[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 5 KB, 165x157, 435345345.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5437591 No.5437591[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Can someone explain to me how the universe is only 13.75 billion years old? I can't comprehend how the universe is so young. It feels like the universe should be a lot older for how slow moving it is

>> No.5437618

it is
science is a joke

now shut up

>> No.5437656

>>5437591

Well we say it's that old because that's what we can confirm. The oldest light we can detect is around that.

The light we see now has been traveling that long. But all during that time space has been expanding so the universe could very well be much bigger and older than that. Again, it's what we can confirm though.

>> No.5437689

>>5437591
The universe is finite and there is a relative "scale" of the universe.

think about it. That's why there are limits on how big or small a star can be or limits on speed.

When someone says "The universe is infinite" smack them hard.

Once they have a clue on the transition from the "primordial atom" to the universe of now (with space and time) then we can have a conversation.

>> No.5437716

>>5437689
>When someone says "The universe is infinite" smack them hard.
How is it not?
Do you have some information about the geometry of the universe that cosmologists do not? (or are you expressing a guess?)

>> No.5437718

>>5437591

What?

>> No.5437767

>>5437716
Everything we know about the universe is subject to entropy and finiteness.

I have no earthly idea why people have the urge to say it's "infinite" when all the evidence points to the contrary. Everything in reality is imperfect and limited.

>> No.5437805

>>5437767

If the universe was finite, we'd see copies of stars as we look into deep space.

You travel forward and end up back where you were because the axis folds back onto itself. Light would travel around and end up where it began. Due to that, we'd see a mirror version of everything at some junction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uzd484Mvm2k

Of course space is hyperbolic. So the geometry changes a little, but the concept is the same.

>> No.5437807

>13 billion years
>young

>> No.5437814

>>5437591
I don't think you truly grasp how long a billion years is.

>> No.5437836

>>5437767
It's because they aren't talking about the CONTENTS, but the geometry of space itself.

Put another way, as matter expands in space, there are no edges that are also moving outward.
If there are no edges, no borders, no spatial limits, and no forces to create limits, then space (the fundament of space itself) is described only and entirely by the geometry of its nature.

Cosmologists have thought this will be defined by the total mass.
But there is too little mass for their account, and modern energy summas may matter as much.

>> No.5437845

>>5437836
the concept "Space" like the language of geometry is anthropomorphising the Universe.

Same thing with dog-shit "string theory".

>> No.5437880

>>5437845
>use math to describe the universe
>conclude the universe "is math"

Yeah, string theory is stupid.

>> No.5437886

>>5437591
What you said makes no sense.

And since it exists, it has to be 'anything' old.
It's not that young, but it's good because we (probably, so far) can say we were one of the first intelligent forms of life to appear in it.

So it's good, I think.

Right?

>> No.5437962

If it were much older we would not be able to see other galaxies, and would believe it is a lot smaller than it actually is so be thankful.

>> No.5437988

The ironic thing is that the "age of the universe" makes a lot less sense than people think it does. Because the passage of time is different depending on velocity, different parts of the universe have had different amounts of time pass for them. For instance from the perspective of light on the edge of the universe, less than a second has passed since the big bang.

>> No.5439019

>>5437845
>anthropomorphising the Universe

This is so clearly untrue I figure you meant another word.

>> No.5439030

>>5437988
> implying all events aren't simultaneous for light

>> No.5439028

>>5437886
>What you said makes no sense.
>And since it exists, it has to be 'anything' old.

Of course it makes sense.
He is saying that it seems, with an Earth 4.5BYO, and which is filled with minerals that had to come from many other stars billions of years before our solar system even drifted together, the universe could have been much older.

Not that he has evidence, just that it doesn't seem to be a very large amount of time for many previous stars lives, etc.

>> No.5439033

>>5437962
Are you suggesting galaxies will be extinct in a few billion years more?
That's nonsense.

>> No.5439035

>>5437767

The first and second law of thermodynamics apply to a closed system. There is nothing that says energy is conserved in an open system, nor is there anything that says entropy always increases in an open system.


lrn2thermo

>> No.5440145

>>5437807
I think years is such a bad way to describe things like this

Why dont we call the age of the universe like one billion 'qwerts'

Then all other large times can be expressed through this

I mean we already done it for distance.

>> No.5440419

>>5439019
Humans have done this before. We made God in our image and claimed we were made in his.

>> No.5440449

When the universe was younger, more mass was concentrated in much less space, leading time to run much slower.

As the universe expands, and less mass is in more space, time runs faster.

A billion years is relative.

>> No.5440526

>>5439030
Can you please elaborate and then simplify this for an idiot please.

>> No.5440545

>I can't comprehend how the universe is so young. It feels like the universe should be a lot older for how slow moving it is
Quick question: have you bothered to work any math on it, or do you have any evidence to support your conclusion?

>> No.5440587
File: 109 KB, 406x364, not comfy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5440587

As a species we will run ourselves into the ground long before we gain any conclusive understanding of the universe, let alone develop the technology to explore it. For someone so fascinated in space such as myself & I assume some of the people browsing this board it is heartbreaking but a simple, mostly probable assumption that humans will be extinct within the next 1000 years or so, as an estimate.

> You will never live to see colonized worlds
> you will never live to see human space travel outside of our solar system.
> You will potentially see man walk on mars.