Philisophcal musings. Age of the universe.

[Locut0s]

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.

 

[Brigandier]

This...I like.

 

[reallyscrued]

There is no "average" age of a star. Stars come in all different masses and sizes and stages. Plus there's no evidence to even suggest that stars of a similar size at a similar stage would fuse its hydrogen into helium at the same rate.

Lastly, there's no way to view all the stars in the universe from our vantage point on Earth. What would constitute the sampling?

In my opinion, leaving things in years is plain and simple. Everyone can relate to a how long it takes for a year to pass; all forms of time is completely arbitrary anyway and just used as a tool to put things into perspective, why not keep it at something easily understandable?

The universe was created 4.5 billion years ago...wow.

The universe was created 230 million Average-Age-Of-Stars ago. ....k.

 

[Locut0s]

There is no "average" age of a star. Stars come in all different masses and sizes and stages. Plus there's no evidence to even suggest that stars of a similar size at a similar stage would fuse its hydrogen into helium at the same rate.

I was thinking of stars on the main sequence of the hertzsprung russell diagram. Stars that follow the main sequence are usually roughly of similar mass (yes there is a lot of variation). As far as I'm aware it's fairly well proven that stars of similar masses have at least somewhat similar life spans.

 

[darkswordsman17]

Maybe its already far exceeded the average age for a universe?

 

[Fritzo]

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.

 

[Triumph]

you're right OP they are arbitrary measures. i could just as easily say that the universe is 1 universe-year old, as determined by my own scale of ages of known universes. to me that's not really that interesting, though. rather what i would find to be more interesting would be a measure of the "rate" at which we (or other creatures) perceive the universe. if some conscious being were somehow alive since the beginning of time, would 1 billion years ago feel like "just yesterday" to it? or would this creature feel like it had been watching a pot of water boil for the last 13.7 billion years? this assumes that the creature is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light in order to eliminate the effects of special relativity.

 

[Locut0s]

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.

From our evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating this does seem to be the current theorized end of the universe. I believe they call this 'heat death' in cosmology. However there is currently no reason to believe that the universe would then begin to collapse. There are cyclical models of bang/expansion/bang/expansion etc... but there's no evidence yet to support any of these ideas.

 

[Fritzo]

From our evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating this does seem to be the current theorized end of the universe. I believe they call this 'heat death' in cosmology. However there is currently no reason to believe that the universe would then begin to collapse. There are cyclical models of bang/expansion/bang/expansion etc... but there's no evidence yet to support any of these ideas.

....which is why the very next sentence started "At that point it is speculated..."

 

[sandorski]

Congratulations, you just admitted to being a Pedophile.

 

[lxskllr]

From our evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating this does seem to be the current theorized end of the universe. I believe they call this 'heat death' in cosmology. However there is currently no reason to believe that the universe would then begin to collapse. There are cyclical models of bang/expansion/bang/expansion etc... but there's no evidence yet to support any of these ideas.

The pieces will be absorbed by other universes, or collect with other universe fragments until a new one is created :^)

 

[preslove]

At this point, I think it is kind of silly and quaint to believe that ours is the only universe. Most cosmology is leaning in the direction of multiple universes.

 

[Locut0s]

Congratulations, you just admitted to being a Pedophile.

Hay now, you can't prove anything. :sneaky:

 

[Locut0s]

At this point, I think it is kind of silly and quaint to believe that ours is the only universe. Most cosmology is leaning in the direction of multiple universes.

Indeed it is a very popular hypothesis. One that cleanly solves the universe "fine tuning" anthropological issue. However like string theory there isn't any hard evidence one way or the other yet. Though there was the recent "cosmic bruises" analysis that could be evidence:

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q...q=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=92d723d3e589ed30

 

[DrPizza]

....which is why the very next sentence started "At that point it is speculated..."

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.

As far as

In my opinion, leaving things in years is plain and simple. Everyone can relate to a how long it takes for a year to pass; all forms of time is completely arbitrary anyway and just used as a tool to put things into perspective, why not keep it at something easily understandable?

- while it seems simple, it's wrong. The vast majority of humans cannot fathom how long a billion years is, let alone 13.72 billion years. That span of time is so long that it's beyond most people's comprehension. Hence, they can't understand how processes that take an incredible amount of time to happen actually do happen (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.)

"The universe is 3 times as old as our Sun." That's amazing to stop and ponder for a few minutes. When you stop and realize that every atom higher than (Lithium?) in our solar system was formed within another star, which eventually "went boom." Wow. In a few billion more years, the Andromeda Galaxy will probably collide with the Milky Way Galaxy. Who knows what's in store for what's left of our solar system then. And billions of years after that - will Jupiter continue to orbit around what's left of our sun? Will the solar system be pulled into a passing black hole? Will life re-emerge in this general vicinity of the universe out of stars yet to form from remnants of supernovae that haven't even become stars yet?

 

[IGBT]

we exist between extinction level events. then we start all over again after the dust settles. Enjoy it while you can.

 

[bfdd]

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.

My favorite episode of Futurama.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

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?

 

[mjrpes3]

you're right OP they are arbitrary measures. i could just as easily say that the universe is 1 universe-year old, as determined by my own scale of ages of known universes. to me that's not really that interesting, though. rather what i would find to be more interesting would be a measure of the "rate" at which we (or other creatures) perceive the universe. if some conscious being were somehow alive since the beginning of time, would 1 billion years ago feel like "just yesterday" to it? or would this creature feel like it had been watching a pot of water boil for the last 13.7 billion years? this assumes that the creature is not traveling anywhere near the speed of light in order to eliminate the effects of special relativity.

An interesting question since the modern brain is evolved to optimally function over decades, no eons. Can consciousness, as it fits us, even be possible over very long stretches of time? Will the brain run out of ways to connect synapses to store memory and behavior, so that it would soon have to erase old connections to fill new ones? If so, and assuming it could recycle connections 100%, consciousness would have its own even horizon, where unimportant memories would disappear with time, and even important memories would gradually change over time as the remembrance loosens and creates new synapse connections; sort of like that telephone game where by the time the sentence gets to the end of the chain it has completely changed.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

An interesting question since the modern brain is evolved to optimally function over decades, no eons. Can consciousness, as it fits us, even be possible over very long stretches of time? Will the brain run out of ways to connect synapses to store memory and behavior, so that it would soon have to erase old connections to fill new ones? If so, and assuming it could recycle connections 100%, consciousness would have its own even horizon, where unimportant memories would disappear with time, and even important memories would gradually change over time as the remembrance loosens and creates new synapse connections; sort of like that telephone game where by the time the sentence gets to the end of the chain it has completely changed.

It's called bein' an old fart and remembering shit wrong.

 

[OverVolt]

From our evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating this does seem to be the current theorized end of the universe. I believe they call this 'heat death' in cosmology. However there is currently no reason to believe that the universe would then begin to collapse. There are cyclical models of bang/expansion/bang/expansion etc... but there's no evidence yet to support any of these ideas.

If it were not cyclical, we wouldn't be here at all =P

In other news, what if time scaled with space? What if the electromagnetic force from an electrons point of view equals gravity under a different time scale. HMMMMMM

HMMMMMM

 

[reallyscrued]

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.

As far as - while it seems simple, it's wrong. The vast majority of humans cannot fathom how long a billion years is, let alone 13.72 billion years. That span of time is so long that it's beyond most people's comprehension. Hence, they can't understand how processes that take an incredible amount of time to happen actually do happen (evolution, plate tectonics, etc.)

"The universe is 3 times as old as our Sun." That's amazing to stop and ponder for a few minutes. When you stop and realize that every atom higher than (Lithium?) in our solar system was formed within another star, which eventually "went boom." Wow. In a few billion more years, the Andromeda Galaxy will probably collide with the Milky Way Galaxy. Who knows what's in store for what's left of our solar system then. And billions of years after that - will Jupiter continue to orbit around what's left of our sun? Will the solar system be pulled into a passing black hole? Will life re-emerge in this general vicinity of the universe out of stars yet to form from remnants of supernovae that haven't even become stars yet?

...Yeah that's really gonna make the average person stop and ponder...when 40% of Americans think the world is only 6,000 years old.

I like the year model better.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Edit:

Irony to subtle? need to work on that...

Instead enjoy this musical interlude:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

 

[sandorski]

you know: In Genesis the sun isn't made until days after the stars were made... so the concept of the stars being older than the sun is biblically tenable, if a bit unscientific and mostly metaphorical.

hehe, ok. I suspect it's more likely they thought the Sun and the Stars were not the same type of thing.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

hehe, ok. I suspect it's more likely they thought the Sun and the Stars were not the same type of thing.

No doubt, tards made up stories they thought sounded good at the time (at-least that is what the early Jews thought of the first few chapters of Genesis, according to the peer reviewed literature on the subject):

In the first book written in the bible Job talks about bad-ass thunder lizards! and says "Oh, creation? Fuck if we know how that shit happened; Weren't fucking there. "

Profanity is all pat of how the dude abides...


Edited the post because I was afraid someone would take to too seriously; that you haven't is great. I spend half of my forum time telling other Christians not to be douche bags, something I've learned from this happy family *