Universe older than it looks

October 27, 2014
Image credit: Hubble/NASA

When astronomers (Bond 2013) first dated the star HD 140283, which lies a mere 190 lightyears from Earth in the constellation of Libra, they were puzzled. This rare, star appeared to be rather ancient and was quickly nicknamed the Methuselah star. It is a metal-poor sub-giant with an apparent magnitude of 7.223. The star had been known for a century or so as a high-velocity star, but its presence in our solar neighborhood and its composition were at odds with theory. Moreover, HD140283 wasn't just an oddity from at the dawn of the Universe, formed short time after the Big Bang. Rather, it seems to be some 14.46 billion years old… which makes it older than the Universe itself, currently estimated to be 13.817 billion years old (estimated from the cosmic microwave background radiation).

Of course, it was ultimately revealed that the error margins on estimating the age of the Methuselah star were in fact much wider than the original research suggested, the astronomers add a margin of 800 million years. The error bars could have it a lot younger, which makes it among the earliest known stellar objects in the Universe, but certainly within the boundaries of time since the Big Bang. But, what of that upper limit on the age? Is there a possibility that this star could somehow be as old as the original measurements suggested but still lie "this side of the Big Bang?

Writing in the International Journal of Exergy, Birol Kilkis of Baskent University, in Ankara, Turkey, thinks so. In 2004, he introduced the Radiating Universe Model (RUM). This intriguing concept suggests that exergy, the energy that is available to do work and the first focus of thermodynamics theory in the 19th Century, will flow from the Big Bang to what Kilkis refers to a thermal sink of infinite size at absolute zero (0 Kelvin) far, far into the future. Using RUM, Kilkis calculated the age of the universe to be 14.885 ± 0.040 billion years, which is marginally older, in the grand scheme of things, than the microwave background estimate, but easily accommodates the original age of HD 140283.

Interestingly, Kilkis' RUM theory gives a new dynamic value to the Hubble constant and suggests that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since 4.4 billion years after the Big Bang, which may well accommodate the notion of . Moreover, this accelerating rate of increase is itself slowing, which in turn may be accounted for by dark matter. Dark energy and are, as have been discussed widely, controversial physical phenomena for which we have absolutely no explanation whatsoever, but we do have observational evidence that suggests they are real. In addition, RUM hints that Planck's constant is not a pure constant at all but a cosmological variable, a point for which some supported was reported in 2013 by Seshavatharam and Lakshminarayana.

"The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is expanding. If the expanding universe has a mass and volume, whatever its shape is, it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis. That "medium" is of infinite size and lies at absolute zero, thus acting as a thermal sink for the , which is a thermally radiating source lying within the sink.

Explore further: Nearby ancient star is almost as old as the Universe

More information: Bond, H.E., Nelan, E.P., VandenBerg, D.A., Schaefer, G.H. and Harmer, D. (2013) 'HD 140283: a star in the solar neighborhood that formed shortly after the big bang', The Astrophysical Journal Letters, Vol. 1, 13 February, p.765. arxiv.org/abs/1302.3180

Seshavatharam, U.V.S. and Lakshminarayana, S. (2013) 'Is Planck's constant – a cosmological variable?', International Journal of Astronomy, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp.11-15, article.sapub.org/10.5923.j.astronomy.20130201.02.html

Kilkis, B.I. (2014) 'An exergetic approach to the age of universe', Int. J. Exergy, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp.76–89. www.inderscience.com/info/inarticle.php?artid=65108

Related Stories

Nearby ancient star is almost as old as the Universe

February 25, 2013

A metal-poor star located merely 190 light-years from the Sun is 14.46+-0.80 billion years old, which implies that the star is nearly as old as the Universe! Those results emerged from a new study led by Howard Bond. Such ...

Recommended for you

Image: Wavemaker moon Daphnis

January 20, 2017

The wavemaker moon, Daphnis, is featured in this view, taken as NASA's Cassini spacecraft made one of its ring-grazing passes over the outer edges of Saturn's rings on Jan. 16, 2017. This is the closest view of the small ...

The evolution of massive galaxy clusters

January 20, 2017

Galaxy clusters have long been recognized as important laboratories for the study of galaxy formation and evolution. The advent of the new generation of millimeter and submillimeter wave survey telescopes, like the South ...

Freeze-dried food and 1 bathroom: 6 simulate Mars in dome

January 20, 2017

Crammed into a dome with one bathroom, six scientists will spend eight months munching on mostly freeze-dried foods—with a rare treat of Spam—and have only their small sleeping quarters to retreat to for solace.

Astronomers search for signs of life on Wolf 1061 exoplanet

January 19, 2017

Is there anybody out there? The question of whether Earthlings are alone in the universe has puzzled everyone from biologists and physicists to philosophers and filmmakers. It's also the driving force behind San Francisco ...

94 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Dark Star
3.9 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
OR... the measured age of the star is off because of some quirk of how it was formed... which might also account for the anomalous speed?
Benni
1.7 / 5 (20) Oct 27, 2014
If the age of this star is accurate, how do such old stars manage to mix with the much younger ones inside our Milky Way? The only way this could be explained is that the Complex Integral used to calculate "redshift" is using wrong limits.
erson
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
JoeBlue
2.3 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2014
If the age of this star is accurate, how do such old stars manage to mix with the much younger ones inside our Milky Way? The only way this could be explained is that the Complex Integral used to calculate "redshift" is using wrong limits.


...or the nature of the redshift is misunderstood completely.
erson
Oct 27, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
brodix
2 / 5 (13) Oct 27, 2014
"The yet unasked-unanswered question is where the observable universe is expanding. That "medium" is of infinite size and lies at absolute zero, thus acting as a thermal sink for the universe."
The reason the idea of this expansion occurring within space was dropped in favor of an expansion of space is because we appear as being at the center.
Now that proposition overlooked the fact that in order to be relativistic, the speed of light would have to increase, in order to remain constant and that would negate the doppler effect.
Eventually they will realize redshift is an optical effect. We are at the center of our view of the universe.
The equivalence principle equates gravity to acceleration, but the surface of the earth is not actually expanding in order to keep us stuck to it. So there is some expansion effect out there, the opposite of gravity, which is "equivalent" to recession, but those galaxies are not actually receding. It would be Einstein's cosmological constant.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
A bit more detail would be useful in this article. What are some of the other consequences of this conjecture? Anything testable, for example?
Psilly_T
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
wow.. just wow.
anyways @ benni I'm no professional cosmologist, but the typical theory of galaxy evolution(not AWT or the others...the most ACCEPTED) states that most galaxies started as small collections of stars and gas(andDM) towards the beginning of the big bang. It's not farfetched (for most people at least) to say that the milkway being as young as it seems, may have collided with a much older or well developed galaxy in the past and we traded some stars. So that is one possible way we are detecting realllly old stars within the milky way. Or the star could belong to one of the milkyway's first generations of stars and we just held onto it for so long.
Or you can jump to AWT and say the universe is infinite and even tho this is the OLDEST star EVER found there will be zillions more to discover that will be older cuz the universe is infitely old etc etc etc... but why can't we see those super old stars? hmmmmm?
Benni
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 27, 2014
The red shift has been already assigned to tired-light model, in which the energy of light gets lost with scattering with particles from interstellar space.

You're referring I believe to "photon scatter effect"? This scatter effect is observed within the density of Earth's atmosphere as the sun progresses from sunrise to sunset. Sunlight is reddest at sunrise & sunset due to the longer distances & more interaction photons encounter with atmospheric particulates. At noontime the sky is bluest due to the shorter distance to earth's surface thus lowering the rate of probability that photons will be subject to absorption & re-emission at a longer wavelength.

The contemporary physicists are too fixated to the schematic concept of void empty vacuum and massive particles - nothing inbetween.
That's for sure, which is part of the reason that the Complex Integral used to set up redshift calculators have at least two wrong limits assigned to them.
Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (16) Oct 27, 2014
I'm so glad I don't have to read that comment. No more crank physics. No more insults. No more BS when trying to understand and discuss reality.

Bye Lenni.

Have someone let me know if you start talking about actual physics some day.
axemaster
4.6 / 5 (10) Oct 27, 2014
the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since 4.4 billion years after the Big Bang, which may well accommodate the notion of dark energy. Moreover, this accelerating rate of increase is itself slowing, which in turn may be accounted for by dark matter

Yeah, let's see how many non-zero derivatives we can stuff into this calculation. Those poor astrophysicists...
Benni
1.3 / 5 (14) Oct 27, 2014
I'm so glad I don't have to read that comment. No more crank physics. No more insults. No more BS when trying to understand and discuss reality.

Bye Lenni.

Have someone let me know if you start talking about actual physics some day.

.......and your "funny farm science" has always been easily pushed aside. Take a course in differential equations & then reset your Ignore button
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (11) Oct 27, 2014
Mmmm, you know, I missed that little detail. I'd like to see some third-party information on this supposed decrease of the acceleration. Is this intended to be a third derivative, that is, the derivative of acceleration as acceleration is the time-derivative of velocity? If so, derivative with respect to what, precisely?

Good question, axe.
OZGuy
4.3 / 5 (12) Oct 28, 2014
Da Schneib

Yep simply applying the Ignore User option to the blatant pseudoscience cranks thins the length of the comments list considerably.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (3) Oct 28, 2014
Mmmm, you know, I missed that little detail. I'd like to see some third-party information on this supposed decrease of the acceleration. Is this intended to be a third derivative, that is, the derivative of acceleration as acceleration is the time-derivative of velocity? If so, derivative with respect to what, precisely?

Good question, axe.

'...it must be expanding into another medium," says Kilkis. That "medium" is of infinite size and lies at absolute zero, thus acting as a thermal sink for the universe, which is a thermally radiating source lying within the sink.'
@Da Schneib, I'm no mathematician but could this suggest the Tensor form of the Diverge Theorem and the covariant derivative. Would this allow for the 3rd derivative you mention? Just a thought that's all and please correct me if I'm up the wrong tree.
tritace
Oct 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
IMP-9
4.4 / 5 (13) Oct 28, 2014
At noontime the sky is bluest due to the shorter distance to earth's surface thus lowering the rate of probability that photons will be subject to absorption & re-emission at a longer wavelength.


Wrong. It's Reighley scattering which is elastic, there is no change in wavelength. This is proven by the fact you can take a solar spectrum and see the atomic lines don't move a sunset. Blue is more strongly scattered than red so it is scattered out in a sunset before the light reaches you.
tritace
Oct 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
foolspoo
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
*observable universe!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Urgelt
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 28, 2014
The researchers are opening a can of worms. What is beyond the celestially observable? What are the products of the big bang expanding into, and what are its properties out there?

Any answer you can supply requires assumptions that are not provable. There's the 'membrane' interpretation, which suggests that the universe is bounded, its size limited by its own energetic expansion. And then there's this interpretation: the universe is infinite, and it wasn't created by a big bang, but the big bang happened in a small part of it. Unfortunately, the 'boundary' is far and unobservable.

If there is an unbounded universe beyond the observable, why must its temperature be absolute zero? This assumption seems risky. If a big bang can happen once, here, it might happen again, out there. There could be all sorts of phenomena beyond the locally-observable.

And so this method of calculating the age of the universe is suspect. Too many assumptions!
RWT
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 28, 2014
The BBT is the Swiss Cheese of physics theories.
Feyn Man
3.7 / 5 (9) Oct 28, 2014
Wait, so the Earth is even OLDER than 6000 years? C'mon people, did god approve this message? I mean, they must have missed transcribing a couple generations of Abrahamic children in Genesis. That would explain the descrep....WHAT? Billions of years? Hey Stupid! Humans haven't been around for that long, so obviously the Universe can't be that old! You thinking types will believe anything...

Da Schneib
4.5 / 5 (8) Oct 28, 2014
At noontime the sky is bluest due to the shorter distance to earth's surface thus lowering the rate of probability that photons will be subject to absorption & re-emission at a longer wavelength.


Wrong. It's Reighley scattering which is elastic, there is no change in wavelength.
Correct, but "Rayleigh."

This is proven by the fact you can take a solar spectrum and see the atomic lines don't move a sunset. Blue is more strongly scattered than red so it is scattered out in a sunset before the light reaches you.
And the Sun appears redder than it actually is. That's because of all the blue scattering which makes the sky blue. And when the Sun is at the horizon, the light has to go through more air, making it even redder.
Feyn Man
4.6 / 5 (11) Oct 28, 2014
The BBT is the Swiss Cheese of physics theories.


Your comment is the Hepatitis of this thread.
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 28, 2014
@Da Schneib, I'm no mathematician but could this suggest the Tensor form of the Diverge Theorem and the covariant derivative. Would this allow for the 3rd derivative you mention? Just a thought that's all and please correct me if I'm up the wrong tree.
Potentially, but there are strong indications ("expanding into another medium") that it's merely the third derivative with respect to time. And I haven't seen any evidence that suggests it's decreasing; rather the reverse, actually. We've measured the acceleration of expansion over time quite carefully using the Hubble space telescope. That's what I was asking for; RUM theory predicts that the acceleration is slowing, but our data say it's not. If there is no such evidence it's a fatal flaw in the theory.
mikecandance
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 28, 2014
The universe is sixty-five years old. That's according to my birth certificate.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Oct 28, 2014
@Da Schneib this is part of a quote from the DE survey team (who apparently use DEcam)
'In 1998, two teams of astronomers studying distant supernovae made the remarkable discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. Yet, according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity should lead to a slowing of the expansion...'
This would seem to support what you post. However, would this not suggest that GR is only a local approximation, local on the cosmic scale that is, or perhaps the 2nd step on a larger stairway, Newtonian..GR..??
To me, as a layman, this is how the present situation of apparent contradictions seems to be unfolding...exciting times though, eh?
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 29, 2014
@Da Schneib this is part of a quote from the DE survey team (who apparently use DEcam)
'In 1998, two teams of astronomers studying distant supernovae made the remarkable discovery that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. Yet, according to Einstein's theory of General Relativity, gravity should lead to a slowing of the expansion...'
Precisely. That's why I say the expansion is not only accelerating, but the acceleration is increasing over time. That's the opposite of the claim in the predecessor to this paper, which is,
this accelerating rate of increase is itself slowing
. These two claims are in opposition, and one is theoretical and one is observed fact. It looks to me like RUM is denied by the observed facts.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
This would seem to support what you post. However, would this not suggest that GR is only a local approximation, local on the cosmic scale that is, or perhaps the 2nd step on a larger stairway, Newtonian..GR..??
Not if the cosmological term in the Einstein Field Equations is correct. If that term is correct, then the explanation for the accelerating expansion is cosmological constant, AKA "vacuum energy," AKA "zero point energy," AKA "Casimir effect," AKA inflaton.

To me, as a layman, this is how the present situation of apparent contradictions seems to be unfolding...exciting times though, eh?
Well, hopefully I've made it clearer just why it's so exciting right now. We just in the last two decades discovered the acceleration of the expansion, and have only in the last decade really confirmed it; and the last decade has also been when we discovered the small anisotropies in the CMBR that we're now interpreting as gravity waves generated during inflation.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
@Da Schneib, yes thanks for clarifications and am aware of Λ = 8πρ or something like that (ha) Is it possible that a new equation of state for ρ might be derived and allow us to decide whether we're in for a 'big rip' or not. Has anyone made an attempt with present data if and when a big rip/crunch might happen? agh...not a nice thought either way.
mikep608
1 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2014
HERE'S MY WEBPAGE LINK. I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS

https://www.faceb...timeline
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 29, 2014
@Da Schneib, yes thanks for clarifications...
Sure! My pleasure.

Is it possible that a new equation of state for ρ might be derived and allow us to decide whether we're in for a 'big rip' or not. Has anyone made an attempt with present data if and when a big rip/crunch might happen? agh...not a nice thought either way.
A "Big Crunch" appears impossible, due to accelerating expansion. A "Big Rip," if it can happen at all, is trillions of years away, at minimum; that is, thousands of times the current age of the universe. Assuming of course that the vacuum is not meta-stable; if it's meta-stable, then it could undergo vacuum decay any time at random, and after vacuum decay, the laws of physics would be different. This would obviate the possibility of any life ever existing here again. But that's not very likely.
Mimath224
5 / 5 (4) Oct 29, 2014
@Da Schneib, once again, thanks..Ha, like the way you put it '...is trillions of years away...Assuming of course that the vacuum is not meta-stable...'
Uncle Ira
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 29, 2014
I LIKE TO REINTERPRET EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS SO WE CAN HAVE MORE USEFUL KNOWLEDGE TO GUIDE US IN PROGRESS


Is that what you call it where you live Cher?

Down here we call that trying to hide the fact you don't understand something in a lot of mumbo-jumbo. You might want to hang back for awhile Skippy, there are some very talented couyons at that on here. But I bet Really-Skippy would like to hear more about it (watch him though, he might try use it on his toes.)
viko_mx
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
How do astronomers determine the age of a star? By spectral analysis of the light coming from it revealing what cemical elements contain or its mass and size? How do they understand that the most distant galaxies we see are at distance of approximately 13.7 billion years? Here in this article results of two dating methods do not match. What could be the reason?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
@Da Schneib, once again, thanks..Ha, like the way you put it '...is trillions of years away...Assuming of course that the vacuum is not meta-stable...'
I've been reading Iain Banks. And Brian Greene. :D
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
How do astronomers determine the age of a star? By spectral analysis of the light coming from it revealing what cemical elements contain or its mass and size? How do they understand that the most distant galaxies we see are at distance of approximately 13.7 billion years? Here in this article results of two dating methods do not match. What could be the reason?
Good question.

The method for dating the universe is the CMB, the Cosmic Microwave Background. The first acoustic peak in the power spectrum of the CMB gives the distance to the surface of last scattering; this is at the end of the recombination period, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Since the CMB moves at the speed of light, this distance directly tells the age of the universe since the end of recombination (which is when the average energy of the vacuum decreased enough to allow electrons to combine with protons and more complex nuclei, and form atoms.

contd
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Once atoms were formed, most of the matter in the universe was no longer charged, and therefore no longer interacted constantly with the energy in the universe. The universe became transparent. You can see if you think about it why all this must be so, with the possible exception of the meaning of the first acoustic peak in the power spectrum. If you need this explained, ask. This is fun. :D

Now, the age of stars is determined by a number of methods, some of them rather messy. There is no really unified method that works for all stars. Also, much of this depends upon knowledge of the lifecycles of various kinds of stars. However, a great deal of all of this depends upon the mass of the star; knowing this, it's generally possible to assign the star to one of a handful of categories of lifecycle, and from there determine its age.

Accuracy of +/- 1% is available without much strain on our instruments for most stars; there are a few outliers.

contd

Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Now, measurement of the rate of recession, and of the distance, to other galaxies (and particularly ones that are very far away) is something we have been pursuing since before WWII. The telescopes of that time could resolve distant galaxies, and spectral lines gave their recession velocities, but distance was more difficult. That waited until the 1980s and 1990s, when we put the Hubble Space Telescope up, and then gave it its optical corrector plate upgrade.

This instrument allowed us to observe supernovae in these distant galaxies, and spectral analysis allowed us to determine that these supernovae were just like nearby supernovae. These nearby supernovae were mixed into the same areas of galaxies as a particular type of star called a Cepheid Variable; the importance of these Cepheids is that their variability is directly related to their absolute luminosity.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
This of course means that if you know the variation period of a Cepheid, and you know its observed brightness, you can calculate its distance. Since these special supernovae (called Type Ia supernovae) were mixed with Cepheids, in the same galaxy at the same distance, we were able to tell that they also had a period-luminosity relationship, but unlike Cepheids they only got bright once, then decayed off in an exponentially decaying curve. But that curve could be matched, and from that matching, the distance to the Type Ia supernova could be determined.

Over many years, we have seen many supernovae in many galaxies, and most of them have been Type Ia (it's the most common type, luckily). We therefore know the distances to many, many galaxies.

But that's not all.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Remember that we can tell the recession velocity of a galaxy by its redshift. So now we have both distance data, and velocity data, for many, many galaxies. So now we can characterize the expansion rate of the universe over time.

When we do this, we find that the expansion rate decelerated after the Big Bang for about 7 billion years; then, it halted its deceleration (without halting the expansion, you understand), and started to accelerate. Its rate of acceleration has increased in the approximately 7 billion years since that time.

This is the reason that astrophysicists and cosmologists talk about "dark energy;" it is the energy of spacetime, its intrinsic cosmological constant in the Einstein Field Equations, the pressure in the Casimir experiment, zero point energy. The energy of the vacuum, which is forever creating virtual particles and reabsorbing them before they can be detected.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Oh, and I left one step out: how was the period/luminosity relation of Cepheids calibrated to give their absolute distance?

Simple: nearby Cepheids were characterized, ones that were close enough to be triangulated using the Earth's orbit as a baseline. This gave a definite distance to them, and the period/luminosity relation sprang out of the data. Once we knew about them, we were able to use them to find the distances to many nearby galaxies, and once we knew that, we were able to calibrate the Type Ia supernovae.

So as you can see, the distances to the things we can see in the universe are very easily known, and can be (and in fact have been) very widely examined in exhaustive detail.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
And a quick addendum: this section of a Wikipedia article explains measurement of the distance to the Last Scattering Surface (LSS) using the first peak in the power spectrum; it also discusses the fact that recombination was not an instant process, but instead took a hundred thousand years or so. http://en.wikiped...isotropy
viko_mx
4 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
Is it possible there is another reason for CBM? If in the early ancient times as big bang theory suggests there was such radiation, it would have long ago left the boundaries of the universe, or at least the visible part, unless the universe has reflective boundaries. Radiation from cosmic objects and the interaction of electromagnetic waves with the free atoms in space can you give us the same picture of CBM? With respect to the stars the theory is also not so clear. For example what was the percentage of chemical elements in the given young star or was there a close interaction between it and other cosmic objects? Can we say that we know well the physical processes that occur in the stars? I understand that methods for determining cosmic distances are relatively accurate and sometimes employed several methods simultaneously to estimate the distance to an object.
viko_mx
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
But if we make a mistake at the beginning of the chain of calculations from the nearest to the farthest objects in the universe and use false assumptions or incorrect interpretations of the observed phenomena, it may eventually lead to serious errors in calculations and wrong results. For example, Class IA supernovae are considered equal in their luminosity this assumtion can be used for determining their distance to us, but is it really so? There are very few supernovae, which to me is unexplainable taking into account the age of the universe 13.7 billion years, which suggests big bang theory and statistics does not give us more security.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Is it possible there is another reason for CBM? If in the early ancient times as big bang theory suggests there was such radiation, it would have long ago left the boundaries of the universe, or at least the visible part, unless the universe has reflective boundaries.
No. You're thinking of the Big Bang as a teeny little fireball. By the time the Big Bang happened, space was already large, and the Big Bang happened everywhere. Therefore, the CMB reaching us now is from the edge of the observable universe then.

Radiation from cosmic objects and the interaction of electromagnetic waves with the free atoms in space can you give us the same picture of CBM?
No, they can't. Do you seriously think no one thought to check? You are being silly if you do.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
With respect to the stars the theory is also not so clear.
It's pretty straightforward:
1. Measure the distance to lots of stars. (See Hipparcos satellite mission launched by the ESA.)
2. Identify a variable star type whose period/luminosity relation is stable. (These are called "Cepheid variables.")
3. Use these stars to measure the distances to nearby galaxies (say within a billion light years or so).
4. Identify a really bright star type whose period/luminosity relation is stable, and use the Cepheid variables to establish its range and the period/luminosity relation. (These are called "Type Ia supernovae.")
5. Use these supernovae to measure the distance to galaxies.
6. Use the redshift of the galaxies to measure their velocity of recession.
7. Measure the CMB very, very precisely over a range of frequencies and resolutions.
8. Construct a cosmology using this data.

It's called ΛCDM. Pronounced "lambda see dee em."

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Can we say that we know well the physical processes that occur in the stars?
Yes, actually, we can. We use spectroscopy, which is analysis of the emission and absorption lines of light. It reveals chemical composition, and velocity and direction, as well as the class of the star; given that and its mass, we know a very great deal.

We can be sure of this because we understand a very great deal about our local star, the Sun. And we can put satellites up to study it, and in fact we have.

But if we make a mistake at the beginning of the chain of calculations from the nearest to the farthest objects in the universe and use false assumptions or incorrect interpretations of the observed phenomena, it may eventually lead to serious errors in calculations and wrong results.
So show where the above chain is vulnerable to that.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
For example, Class IA supernovae are considered equal in their luminosity this assumtion can be used for determining their distance to us, but is it really so?
Yes. Their particular morphology can be identified from their spectral changes, and from their characteristic light curve. They happen in a very specific well-understood manner, on stars of a particular type whose size is limited by physics to a fairly narrow range of values. This is substantiated by literally thousands of papers published over the last seventy or eighty years.

The size limits of the white dwarves that form Type Ia supernovae are very stringent; 1.38 solar masses. And the smallest they can be is not a great deal smaller than that. Therefore, the power of a supernova formed by such a star is of a pretty constant value. Furthermore, they display characteristic spectra that make them easily identifiable.

You have not shown a vulnerability in the theory.

This is insufficient evidence.

contd
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
There are very few supernovae
This is incorrect. There are in fact a billion supernovae a year in the visible universe.

http://www.astron...574.html

About twice a century for galaxies like the Milky Way, and since there are about 30 billion of these spiral galaxies in the visible universe, that works out to perhaps 1 billion every YEAR. We don't see most of these because their optical light is probably hidden by galactic dust clouds in their own host galaxies.


I think you'd better reconsider. There's a lot more data to explain than you seem to think exists.

And see, all of this is based on triangulation using Earth's orbit as a baseline. It's as dependable as an artillery rangefinder. More dependable, in fact, the scientists check their instruments every time.
viko_mx
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
"By the time the Big Bang happened, space was already large, and the Big Bang happened everywhere" .
How can we know this? This is only a hypothesis, but not confirmed fact, because there is no direct evidence of the events of distant past. We explore the space of a few centuries, but for several decades we have relatively precise monitoring tools. Within this short period we are trying to reconstruct hypothetical distant past, extrapolating from several decades to several billion years, which I think is very bold undertaking.
We do spectral analysis, but electromagnetic waves generated in the core of a star are traveling to the surface millions of years before leaving the star, because they are constantly absorbed and re-emitted by the plasma with great density, which changes their spectral composition and does not give an accurate picture of the proportion of chemical elements present in the core of star or close to its boundaries.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
So what we see is not the full picture. Each member of the rare class IA super nova may be slightly different from the others in chemical composition and even small deviation in the concentration of some chemical elements may have a strong catalytic effect on thermonuclear reaction during the detonation of a progenitor star. Critical mass 1,38 solar masses theoretically you received or experimentally established?
"This is incorrect. There are in fact a billion supernovae a year in the visible universe."
We only assume that there are billions of super nоvas every year based on statistics, but do not see them and again rely on assumptions rather than facts.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (3) Oct 30, 2014
"We can be sure of this because we understand a very great deal about our local star, the Sun."
In fact we do not undersand very well our own star. For the missing neutrinos and dark sunspots physicists still do not offer a satisfactory explanation. And the reason for the cyclical changes in solar activity too.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
erson
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
Ironically enough, the Big Bang model has been introduced into physics for to promote the general relativity theory.... according to luminiferous aether model...
[sic] @ZEPHIR/erson
and the aw/daw philosophy/faith was introduced and then debunked with empirical evidence from various studies and experiments, the latest being here:
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
So you are saying we should throw away BB for an already debunked POS perspective that is proven fallacious for an extremely high degree in the above experiment?
WOW
the daw/aw illustrates how the gullible and ignorant can be conned into believing in something when empirical evidence proves that it cannot exist
especially with such a high degree of accuracy

Your comments are simply trolling and pushing a known pseudoscience
reported
eng457
3 / 5 (2) Oct 30, 2014
I like that someone is trying to explain the long lasting discrepancy of the age inconsistency of the oldest stars / globular clusters not to mention early mature galaxies. As seen from the recent BICEP2/Planck data reassessment inflation is far from a slam dunk (also see The Inflation Debate by Paul J. Steinhardt) show that current age determinations make many many assumptions, and if two ages are not agreeing it is likely that one or both methodologies are off - perhaps slightly, perhaps significantly. While I'm at it - most articles such as these ignore the spectacular agreement with observations of the MOND theory. In my mind MOND should be the clear baseline and CDM with it's endless unlikely assumptions, a distance second.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
"By the time the Big Bang happened, space was already large, and the Big Bang happened everywhere" .
How can we know this?
Because we can see it in the CMB.

This is only a hypothesis,
No, it's a full-blown theory. It has made predictions that were confirmed; it's been tested and passed the test.

but not confirmed fact, because there is no direct evidence of the events of distant past.
What do you think the CMB is?

We do spectral analysis, but electromagnetic waves generated in the core of a star are traveling to the surface millions of years before leaving the star... which changes their spectral composition and does not give an accurate picture of the proportion of chemical elements present in the core of star or close to its boundaries.
This is incorrect. The spectral lines are from the star's atmosphere, which blocks at the wavelengths absorbed by elements present in the atmosphere.

contd
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Oct 30, 2014
Stars are made almost completely of hydrogen. It is the very small variances in composition that appear in the spectrum, and this information is not all we see; we can see the mass and brightness of the star as well as its movement, and the movement is known by red or blue shifting of the spectral lines. So chemical composition is not all the information we get just from spectra, and we have other sources of information, mass and brightness.

Each member of the rare class IA super nova may be slightly different from the others in chemical composition and even small deviation in the concentration of some chemical elements may have a strong catalytic effect on thermonuclear reaction during the detonation of a progenitor star.
You'll need some evidence to support this contention. And fusion at these temperatures and pressures is not affected by small amounts of impurities.

Critical mass 1,38 solar masses theoretically you received or experimentally established?
Both.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Oct 30, 2014
"This is incorrect. There are in fact a billion supernovae a year in the visible universe."
We only assume that there are billions of super nоvas every year based on statistics, but do not see them and again rely on assumptions rather than facts.
This is becoming silly. There are thousands of galaxies close enough for us to see how many supernovae happen in them, turned so they are face-on to us and the light is not blocked by their dust. This is simply a matter of counting.

"We can be sure of this because we understand a very great deal about our local star, the Sun."
In fact we do not undersand very well our own star.
Sure we do. We've been studying it up close for millenia.

For the missing neutrinos
Neutrino flavor oscillations.

and dark sunspots
Emergence of magnetic field lines decoupled from the deeper main magnetic field due to convection.

Furthermore, that there are remaining mysteries does not mean we don't understand it well.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
Dark matter was invented with the idea to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe, according to the interpretation of the red shift in the spectrum of light coming from distant galaxies that make big bang theorists. According to them it is due to the Doppler effect, based on which they calculated that the most distant visible galaxies are moving away at a speed which is a significant percentage of the speed of light. Such movement requires tremendous energy, according to the theory of relativity, which was embarrassing to the big bang theorists. So they decided to circumvent the laws of physics by inventing expanding space that moves in a magical way matter in the universe from the imaginary center to the periphery and dark energy necessary for this movement which represents 75% of the equivalent mass in the universe.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
This is a classic example of how a wrong interpretation of the observed phenomena entails in the next several decades a bunch of strange hypotheses, thanks to which the official cosmology is in serious conflict with many old and new incoming data from observations. The Doppler effect is valid for static Euclidean space, not for expanding space, which is a purely philosophical hypothesis. Expanding to what? But if in fact the red shift is due to the fatigue of light, this means that the universe is not expanding and exotic dark matter is not needed. It is logical that when the light comes from a distant object in the universe, it has more interactions with gas clouds and atoms in free space. These interactions are elastic and electromagnetic waves lose some of its energy, but keep its direction. These interactions are part of the cosmic background radiation.
viko_mx
2 / 5 (4) Oct 30, 2014
The greater the distance between the light source and the observer, the more concentrated mass is in the space between them, which has a gravitational effect on the electromagnetic wave, and it loses part of its energy while overcoming the large space distances. It is interesting to note that the values ​​of the red shift increased stepwise with increasing distance to the object, not smooth, and this is intuitively explained by the existing structure of the universe. Properties of the vacuum of space are not well studied and can also contribute to red shift efect to electromagnetic waves overcoming long distances in space.

In the above post instead of dark matter I mean dark energy
Da Schneib
4.3 / 5 (6) Oct 30, 2014
Dark matter was invented with the idea to explain the accelerating expansion of the universe
No. Dark *energy* explains that. Dark *matter* explains anomalous rotations of galaxies that would make them fly apart if it didn't exist.

Viko, you're starting to sound like one of the standard cranks here. About one more post like that and you're on my ignore list.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Oct 30, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 31, 2014
@ Da Schneib

Democracy. Anyone with his opinion. I do not eat a human approval.
I notice quite intolerant attitude of those supporting two evolution theries to people with slightly different mindset. They become nervous and impolite, and start using offensive comparisons and qualifications without having received such an attitude. Nervous is insecure person who feels the weakness of his arguments.
In the last post I specify that it is a dark energy. Obviously you not read my posts carefully.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2014
So how come you never heard of neutrino flavor oscillations until now?

They've been confirmed, BTW, experimentally. At Sudbury, in Canada, in 2001. That's a decade and a half ago.
viko_mx
1 / 5 (2) Nov 01, 2014
I've heard of neutrinos oscillations, but it is a theotical model. The theory does not serve as evidence, but only facts.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
The dense aether model explains
@ZEPHIR/tritace
the DAWmodel explains absolutely nothing, as it is based upon a fallacious argument, and given that it's foundations are fallacious, it cannot explain reality in any way, shape or form
how do we know this?
It is proven to a very high degree with the following published peer reveiwed paper which details an experiment which proves your religion is false with empirical evidence: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

to visualize reality in the form of a known fallacy is called a delusion, and can also be considered hallucinations, and there are meds you can get to help you

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2014
Anyone with his opinion. I do not eat a human approval
@viko_mx
1- we don't "eat" humans, or their approval
now, regardless of your spelling or grammatical ignorance (english your second language?) democracy is not the same thing as empirical evidence
your "vote" is not equal to scientific evidence
it only means you "believe" in something different than someone else
I notice quite intolerant attitude of those supporting two evolution theries to people with slightly different mindset
[sic]
1- there is only one evolution theory that i know of
2- creation faith is not science
3- empirical evidence is king in science, not votes, opinions or conjecture, so the rudeness you may be experiencing is actually intolerance of people who cannot justify conjecture or bring empirical evidence proving a point (a common tactic of trolls and creationist)

there is a difference between believing in something and being able to prove it
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2014
I've heard of neutrinos oscillations, but it is a theotical model. The theory does not serve as evidence, but only facts.
@viko_mx
and what Schneib is saying is this: https://en.wikipe...illation
and this: http://arxiv.org/...72v6.pdf
and this: http://www.nature...702.html

IOW - his argument is substantiated by evidence and can be viewed in peer reviewed studies published in reputable journals with an impact in the subject material, that offer empirical evidence of his statements, whereas your claims are simply conjecture without evidence

conjecture is fine in a democracy, but in science, evidence rules

why not try to expand your horizons. go here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
learn some of the basics and perhaps you can then learn to argue science with evidence instead of personal opinion and irrelevant comments

thanks
jibbles
4 / 5 (4) Nov 01, 2014
The researchers are opening a can of worms. What is beyond the celestially observable? What are the products of the big bang expanding into, and what are its properties out there?
:
:
If there is an unbounded universe beyond the observable, why must its temperature be absolute zero? This assumption seems risky. If a big bang can happen once, here, it might happen again, out there. There could be all sorts of phenomena beyond the locally-observable.

And so this method of calculating the age of the universe is suspect. Too many assumptions!


Good Points! Also, I haven't visited this site for a while, but now that I'm here, I must say I absolutely love -- love! -- the ignore user button! Thank you Physorg!
jibbles
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2014
Thanks for all the well-dispatched concise background info, Da Schneib!
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
viko_mx
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
@Captain Stumpy

What it means to broaden my horizons? To believe that there is no reason-causal relationship and everything appeared from nothing and order out of chaos for no reason, just by chance? To believe in crazy hypothesis and fictional events that have no scientific value, but whose goal is to patch the crumbling theory as a result of its bankruptcy and conflict with observed reality? Faith in such ideas Is wide shut eyes. As a reasonable person I prefer to believe that everything has meaning and purpose and that things do not happen by chance in our world. But it may be more profitable to believe in evolution. I do not deny this possibility.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2014
You see - it was me, who proposed this functionality here many times for to counterfeit the voting trolls here
@ZEPHIR
you were not the only one, moron
You may consider it as a first practical application of AWT model
and the aw/daw is not a theory, it is a philosophy or a faith, as it has been proven false with experiments and evidence, so anyone supporting it is simply supporting a religious faith and not science

there is no science in it
there is no proof of it
there is no empirical evidence for it

there is, however empirical evidence that proves, to an incredibly high degree, that you are lying and that aw/daw is a pseudoscience because it is proven false:
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
this proves you are lying and pushing a known pseudoscience, zeph
TROLL elsewhere
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2014
conjecture is fine in a democracy, but in science, evidence rules

Only if this evidence is factual
@ZEPHIR
in science, there is experimental evidence, adn that is not able to be refuted. the evidence speaks for itself:
like this: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf
which proves your aw/daw impossibe, wrong and nothing more than a religious faith for acolytes to proselytize
we are facing the silly circular reasoning
this is all you have for your aw/daw- you have never given any scientific evidence or proof, mostly because it is already proven false: http://arxiv.org/...1284.pdf
your whining is not going to make your faith based conjectures any more true
it will only make you look worse
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2014
the scientists have problem with elementary principles of logical deduction and they're predestined to repeat the same mistakes again and again.
@ZEPHIR
this is actually funny, coming from you
you ignore empirical evidence for the sake of a faith, but you say scientists have the problem?
ROTFLMFAO

What it means to broaden my horizons
@Vikotheveggiebrain
it means to get an education in the basics before you make yourself look even more rediculous
it also means that learning how to have critical thinking skills might make you more apt to consider a logical non-faith based argument which will force you to consider reality instead of dreaming up conjecture that is unprovable
You know, there are free dictionaries on line explaining all the words: http://dictionary.com/
also translates and provides links to colloquial terms and slang expressions too!
Captain Stumpy
3 / 5 (2) Nov 02, 2014
everything appeared from nothing
@viko
you do realize your religion says the same thing, right?
Faith in such ideas Is wide shut eyes
there is no faith in science, there is only evidence and logical deduction

if you cannot comprehend the basics of science and how things advance from an idea to conjecture through to theory, why are you here proselytizing your faith, which has a fallacious foundation based upon known lies, secret authorship, and blatantly cherry picked ideas (called the cannon)?
this proves, empirically, that your basing any decision on your religion is no different than trying to read the future by sifting through diarrhea in a bowl and hoping to find molded gold bars stamped with the seal of solomon (intentional sarcasm /hyperbole /satire)

tritace
Nov 02, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
Aether is not nothing
@ZEPHIR
so you keep saying...
but based upon all the writings which were then tested... like here:
http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

it means it is a lie
a fallacy
so it is true... aether is not nothing, it is proven to be a lie

that means it doesn't solve problems
it cannot define anything
it does not "mean" anything
it is not a theory, or hypothesis, or even a conjecture... it is proven WRONG

only an acolyte clinging and proselytizing for a religious style belief would accept it as still viable after the level of evidence being presented... 10^-17 places!

this is not some "conjecture"

it is repeated empirical evidence with a supremely high degree of accuracy proving you a liar acolyte spreading pseudoscience looking for faithful followers to con out of whatever

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2014
Just follow your own head, not the voting of other people. For me something like the voting has no meaning: you only have an arguments - or you haven't
@ZEPHIR
actually, a lot of the voting shows who is promoting pseudoscience and who is promoting real science

and as for arguments: you have never had one that had any type of empirical evidence supporting aether or it's variations

not once

although there is evidence that aether is a failed hypothesis: http://exphy.uni-...2009.pdf

so the argument then is: why do you keep repeating it is viable?

you promote pseudoscience
not real science

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Proponents of evolutionary theories rely on pure chance
This is fundamentally incorrect. In fact, organisms have evolved to conserve mutations and then express them at times of maximum stress when they are most likely to be beneficial. This is the function of much of the "junk DNA" in the human genome, and in many other genomes.

It's not pure chance at all. In fact sex evolved in order to allow this kind of manipulation of pure chance in favor of life. And it did so by natural selection.

Natural selection is what religionists always leave out when talking about evolution. Evolution is a brute fact; the theory part is that it happens as a result of natural selection, and it's just about as reliable as the theory that breeds of domestic animals appear as a result of human, i.e. "unnatural," selection. Notably the second theory is not in any way controversial, but idiotic religionists refuse to admit that the first isn't either despite the evidence in front of their noses.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Nov 04, 2014
Wolves and dogs can interbreed. Are they the same species?

Would you imagine a Pekingese is the same species as a gray wolf? Really? And given the human race can "artificially" select to such an extent as to produce a Pekingese from a gray wolf, acting over no more than tens of thousands of years, what do you imagine the equally extreme selection mechanisms that operate as a result of natural events acting over a billion years, a hundred million times longer, can do?

Natural selection is as obvious as a principle can be. What, animals *don't* die when presented with a challenge they cannot overcome, and slightly different ones that have an advantage in coping with that challenge *don't* do better? That's nutty.
Bill C_
5 / 5 (1) Dec 16, 2014
My calculations years ago place an upper limit on the age of the universe at about

18.624 billion years !

Bill C.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.