Slashdot Mirror
An Older, Larger Universe
Josh Fink writes "Space.com has a very interesting article as part their weekly mystery Monday series about a new calculation that shows that the Universe is actually much older than than the 14.3 billion years old that was established in 2003. From the article, "...the universe is instead about 15.8 billion years old and about 180 billion light-years wide." The calculations were based off of a recalculation of the Hubble Constant which dictates how fast the universe is expanding, and they found it is actually 15% slower than previously thought. The findings will be printed in an upcoming edition of Astrophysical Journal."
1.5 billion year between friends? She's still under 18.0 billion, so be careful! :/
Those are some huge numbers. What gets me going though is what is outside of those 180 billion light years of width? What happens when you hit the border? Is there a passport checkpoint?
My
Man...that's dead in dog years!
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
The Hubble Constant is based on the idea that the redshift of spectrum of light reveals how quickly it is moving away from you. Similar to the Doppler effect with sound.
I am not a physicist but I recall another article that speculated that light may not always have traveled at the same speed. If this is true and we are measuring light that is ~90 billion years old, doesn't this drastically effect the red light shift that is so dependent on the constant of the speed of light?
They didn't go into detail in the article except that it is a new recalculation using a pair of stars instead of a single star. I do not believe this alleviates the problem of possible change in constants regarding light and its redshift, however.
My work here is dung.
Expanding, contracting, etc.. really kept it in shape! Helped it age gracefully! This is a lesson kids, eat well, exercise, drink moderately , and you too can look 14 Billion years old when you're 15.8!
As long as it's still older than 6000 years I'm happy.
Argh.
How did they figure that out and what's outside of that?
If the universe is 15.8 billion years old, then shouldn't the universe be 31.6 billion light years across? Has the speed of light changed at some point?
If the universe is 15.8 billion years old and 180 billion light-years wide, wouldn't that mean that the outermost parts of the universe travel or have travelled around 5x faster than the speed of light?
So if it's 180B light-years wide, but 15B years old, does that mean that on average, if it started as a singularity, it has expanded at 10x the speed of light since the beginning of time?(tm) Do I get the Nobel prize in physics now?
stuff |
...so what changes with this revelation? Did this change anything? Give us new insight? Did it support or crush any theories?
I mean, it's nice by itself and all, but I'd be highly interested whether that has any implications other than changing the universe from being old to being older than we thought.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Cosmologists have to be the weathermen of astronomy. Every five to ten years they come up with their definitive measurements of the (age,shape,nature, ending,begining pick one or more) universe. Once they have settled into an attractive basin they defend the viewpoint religously and then in five to ten years it happens all over again. If you catch a cosmologist between shifts they act as if the current viewpoint is the be all and end all.
Sadly, according to TFA and Wikipedia, it is now believed to be about 71. These seem so far apart that I wonder if the same units were used for both estimates.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
(from: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_mond ay_040524.html)
This article generated quite a few e-mails from readers who were perplexed or flat out could not believe the universe was just 13.7 billion years old yet 158 billion light-years wide. That suggests the speed of light has been exceeded, they argue. So SPACE.com asked Neil Cornish to explain further. Here is his response:
"The problem is that funny things happen in general relativity which appear to violate special relativity (nothing traveling faster than the speed of light and all that).
"Let's go back to Hubble's observation that distant galaxies appear to be moving away from us, and the more distant the galaxy, the faster it appears to move away. The constant of proportionality in that relationship is known as Hubble's constant.
"One seemingly paradoxical consequence of Hubble's observation is that galaxies sufficiently far away will be receding from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light. This distance is called the Hubble radius, and is commonly referred to as the horizon in analogy with a black hole horizon.
"In terms of special relativity, Hubble's law appears to be a paradox. But in general relativity we interpret the apparent recession as being due to space expanding (the old raisins in a rising fruit loaf analogy). The galaxies themselves are not moving through space (at least not very much), but the space itself is growing so they appear to be moving apart. There is nothing in special or general relativity to prevent this apparent velocity from exceeding the speed of light. No faster-than-light signals can be sent via this mechanism, and it does not lead to any paradoxes.
"Indeed, the WMAP data [on cosmic microwave background radiation] contain strong evidence that the very early universe underwent a period of accelerated expansion in which the distance been two points increased so quickly that light could not outrace the expansion so there was a true horizon -- in precise analogy with a black hole horizon. Indeed, the fluctuations we see in the CMB are thought to be generated by a process that is closely analogous to Hawking radiation from black holes.
"Even more amazing is the picture that emerges when you combine the WMAP data with [supernova] observations, which imply that the universe has started inflating again. If this is true, we have started to move away from the distant galaxies at a rate that is increasing, and in the future we will not be able to see as many galaxies as they will appear to be moving away from us faster than the speed of light (due to the expansion of space), so their light will not be able to reach us."
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Just like "What came before there was time". Without a frame of reference, words like "beyond" or "before" become meaningless. You might as well ask what lies "beyond" the point you see on a cartesian plane.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
> the universe is...about 180 billion light-years wide...and 15% slower
Yeah well, I'm a little wider and a bit slower each year too.
The prolific mathematician Paul Erdos, towards the end of his life, used to say that he was about four billion years old. He explained: when he was a boy, the known of the age of the universe was about five billion years, but by the time he was older, the age of the universe was had grown to nine billion. Tack on another billion and change for all of us...
15.8 is not "much older" than 14.3 billion years. It's only about 10% older. This is just a tweak. For a long time, astronomers disagreed about the Hubble age by a factor of two or more, and probably some still do.
Fiat Lux.
AP 08/07/2006, Jordan - In related news, a new scroll has been uncovered in the Dead Sea that categorically insists that God most definitely did *NOT* rest on the seventh day, and perhaps worked on the Creation at least half-way through the next week. The Universe is now believed to be 9 1/2 days old; a full 3 days older than originally thought.
-dZ.
Carol vs. Ghost
This is a common question. Spacetime is allowed to expand faster than light. It is all that moves through spacetime that is bound by the speed of light.
This whole article is misleading. The new research has very little to do with our knowledge of the size and age of the universe.
(And, yes, I am an astronomer).
Stanek and company have used measurements of one eclipsing binary system to determine the distance to M33. This is a good way to measure distances, as it avoids the perils of even a short "ladder" of methods. They find a distance modulus of 24.92 +/- 0.12 mag to the binary. You can read their paper on astro-ph at
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph?papernum=0606279
Go to Table 7 of their paper, in which they compare their distance to previous measurements. There are 12 previous values, measured by several techniques (only 2 of the papers use Cepheids). The range of those previous values is 24.32 +/- 0.45 to 24.86 +0.07/-0.11. Their new distance is inconsistent, at the 1-sigma level, with 6 of the 12 others; thus, it is consistent with 6 of the 12 others.
Yes, it's true that the HST Key Project distance to M33, computed using Cepheids, is smaller than the new distance by an amount well outside the quoted uncertainties. But that's not a big deal, by itself. M33 is only one of a number of galaxies which serves to calibrate secondary distance indicators, which may in turn be used to find the Hubble constant. A small change in the distance to M33, even if true, would not make any major change to H-nought.
Recall that M33 is close enough to us that its radial velocity is NOT caused by the expansion of the universe, but instead by the gravitational forces of the galaxies in the Local Group. The press release's statement
is absolute nonsense. One cannot USE the Hubble constant and radial velocity of M33 to calculate its distance. The radial velocity of M33 is -179 km/sec, so "using" the Hubble costant to determine its distance would yield a negative distance. Phht.
This is a very nice, and very very worthwhile scientific project -- I have followed the DIRECT team's efforts for years, and encourage them to keep going! -- but the press release tries too hard to make it into some sort of breakthrough with profound immediate results.
Sigh.
Michael Richmond "This is the heart that broke my finger."
mwrsps@rit.edu http://stupendous.rit.edu
Not as cool Rabbi Yitzchak of Acca's (1250 CE) caculation of 15,340,505,767 years for the universe. There is a dispute if he meant earth years or synodic years. If that caculation is synodic years it will end about 14.8 billion earth.
I actually used to work on a team measuring the Hubble Constant using Radio Telescope data ten years ago - actually the same group who came up with 42 km s-1 Mpc-1 value which caused all the Douglas Adams H2G2 references (that was shortly before I joined). There was a lot of controversy over the value of the Constant back then and it is still a hot topic. Back then, the Hubble Constant was thought to have values anywhere from 30 km s-1 Mpc-1 up to 120 km s-1 Mpc-1 . The smaller the value of the Hubble Constant, the older the Universe is. Having a smaller value was desirable because it meant that the Universe was old enough to account for the oldest objects observed (about 16 billion years old). Think about that.
One of the points that struck me then was that the value of the Hubble Constant measured tended to be higher when measured using "more local" techniques and tended to be lower as techniques using more distant measurements were used. The Radio Telescope information gave us measurements based on object around or beyond a redshift of 1 (or, to put it another way, these clusters of galaxies observered were about half the age of the universe when the light left them).
Anyway, we'll be seeing more measurements of the Hubble Constant for many more years. Just remember the error bars!
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
So would this larger, older Universe affect the need for the particular volume of Dark Matter we've been searching? If this value is accepted, do we need less Dark Matter to explain the current state of universal expansion and possible contraction? What does this do for the various theories, a-la 'steady state', et. al?
from the journal article,
http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0606279
a glance at the intro reveals that they have analyzed *one* eclipsing binary star system in M33 and derived a distance that was greater than that obtained by Hubble. Until this measurement is repeated on other stars in M33, preferably by different groups, this remains a suggestive but in no way definitive measurement.
space.com and the submitter are a little too enthusiastic...
I don't want to get flamed by saying people are asking dumb questions, but everyone just needs to stop relying on simple arithmetic when dealing with the size of space... The concepts involved are far more complicated than that.
One thing people don't seem to be grasping is that with the Big Bang model, the size of the universe isn't measured by the distance between two particles floating on the "edge". It is actually a measure of the width of the "fabric" of the known universe, space-time. Its difficult to grasp this since it is not something easily perceived.
The real reason for the size of the universe being so much larger is that the laws governing the size of space-time are not the same as the laws of spacial relativaty, and therefore are not constrained to the upper bound of the speed of light.
The best analogy that I've heard is the ant on the balloon example. The idea is that you picture an ant sitting on a balloon with a bread crumb an inch away. If you were to blow up the balloon to twice its size, the bread crumb wouldn't necessarily move to a distance of two inches from the ant.
In this example, we are the ants and we are watching the galaxies, represented by the bread crumb, moving away from us. However, the fabric of existence is expanding at a much larger rate.
The "what's beyond the edge" question is essentially a pointless question when dealing with space-time. There is no "edge" because nothing can possibly exist outside of the realm of spacetime.
And if that concept doesn't satisfy the question, then a simple-minded answer would be that an "edge" can never be reached as space-time is always expanding faster than any particle could possibly hope to keep up with it.
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise" ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
I believe that the 180B light years is just a MINIMUM, that is the universe could actually be much much larger. The 180B lyrs. would the minimum size that would be allowable under our current measurements (for example the cosmic background radiation) that dictate how much the universe grew as a result of "inflation". It it were smaller than that, we would start to see "reflections" of ourselves as the light in the universe would have gone all the way around like in a hall of mirrors (and we could see the earth of a long time ago!).
To illustrate how big the universe could be there was, I think, an interesting article (set of articles?) in Scientific American that described the various ways in which we would could have a "parallel (viewable) universe" to our own. One was the idea that the whole universe was so huge that if you went far enough you could find an exact same configuration of all of the particles that we can see in our own viewable (~30B lyr wide) universe.
Of course this would mean that the actual universe would be so unbelievably gigantic that 180B lyr. would be an unimaginably tiny speck within it!
There's is a margin for error of +/- 680 billion in the margin for error.
The preprint of ApJ article is on the ArXive, entitled The First DIRECT Distance Determination to a Detached Eclipsing Binary in M33 .
I guess this shows that numbers like the age of the universe should always be quoted with the current error bars. As far as I understand the new value is still within the uncertainty of currently accepted estimate. To have reduced the error from "a factor of 2" to below 15% within the last decade or so seems pretty good to me.What then is the prevailing theory as to the disconnect between the 180 billion light year size and the 15.8 billion year age. If the universe was born out of a massive explosion 15.8 billion years ago, it would have had that long to spread out at the speed of light in every direction. So, then, you'd have a sphere with a radius of 15.8 billion light years that defines the maximum size of the universe.
So, the universe is 148.4 billion light years bigger than it ought to be (if the universe expanded from a singularity at the speed of light). So, do we believe the universe is expanding at much faster than the speed of light? Was space-time warped by the explosion? And if so, how can any guess made on spectral/telemetry data be considered meaningful?
Chaos Theory doesn't preclude the universe from being deterministic (Quantum Theory maybe, but not Chaos Theory). But without all of the initial states of the particles, and a complete understanding of how they interact, predicting long-term outcomes with any sort of certainty is out of the question. Chaos Theory doesn't mean that the universe is random, just that predicting a future macroscopic state requires consideration of even microscopic particles.
So far, all the answers to all the questions seem to be making the same implicit assumptions:
- Hubble's Constant is constant
- The current size of the universe is known
I'm sure there are many equally important assumptions, but these two seem to form the basis for using the inverse of H-nought (dang, I'm British, now!) to calculate the age of the universe.If Hubble's Constant is actually Carpe Web's Variable (dang, I'm important, now!), then we'd have to know all the values of CW-i (index of Carpe Web's Variable over time, formerly thought to be Hubble's Constant) and then take one mother of an integral to calculate the age of the universe. Well, if we were smart enough to know all the values of CW-i over 6,000 years -- oops, I mean 15.8 billion years -- then maybe the integral wouldn't be too difficult.
But, we'd still need to know the current size of the universe to calculate the age. What if there's a little bit more beyond what we can currently "see"? What if there's some schmutz on the lens of the Hubble telescope? What if the invisible pink elephants only look invisible but are actually blocking our "view" of the real edge of the current universe (or maybe the edge of the universe 15.8 billion years ago, which is when the light from it started on its path to us)?
Anyway, my brain hurts, but either of the assumptions seems to swamp the margins of error mentioned in this thread.
The Hubble Constant - Fluctuating since 1929
End of line..
There are several posts that mention that the universe can expand faster than light. They are right but let me see if I can expand on it some.
If you have taken a fair bit of math skip this and and go here http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/notes/ to Chapter 8 in particular.
We want the universe on the largest of scales to look isotropic and be homogeneous spatially. The first means it looks the same in all directions about some point, and the second meaning that its physical properties are the same everywhere. If the universe is isotropic about one point and it is homogeous it follows that it is isotropic about every point. Straight away there is no priveleged center and it is meaningless to talk about the center of the Big Bang or some such. Insert standard dots on a balloon or raisn bread rising explanation here but neither is perfect.
We can look at galaxies and can see spectral lines and can measure their shifts and recognize that they must be moving with respect to us, and are typically moving away from us so the univsere is expanding. So the universe must look the same from every point in space but it is not static and can look different at different times. Because we want to maintain homogeneity and isotropy through time and because we believe there are no privleged directions or points in space we want this expansion to be solely a function of time. This function of time is what is called the scale factor and it is the fundamental quantity that determines what present distances in the universe are and how fast they are changing. There is no speed of light anywhere around the scale factor, and there isn't going to be.
With all this we can write down the model for the universe, and its called the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric after the smart people who came up with it. Thats fancy talk for a single line that tells you how to compute the "distance" between two events each occuring at their own space and time coordinates. Its equation 8.7 in the article. If you believe we live in a flat universe which you should because theres lots of good experimental evidence for it from studying the cosmic microwave background, even that simplifies a fair bit to something that can look like ds^2 = dt^2-a^2(t)(dx^2+dy^2+dz^2).
The second section in brackets to the right of the scale factor is the way you'd compute the distance between two events in 3d space, just the sum of the squares of their differences in position, and the dt^2 is the bit that adds on time. In any local region of the universe a(t) is constant and can be taken to be one and then you have a return to happy special relativity where the speed of light is constant to all inertial observers. Take a(t) to zero and you see the singularity in the equations which we call the Big Bang. This is where the model and the equations break down and thats all we can truly say about it. The universe (hopefully) does not break down, only our model to describe it does.
This metric, which we can write happily as a diagonal matrix even can be plugged into Einsteins equations and give you yet more equations like the Friedmann equation and the acceleration equation (Carroll 8.35 and 8.36), and you can derive Hubbles law and discusses all the interesting forms of matter you can have in it including what happens in Einstein's equation has a cosmological constant term. You'll notice theres still no speed of light. Stuff in the universe cannot move faster than the speed of light according to some local observer. However, the universe is sort of the fabric on which all the stuff is and that fabric can stretch faster than the speed of light. We do see object moving faster than light. See near end for an example, more information and no serious equations http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/doppler.htm
Thats become somewhat important following the studies of distant supernovae from '98 and we now know that the univer
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
The brain's thoughts can be predicted as well as everything else, if the information of what ever it and it's body is made of and what the brain experienced earlier in life is known... There is nothing random in animals (including humans) decisions.
:)
Choas Theory is about systems that are sensitively dependent on initial conditions, to use the specific phrase that was used when I learned about it. These chaotic systems may follow rigorous non-random rules, but this does not mean that you can look at the current state and predict what the next state will be, because to do so requires literally (really literally) infinite precision. Look at something like the Mandelbrot Set. It uses a very simple iterative equation, nothing random about it, yet the output of the equation is sensitively dependent on the inputs, such the border is infinitely convoluted. You can identify whether a specific point is in the set, but you can't say whether any of the points in the range +/- your last significant digit are.
Assuming the brain is similarly controlled by such chaotic processes, and I don't think this is unreasonable, then it is impossible to actually measure the state of the brain with enough precision to be able to predict its next state, because you would need infinite precision. Does this make it free will? That's a philosophical discussion; I believe in free will, but that's neither here nor there. The point is that an actual predictive simulation of the brain would, at best, be probabilistic and much like our weather predictions would diverge rapidly.
Now there is an interesting twist on this, which is some evidence that our universe is actually discreet and not continuous. This would mean that there actually is a level of precision which is sufficient, because unlike in the real numbers, you could have two points which have no possible points between them. This would mean that it is principle possible to have perfect simulations of the weather, the brain, etc.
However even in this case, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle means that it would still be impossible to measure all of the state in the brain or any other object with that precision, as you would necessarily change its state by measuring it. So you couldn't form a perfectly predictive model of a real human brain; however you could create a perfect model of a hypothetical brain with assumed initial state. That would be highly useful for a variety of purposes, but determining proceduraly (instead of probabilistically) what someone will do in the distant future isn't one of them.
But maybe you're right about Chaos Theory, I actually didn't know that this kind of thinking wasn't a part of it.
Chaos Theory shows that many things which appear random are not, they are just "chaotic" and produce wildly divergent results based on the tiniest difference in inputs. However it also justifies thinking about such things as though they are random, since you can never know the inputs with enough detail to know the output, so it may as well be random as far as we are concerned. The most obvious practical application of which has been producing better random number generators.
The enemies of Democracy are
Chewing through that paper (interesting one by the way) shows that those error bars are based on analysis of the data after processing. Therefore, those error bars on the age of the universe are assuming that the removal of foreground sources and fluctuations due to the Sunyaev Zel'dovich effect have been done absolutely correctly. No attempt (that I can see) has been made to model the errors arising from that procedure. That alone suggests that there are systematic effects which are not accounted for in those results.
I'm extremely sceptical of a lot of error bars on a lot of data. Confusion is a huge topic in radio astronomy (and I don't mean the chaotic, running-around, headless-chicken type of confusion) and I see paper after paper that really doesn't understand it, deal with it or present any full explanation of how errors in confusion analysis would propagate into the answers.
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Anything I post is strictly my own thoughts and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the opinions of IBM.
expansion can be tricky to understand. OK, lets use your baloon analogy.
You take a balloon that's been partially inflated, and paint loads of evenly spaced dots all over it.
Then you further inflate the baloon. Each dot move away from each other dot at a uniform rate (well, more or less).
Universal expansion can be thought of in a similer fashion. It isn't that the edge of the universe is moving farther out, leaving just more and more space inside, it's that the 'space' between( for simplicities sake, galaxies), is increasing in size, expanding outward in every direction. Thus all the galaxies are moving away from each other in much the same way as the dots on the balloon.
Space is expanding like this everywhere, but in small uneven pockets of gravity such as clusters of galaxies, or inside a galaxy, the expansion is less obvious, because of gravity's effects.
Or...you can simply believe in Intelligent Design, and then not have to worry about coming up with ways of justifying the view of your existence that you already have.
Okay...there goes my positive karma for the day...
Man is the lowest-cost, 150-pound, nonlinear, all-purpose computer system which can be mass-produced by unskilled labor.