. So it was 95% likely that their rein would end between 4.3 months and 546 years. They went out of power 3.6 years later and matched that prediction.

This theory obviously (and sillily) holds true to estimate the existence of any object unless you are a special moment in time (95% of the time). If I recall correctly, this was well described a book written by J. Richard Gott.

I had not heard of this theory until your post, and did a little reading on it. It's ridiculously stupid. Look at your own example, between 4.3 months and 546 years? What kind of a range of predictions is that?

 

[Fritzo]

But from our understanding, at least last I knew, we have no idea how dark energy actually effects black holes. From observations, the universe is expanding and galaxies are getting further away from one another (due to dark energy). That means the black holes are getting further away from one another (at least super massive ones in galactic cores). The only way that everything getting sucked in to black holes which all merge together would work is if dark energy pushes normal matter further away, but for some reason doesn't effect black holes as a neutral force (or perhaps even a semi-attractive force, but has to be less powerful than dark energies repulsive force on normal gravity).

This article explains it very well. The time scales they're talking about are mind boggling:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

 

[sourceninja]

I had not heard of this theory until your post, and did a little reading on it. It's ridiculously stupid. Look at your own example, between 4.3 months and 546 years? What kind of a range of predictions is that?

It's a 95% correct prediction.

 

[Malak]

There is no way to measure the lifespan of a star accurately, let alone the universe.

 

[Triumph]

It's a 95% correct prediction.

So you think that it is a good method of estimation? Doesn't seem to be to me.

 

[Kommander_Kink]

Something that has struck me recently is the fact that in some ways, despite the universes immense age when measured on human or even geologic time scales, in other ways it's actually very young. Obviously these types of ideas are somewhat meaningless because the passage of time is something of a human concept and the concept of years is completely arbitrary, the time it takes for earth to complete one orbit. However one slightly less arbitrary measure would be something like the average age of a star, because stars basically compose all the mater that we consider to be "the universe" (by mass I know this is NOT the case but from our perspective it might as well be). From this point of view, taking the average age of a main sequence star to be 1 "year" the universe is actually really young. Something like 3-5 "years" old.

Just thought this was an interesting line of thought.

Wow that's right, in theory let's suppose that a tree is a star and the land is the universe, if a tree's life is average 120 years wouldn't it be absurd to think that the land under it is only 600 years old? The Universe HAS to be more ancient, at least thousands of times older than a star's lifespan.

 

[DrPizza]

There is no way to measure the lifespan of a star accurately, let alone the universe.

Your religious trolling is not needed in this thread. Go away. There are plenty of accurate ways to calculate the lifespan of stars & the universe. The universe is 13.75 billion years, give or take .2 billion years.

If you wish, you can say "OMGosh! .2 billion years represents 200 million years!" and my preemptive canned response is "you don't even know the difference between accurate & precise. Go away."

Fritzo - any links to these "current" cyclical universe theories? Almost everything I've been seeing points more and more toward the multiverse model.

 

[DrPizza]

This article explains it very well. The time scales they're talking about are mind boggling:

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101010625/story.html

No big crunch & no merging of all the black holes in the end. I think you misinterpreted the article.

 

[Malak]

Your religious trolling is not needed in this thread. Go away. There are plenty of accurate ways to calculate the lifespan of stars & the universe. The universe is 13.75 billion years, give or take .2 billion years.

The only troll here is obvious. I was not the one to bring up religion, I didn't even imply it. My comment is entirely contained in science.

But of course you only understand insults and being condescending. Even if everything you believe is wrong, you will never accept someone else to be right because of pride. You seriously need therapy.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

How is that not arbitrary? The choice of how to measure time is arbitrary, not the actual measurement. Your average value based on an unknown process would be much more inaccurate as a unit of time.

Good question;

I assumed that the 'arbitrary' that was being spoken of was code for 'relative to the earth' and that a non-arbitrary measure would, therefore, be 'relative to it self';

Measuring the average number of star cycles the average atom has gone through in the universe, a galaxy, a solar system etc could offer a comprehensible age that may tell us about some of the characteristics of that universe, galaxy or solar system.

But then I'm just thinking out loud... fuckin' astrophysics, how do they work?

My comment is entirely contained in science.

dude... no;

It's like saying that there is no way to know, accurately, how long a ruler is.

Totally false... most 1ft rulers are between 11 and 13 inches; This is an accurate estimation for almost all 1ft rulers made today.

Alternatively: precision, how close to the exact number i can get while still being accurate: well that's limited given how accurate you want to be.

So I could say that every 1ft ruler (or at-least those saying they are 1 ft) are 12 inches long... a VERY precise measure, but I would be totally in accurate! This is because there are almost NO rulers that are EXACTLY 12 inches long.

But just because I don't know if most 1ft rulers are 12.0000000001 inches or 11.99999999 inches does not change that I can give an accurate range.

Similarly we can say the universe is 13.75 billion years, give or take .2 billion years old, within a 95% certainty.

 

[Moonbeam]

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are

 

[Locut0s]

When you wish upon a star, makes no difference who you are

lol. Gotta love Moonbeam

 

[Dr. Zaus]

lol. Gotta love Moonbeam

Like a mirror reflecting only what we put out: He exposes the self-hate in all of us.

 

[sourceninja]

So you think that it is a good method of estimation? Doesn't seem to be to me.

Until an example is found where the formula doesn't work, I'd say it's valid.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I assumed that the 'arbitrary' that was being spoken of was code for 'relative to the earth' and that a non-arbitrary measure would, therefore, be 'relative to it self';

The thing is that the act of assignment is in itself arbitrary. Think about it. Time measured in years is related to a physical act, the time it takes our planet to rotate around the Sun. Here is the official definition of a second.

[FONT=Myriad Roman,Syntax,Gill,Gill Sans,Arial,Helvetica]The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom[/FONT]

Multiply that times 31557600 and you have a year. That's not more or less arbitrary than what you suggest and Cesium would not be unique to the earth.

So what makes your yardstick better than a year? If you think about it, nothing. Which one you pick is therefore arbitrary.

At the root of this is how humans think. We do not perceive the movement of time, but intervals between events. What matters is that they are regular, predictable, and universal. Those conditions satisfied we can use whatever we choose to mark time.