Slashdot Mirror


Hubble Data Says Universe Is 14 Billion Years Old

no reason to be here writes "New data from the Hubble Space Telescope suggest that the age of the universe is approximately 14 billion years old. Read this press release for more info."

43 comments

  1. No, no, the real question... by quantax · · Score: 2, Funny

    What about life, the universe, and everything?

    --
    "What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing." -Bokonon
    1. Re:No, no, the real question... by borgboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      2A

      --
      meh.
    2. Re:No, no, the real question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      que?

    3. Re:No, no, the real question... by borgboy · · Score: 1

      42, in hex

      --
      meh.
  2. Happy Birthday! by Transcendent · · Score: 3, Funny

    finding the oldest stars puts astronomers well within arm's reach of calculating the absolute age of the universe

    ...May 14th?

    Well I have a 1/365 chance of that being right!

    1. Re:Happy Birthday! by CyberDruid · · Score: 2

      1/365.25, as a matter of fact. Leap years, you know...

      --

      Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

    2. Re:Happy Birthday! by bartjan · · Score: 1

      1/365.242198781, as a matter of fact. Leap seconds, you know...

    3. Re:Happy Birthday! by CyberDruid · · Score: 2

      I thought of those, but you should not include them in the calculation. The date is not fully related to the astronomical year. One thing that I should have included, however, is the skipped leap year every 400 years.

      --

      Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

    4. Re:Happy Birthday! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so its actually 365.2525?

    5. Re:Happy Birthday! by chaidawg · · Score: 1

      Actually, you skip three leap years every 400 years. On a x00 it is only a leap year if divisible by 400.

  3. The Universe is dying by jbridge21 · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is official; NASA confirms: the Universe is dying

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered scientific community when Berkeley confirmed that Universe inhabitability has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all stars. Coming on the heels of a recent NASA survey which plainly states that the Universe has lost more inhabitability, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. The Universe is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by falling dead last in the recent Living Times comprehensive livability test.

    You don't need to be an Einstein to predict the Universe's future. The hand writing is on the wall: the Universe faces a dark future. In fact there won't be any future at all for the Universe because the Universe is dying. Things are looking very bad for the Universe. As many of us are already aware, the Universe continues to lose brilliance. Red dwarfs are flowing like a river of blood. The Milky Way is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core supergiants.

    Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

    Andromeda Galaxy leader Neo states that there are 7000 stars left in the Andromeda Galaxy. How many livable planets in the Crab Nebula are there? Let's see. The number of Andromeda Galaxy versus Crab Nebula readings on SETI@HOME is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 Crab Nebula inhabitable planets. Horseshoe Nebula readings on SETI@HOME are about half of the volume of Crab Nebula readings. Therefore there are about 700 inhabitable planets in the Horseshoe Nebula. A recent article put the Milky Way at about 80 percent of the Universe market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 inhabitable planets in the Milky Way. This is consistent with the number of Milky Way SETI@HOME readings.

    Due to the troubles of Grand Overlord Bush, abysmal immigration and so on, the Milky Way went out of business and was taken over by Virgo who sell another troubled galaxy. Now Virgo is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

    All major surveys show that the Universe has steadily declined in inhabitability. The Universe is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If the Universe is to survive at all it will be among interplanetary dilettante dabblers. The Universe continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, the Universe is dead.

    Fact: the Universe is dying

    1. Re:The Universe is dying by LordSah · · Score: 1

      We'll probably be very dead before the universe is. As such: I don't care.

      Of course, it could be argued that the matter of the universe will re-form into a big ball to start the cycle over again. I think there is some debate as to how likely that is. I suppose that thought is somewhat comforting.

    2. Re:The Universe is dying by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting


      (* We'll probably be very dead before the universe is. As such: I don't care....
      Of course, it could be argued that the matter of the universe will re-form into a big ball to start the cycle over again. I think there is some debate as to how likely that is. *)

      The best current estimate is that the Universe will continue to expand, and that several billions of years from now, inhabitants of our galaxy will only be able to see and access the galaxies within our "local cluster" and a few others IIRC (roughly about 50 galaxies?). The rest beyond that will eventually recede faster than the speed of light, riding on the expansion, so they are "gone" as far as we are concerned. But the local ones are gravitational buddies to end.

      50 galaxies is plenty to provide humans with enough energy for another 500 billion years or so (very rough guess).

      Thus, if we survive Earth's end and spread around to the nearby galaxies, we still have a lot of time.

      I just hope there is no intergalactic bomb that terrorists can use to wipe out the remaining galaxies. (Triggering a super-gamma burst by colliding black holes and super-stars may be a possible bomb.)

      I think terrorists and wars are the biggest threat, not the expanding universe. If anything, the expansion allows groups of humans to part such that groups can "ride out" the expansion so no terrorists can catch them. Groups can disappear beyond the "event horizon" of the expansion and never be touched again by outsiders as long as the speed of light cannot be surpassed.

      Thus, this limits the scope of people that big-time terrorists and wars can kill.

      IOW, expansion may be your distant offspring's best friend.

    3. Re:The Universe is dying by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 inhabitable planets in the Milky Way.

      ...last time I checked, we were trying to count the number of habitable planets?

    4. Re:The Universe is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      .....wtf???

    5. Re:The Universe is dying by no+reason+to+be+here · · Score: 1

      inhabitable = able to be inhabited

      inhabit v. tr. - To live or reside in

      habitable isn't a word. the inverse or opposite of inhabitable would be uninhabitable.

    6. Re:The Universe is dying by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      oops..... my bad

    7. Re:The Universe is dying by A+Bugg · · Score: 1

      habitable Pronunciation Key (hb-t-bl) adj.
      Suitable to live in or on; inhabitable: habitable land.

      yeah, ummmmm, habitable is a word just do a check on dictionary.com it has 3 entries too.
      a bugg

    8. Re:The Universe is dying by ToeLint · · Score: 1

      Yes, the universe is dying. Guess what, everything decays. It's a Law of Thermodynamics. Nothing every gets better when left to itself (that's the basics of it).

      Now about the age of the universe. I say it's about 6000 years old. There are sooo many flaws to saying the age of the universe of the earth though. I don't see how it could be 14 billion or whatever number they've made it now. The only sure way is if someone were there at the start. Scratch that one. Everything else is guess. No matter what you say it comes down to an issue of faith. There is NO possible way of proving the age of the universe or that there is or isn't a God. I believe there is a God. Maybe you believe in evolution. But based on what the Bible says AND science (yes, there is evidence of creation) I still say 6000 years. If anyone has any questions, my e-mail is:

      jared@neatorecords.org

    9. Re:The Universe is dying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah! That is all. Actually, could you please post links to your evidence?

  4. have you never read the great trolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://bsd.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=31227&cid= 3360519

  5. Well by zulux · · Score: 3, Funny

    I don't cary what you fancy-schmancy tele-scope in space says - Jack Chick says the this here universe is only 6000 years old.

    Excuse me, while I go back to the trailer.

    --

    Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. It's a comic strip, but it doesn't make me laugh. Is this supposed to be like Cathy or Rex Morgan, MD?

    2. Re:Well by zulux · · Score: 2

      Jack Chick is a psychotic christian who publishes thses little comic books that wakos like him leave around telphone booths, doorsteps, etc in the hopes that some schmuk will read them and instantly see the light and become a wacko christian like them. To be fair, his views are usually far outside most normal christians, but make for good parody material.

      They are great entertainment, if you have a brain.

      --

      Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.

    3. Re:Well by doooras · · Score: 2

      Wacko, maybe... but they help pass the time in class...

  6. Lumpiness issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do they (or you if you're an astronomy type) resolve stars of that age with the distribution of matter right after the big bang? Shouldn't things be much more homogenous and not as "lumpy" if the big bang were true?

  7. Pictures of the "clocks" used by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make sure you click the introduction link to see the dim stars in context (globular cluster).

    Message to stsci.edu:
    You disappoint me greatly. The ascii character for an apostrophe is 39, and the ascii character for a double-quote is 34. Your press release contains some out of range ascii values (>= 128) for these characters. Using graphically similar but semantically incorrect characters lowers your prestigious institute to the 31337 H4X0R level.

  8. woohoo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    very amusing.

  9. Cooler dwarfs by skilef · · Score: 1

    Isn't there a fair possibility there are even cooler dwarfs out there? I mean, increasing exposure time is one thing, but if the amount of emitted energy by a star is very small, we should increase resolution to spot it.

    I just can't believe the researchers were capable of spotting EVERY white dwarf, especially the ones that emit the smallest amount of energy.

    --

    You do not exist. Go away.
    1. Re:Cooler dwarfs by pyr0 · · Score: 1

      That is a possibility, however they haven't found any yet. Basically what they're saying now is that the maximum age based on data they have available. You can't scientifically say the universe is older based on data you don't have, and theories are *always* subject to change based on new data ;)

  10. Old stars and an older universe by jfengel · · Score: 2, Informative

    What the Hubble measured here was not the age of the universe, but the age of the oldest stars we've seen in it. Those stars were measured to be 12-13 billion years old, based on their temperature.

    Different Hubble measurements, based on redshifts, figure that the universe is 13-14 billion years old.

    This is good, because older calculations had suggested that the universe was actually younger than the oldest stars in it, which makes zero sense, and caused all sorts of wacky hypotheses.

    Since the first stars would have formed about 1 billion years into the universe's formation, it means that we have rough agreement (to, uh, one significant figure) between two independent calculations on the age of the universe. Actually, a lot of other theories come into play here, including a very complicated model of how white dwarfs work.

    So this measurement provides evidence for a whole host of theories. I love it when a plan comes together.

  11. Wait a second.. by suavo · · Score: 1

    The Hubble telescope can talk? I've never heard of a talking telescope before. Forget all of the mechanical problems, those guys who engineered Hubble really DID know what they were doing!

    --
    "Drugs aren't the answer. Unless the question is, 'What isn't the answer?'"
  12. Sure, we say 14 billion years now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But we can only see so far with the Hubble. Wait until we get a larger telescope up there that can gather more light and see the light from stars further away. We might change our minds.

    1. Re:Sure, we say 14 billion years now... by pcs305 · · Score: 1

      The bigger the telescope the older the universe gets. There is to many schools of thought and theories on the age of the universe. It's a moving target. The sad part is that nobody realy cares, and even if they do figure out how old the universe is, its not going to change anybody's life for better or for worse, and I'm still struck down by a simple flu/cold virus thats 6000 years old. fix that dear "scientist" Why don't you find an alternative energy source to replace fossil fuel that is harmless to the environment Sir mister Scientist sir? How about a cheaper way to get your stinking useless hubble scope in space? What did you do to improve living as we know it with the knowledge you gathered from digging up dinosaur bones with millions of tax dollars? Steven Spielberg did a great job though bud he's not a "scientist". Neither are you by the way, a thumbsucker and a good quesser at the most. A high-school sceince project can come up with a figure on how old the universe is, and the sad part is you have no way of proofing them wrong, because you'e guess is as good as there's. So stop wasting money and start contributing real science to real live problems.

    2. Re:Sure, we say 14 billion years now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but your kind of reasoning simply doesn't make sense, and does us all a disservice.

      Why study cow farts, or how high a grasshopper hops? Well, I could give you 14 billion answers, but how about this one: those scientists, being just people, are "interested" in knowing how high grasshoppers hop and why cows fart. It adds to human knowledge and they, being just people, enjoy it.

      Ok, that might be an oversimplification, but consider this. Many scientists have been telling us since the 70's that we are endangering the environment, that whole populations -could- be in trouble, and what do we do? Not much of anything - we get oil companies to hire "scientists" with an agenda and make the general public think that it's 50/50, that there are just as many who think the planet is A-OK as there are otherwise...oh well...

      Further, let me just say that stuff like this, along with all other studies, help keep america ahead in scientific areas. You couldn't pove trickle-down-economics to me if you tried, but I can prove trickle-down-technology to you...I'm not talking about mere spin-offs here - you don't have to go to the moon to invent Tang, but consider the guy who worked on radio in the early days, Marconi I think (but could be wrong about the name).

      This guy studied radio waves. Most people didn't understand radio waves, could care less, and would probably, if given the option, take his funding away to feed their local poor, perhaps.

      Marconi (again, if this the guy I'm thinking of) knew the potential of radio, even predicting eventual products such as MICROWAVES and RADAR, though he saw neither in his lifetime...

      Now, back to cow farts - perhaps a better understanding of the process will lead to better alternative fuels in the future, and perhaps an undersatnding of grasshopper muscles will lead to better artificial limbs for crippled people in 50 years. Do I know this for sure, no, and neither do you.

      But you can't underscore the importance of basic reasearch, even if you don't understand the ramifications. You want your money spent better?? Vote for people that don't give back pocket change to ignorant people so they can buy a second tv, but keep it to feed the poor and fix the crumpling schools...and invest in the research projects that lead to inovations in the years maybe AFTER the politician dies...imagine that...

    3. Re:Sure, we say 14 billion years now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My goof, I meant to mod this guy as -1 Flamebait.

  13. Jack Chick is absolutely right by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    if he is in line with the Word of God. I haven't seen him err from the path. You might have faith in your theories but I have faith that what God says is true. Namely, salvation comes thru Christ Jesus. The C-14,universe's age,limits of universe questions are not what is more important. The most important question is Do you absolutely know that you know where you are going(if anywhere) after you die? Do you think your soul just....ceases to exist??? Don't take a gamble my friends. Jesus(God in the flesh) died on the cross and took on our sins(wages of sin is death((hell)) so that we wouldn't have to go to hell. Heaven is attainable, very much so...but only thru Christ. Being a 'good person' isnt' enough else why would the Lord die on the cross for our sins? It even says : Isaiah 64:6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. How do i get saved? Romans 10 9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved. 11As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."[1] if you believe that Jesus died on the cross for your sins, realizing that you alone can't be saved, if you do this and confess Him as lord you are saved!! lilmacumd@yahoo.com email me if you'd like

    1. Re:Jack Chick is absolutely right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your basic line of reasoning is a lack independant, outside verification and coroborading evidence. Before you get pissed, let me explain, this isn't meant to insult.

      If I wrote a book and claim it to be true, nobody would take me seriously unless I had a nice bibliography, where folks who were so inclined could at least cross-reference my material. What I cannot simply do is cite another chapter in my book.

      You can't use something christ said in the new testament, to backup creation, for example. That may work for those already faithful; those that already believe, but it does little for me.

      I see your worldview as being inside a tiny bubble. From all the vast epochs, all universes, all galaxys, systems, planets, religions, you think that, naturaly, your's is correct and you will be saved.

      Forget the chance of aliens out there somewhere, with their own religions. Forget any theories about other universes, even perhaps an alternate universe where you might well be an athiest - just taking this 'lil planet here gives you MANY religions and belief systems, as you must know.

      There are many other sacred books, besides the bible, that claim their own version about how it all started and so forth. How can you convince me that your book is better than those books, when your only evidence are other sections of said book? Telling me how much Christ loves me and how willing he is to torture me for eternety doesn't, in and of itself, deter me from maybe thinking that the Crow is my Uncle, or that Buddah is the man for me!

      Furthermore, I claim that if you had been born in the middle east, and saw a need to "find" a higher meaning, you would be a muslim, and argue just as passionetly about Allah and Mohamed.

      I challange you to step outside of yourself and, [cliche warning] think outside of the box and truely see the light - the kind made of photonic engery packets!

      To prevent this being modded down merely for bad spelling, I say that all spelling NAZIs on slashdot should DIE - there, now you can mod this down as troll.

  14. VLT by edwilli · · Score: 1

    I wonder what "light" the VLT will shead on this once the interferometer is fully operational.

    Does anyone know? Can the VLT be used to gather this kind of data?

  15. remember Dr. Nick... by hamburger+lady · · Score: 2

    'inflammable means flammable? what a country!'

    --

    ---
    Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
  16. Simple messages for simple minds... [OT] by alienmole · · Score: 2
    Religion and spirituality, like most things, must be tailored to the audience for which it is intended. Thousands of years ago, a relatively primitive uneducated audience needed simple, unambiguous messages from an authoritarian source in order to maintain social cohesion and better withstand intergroup competition.

    Perhaps things aren't so different today - many people, while benefitting from more widespread, comprehensive education, still haven't received much meaningful religious or spiritual education. Spiritual education is where sex education was fifty years ago, one of the last bastions of ignorance in modern civilization.

    But nevertheless, the audiences for spiritual messages cover an enormous spectrum, ranging from those who still seem to need the simple messages from thousands of years ago, to those who are capable of understanding far more complex and ambiguous truths. It's difficult for these groups to communicate between each other, and most attempts to do so are futile - just as attempting to teach sub-atomic physics to a jungle-dwelling Aztec might be futile, or the Aztec's attempt to explain their theory of human sacrifice to us.

    The amusing thing is that we have to tolerate these spiritual cavemen, for their indocrinated beliefs are unshakeable; yet they continually attempt to "convert" us, demonstrating a lack of tolerance which actually goes against the religions they claim to espouse. I used to find this annoying, until you realize how truly sad it is.

    My heart goes out to anyone trapped in a network of 4000 year old propaganda, which is so closely enmeshed in our social structure that only the most intelligent and self-aware can find their way out of it - only to realize that it does perhaps serve a strange social purpose, and that we don't really have any good candidates to replace it. Ah, the human condition...

    But hey, at least we know that the universe is 14 billion years old - that's something, right? Sigh... :)

  17. Yah like this is conclusive... by TheLink · · Score: 2

    Just wait a few months and some astronomer is going to say X billion years.

    The "universe younger than stars" was funny tho. Dunno why they threw that one out ;).

    --