what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?

[PeterDona]

Just for grins, here's a couple of very general descriptions about the historical developments in the thinking of Astrophysicists and other scientists about the age of the universe ...

Imagine the Universe!

Age of the universe - Wikipedia

hehe, yes the wikipedia is certainly a very biased and very one-eyed article. At least as concerns the history of the development of the age of the universe. I believe it was George Cuvier who around 1770 was the first scientist to claim that the universe was no 6.000 but 70.000 years old. And then came aroun 1830 Charles Lyell who claimed that fossils found in the earth should be millions of years old. And so on and so forth. Would have been interesting if the wikipedia referenced that development.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

hehe, yes the wikipedia is certainly a very biased and very one-eyed article. At least as concerns the history of the development of the age of the universe. I believe it was George Cuvier who around 1770 was the first scientist to claim that the universe was no 6.000 but 70.000 years old. And then came aroun 1830 Charles Lyell who claimed that fossils found in the earth should be millions of years old. And so on and so forth. Would have been interesting if the wikipedia referenced that development.

I typically hate Wikipedia, but as I said previously, it offers a very 'general' [i.e. not specific] account. Moreover, Geology isn't Astronomy, so I doubt the focus of an article about the age of the Universe is going to say much about Cuvier or Lyell and/or Geology.

Did you read the NASA link right above it?

Either way, we KNOW the Earth and Universe are far older than several thousand years. As an academic researcher, we can find more if you like ...

 

[sjastro]

What everyone has to get very humble about, is all the theories etc. are based upon electromagnetic radiation hitting the earth and how it is interpreted. So red shift to mean distance travelled is a speculative idea. Or take the idea that light could start from a galaxy 100,000 light years away. Now as the universe expanded the distance between us and the travelling light increased faster than the light was travelling so that 100,000 light years becomes 25 billion light years. For this to be true we have to be moving away from the initial point of emission faster than the speed of light. But for the light to catch up with us, we have to have slowed down again.

Now the theories say it is impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, relative to another object. The excuse is space was created between us and the light, so we were not travelling through space, but space was coming into existence so the affect is we moved away beyond the speed of light. This sounds like an excuse for an impossible situation.

First of all for metric expansion or in this case the expansion of space-time does not involve a “point of emission” as the BB (Big Bang) did not occur in a specific spot in space-time.

Secondly exceeding the speed of light due to expanding space-time is not based on an “excuse”.
When GR (General Relativity) which is the gravitational model for various cosmologies was first published in 1915 it was found the conservation of energy, a pillar of classical physics, does not apply to certain conditions such as expanding space-times.
This was a good ten years before the BB model came out and since energy is not conserved objects being carried by the Hubble flow can exceed the speed of light.
For redshifts z > 1.46 this is found to be the case.

An exponential expansion of space-time many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early history of the universe explains why the universe is geometrically flat and every point in the universe is causally connected resulting in the universe cooling down uniformly and appearing to be isotropic and homogenous to the observer.

Worse still it is easy to say vast space was created between us, while we were not blown apart by the space growing across our bodies. The problem is there is no difference in space between that is occupied by matter and that occupied by a vacuum.

No it doesn’t.
In gravitationally bound systems such has the Local Cluster, our Milky Way galaxy or the solar system gravity prevents expansion from occurring.
Furthermore the effects of expansion are only apparent at cosmological scales.

The problem with simplified mathematics, the approximate equations can make sense but when applied they fail to account for complexity and subtle differences.

The BB like any other physics model is a mathematical model which is an approximation.
Its success or failure depends on whether it agrees with experiment and observation.

And to cap it all, none of this matters. In our lifetimes we are never going to get to the nearest star.
And the forces involved are so vast even our fusion bombs are a grain of sand to the planet. It is like the search for intelligent life in outer space. All we see is a totally aggressive and destructive environment everywhere except within our atmosphere. We are currently the only unique stable environment that can support life. The more we look it seems the less likely we will find any alternatives. And why do people fund looking? Because they believe it must be there and they want to prove evolution ie a religion is real. I do not believe in evolution, but I believe God the creator did not tell us everything or limits what might be, but invites us to explore.

As Christians I would like to answer a different question. Why did God create the universe as we see it? There is something very profound going on here, to do with His vastness and our limitations.

Hitch Hikers guide to the galaxy had a weapon called the total perspective vortex, which was designed to destroy someone by showing them their insignificance compared to the universe. I would say part of knowing God is knowing this reality and knowing God gives us His value through Jesus, which takes us and makes us unbelievably blessed and valued and important because of Him. So love does matter, life is a beautiful expression of Gods heart.

God bless you

This is not relevant in a science discussion as science attempts to explain “how” and not “why”.

 

[sjastro]

I would like to make a little comment about the video. First off, when a video has 5.9 million views it means that at least a small portion of the earths population did find it interesting - or maybe simply that the american teachers association has made this video a compulsory watch at the beginning of every physics class.

For me, as a person who was fed all those ideas before I could start to think and investigate, and now having decided on another world view, it is interesting for selfreflection to see how many of the concepts by now I consider to be purely religious.
- Bing Bang is an impossible event
- nothing can travel faster than light speed except it did in that assumed fast expansion of the universe during the first second (not a pun).
- I can not take the age of the universe as a given
- the speaker's nerdy character simply looks like a person being so selfdefeating that we cannot think otherwise than to grant him the favor of initial trust - right?

So that is my selfreflection, but I would be hard pressed to think that the other 5.9 million viewers had the same experience

It’s a YouTube video designed in the same vein as the “for dummies books” to provide a simplified explanation without baffling the reader with mathematics.
It’s not meant to provide a peer reviewed account or a substitute for a post graduate course in physics or applied mathematics.

The harsh reality it requires knowledge at a tertiary level to understand why objects can exceed the speed of light in the Hubble flow or how inflation has prevented the evolution of a lifeless universe due to the action of magnetic monopoles which I have attempted to simplify in this post.

 

[AV1611VET]

Likewise [and pardon my parody]...

That is why Christians can't reach agreement on the Age of either the Earth or the Universe.

I totally agree.

But you do realize that the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is specifically, do you not?

Just that it's old.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

And even calculating how long it has been in existence by concatenating the genealogies yields different dates.

That's why I've said before that I use Usher's dates for the sake of Occam's razor.

 

[sjastro]

Okay ... I watched it in its entirety.

And for the record, I didn't understand 90% of what he said.

It's all Greek to me.

The video states the universe has expanded in the 13.7 billion years it has taken a distant photon from the BB to reach us.
Given it is a simplified video this is not 100% accurate.
The earliest photons to reach us are from the cosmic radiation background formed approximately 300,000 years after the BB.
The cosmic radiation background forms an opaque layer making it impossible for photons beyond the background to reach us.

 

[AV1611VET]

The video states the universe has expanded in the 13.7 billion years it has taken a distant photon from the BB to reach us.
Given it is a simplified video this is not 100% accurate.
The earliest photons to reach us are from the cosmic radiation background formed approximately 300,000 years after the BB.
The cosmic radiation background forms an opaque layer making it impossible for photons beyond the background to reach us.

Thanks for the 4-1-1.

But you realize I don't buy that, don't you?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I totally agree.

But you do realize that the Bible doesn't say how old the Earth is specifically, do you not?

Just that it's old.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Yes, I'm very aware of the fact that there is an indeterminacy of the earth's age in the Bible.

And even calculating how long it has been in existence by concatenating the genealogies yields different dates.

Yep.

That's why I've said before that I use Usher's dates for the sake of Occam's razor.

Oh? Well, I'm not a big fan of Occam's Razor. It has its limits. But if you enjoy that kind of reading, I suppose I could get into some Edgar Allan Poe anyway since we're nearing Halloween.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

 

[AV1611VET]

Okie dokie. I'll laugh with ya.

 

[PeterDona]

Great popular science level articles from the late 1990s on what the minimum and maximum ages the universe could be:

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.94.13.6579

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.95.1.18

NASA page on how WMAP narrowed down the age calculation to 13.78 billion, +/- 59 million years
WMAP- Age of the Universe

Phil Plait's blog on the Planck satellite results, confirming NASA's findings but adding a little bit to the estimate of the age of the universe (shifting from back 13.77 to 13.79 billion years):
The Universe’s Baby Pictures Reveal It’s a Bit Older Than We Thought

Article on ground telescope observations, finding good agreement with WMAP & Planck results (less than 0.3% of a difference, or about a +/- of 41 million years):
Atacama Cosmology Telescope Reveals Universe is Nearly 14 Billion Years Old

Thanks for some very enjoyable reads there.
I think I can say where I disagree in the overall picture now. Whilst the age of the universe is a calculation based on the absolute earliest possible beginning of the universe, that is if there was a big bang, for me I can not believe in a big bang. So for me, what remains is, that the universe is expanding, and that there is a maximum for how old the universe can be.

Just a thought on dark matter - they say that the dark matter is invisible, could it then possibly be in the form of those famed black holes? What do you think?

 

[PeterDona]

Did you read the NASA link right above it?

Either way, we KNOW the Earth and Universe are far older than several thousand years. As an academic researcher, we can find more if you like ...

Yes, I took the time to read both links.

Do fire, if you can and are interested, but try to keep it sort of bullet pointed, and not too long. I think "KNOW" is an abusable word in this context, where we mix religion and academics. But please, have a go

 

[PeterDona]

It’s a YouTube video designed in the same vein as the “for dummies books” to provide a simplified explanation without baffling the reader with mathematics.
It’s not meant to provide a peer reviewed account or a substitute for a post graduate course in physics or applied mathematics.

The harsh reality it requires knowledge at a tertiary level to understand why objects can exceed the speed of light in the Hubble flow or how inflation has prevented the evolution of a lifeless universe due to the action of magnetic monopoles which I have attempted to simplify in this post.

thanks for the link but yes it was a bit over my head there. The idea of a GUT epoch for example, are we talking about a speculated period of time in the expanding early universe, or are we talking about a recent decade where GUT reigned supreme?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I took the time to read both links.

Do fire, if you can and are interested, but try to keep it sort of bullet pointed, and not too long. I think "KNOW" is an abusable word in this context, where we mix religion and academics. But please, have a go

You're quite right, historically speaking the term "KNOW" is an epistemically abusable word. But I only mean "KNOW" in the scientific sense where science gives us provisional truth, not absolute truth.

As for there having been a singular meeting of scientific minds to determine the age of the Universe, again, I don't think there was one such meeting. It always has been an ongoing and piecemealed project among scientists, at least since Aristotle was finally kept from hogging the scientific trampoline several hundred years ago.

So, what specifically do you want bullet pointed? I'm feeling a bit vague about what precisely you're wanting to "know."

 

[John Caldwell]

There is plenty of evidence suggesting a 13+ billion year old earth, but only if God is removed from the equation. With God present as Creator then the data is far from evidence (for or against an old earth) and the issue becomes theological (Could God create a mature universe at the start? Does nature itself testify to how God created? Does nature form an obstacle that only faith corrects? Ect).

 

[PeterDona]

So, what specifically do you want bullet pointed? I'm feeling a bit vague about what precisely you're wanting to "know."

Uhm, I think you stated than there was plenty of evidence that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. So if you are into the area, I would be interested to see your list. I do understand that some points will be stronger than others etc, but please do if you are minded to it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Uhm, I think you stated than there was plenty of evidence that the universe is more than a few thousand years old. So if you are into the area, I would be interested to see your list. I do understand that some points will be stronger than others etc, but please do if you are minded to it.

I don't have a list. I just have a hueristic and a bunch of books ...

... I'm simple like that. As for the general info as to how we "know" the universe is vastly aged, I think the essentials are mentioned in those two articles I linked. Then too, you already have comments from others here like @sjastro that I think fit the bill and I'm not sure what else there is that we need to delve into.

On my more hermeneutically minded approach, I'm going to suggest that you pick a nuance of Astronomy and/or science in general that you think is questionable and that you feel you and I need to challenge.

 

[sjastro]

thanks for the link but yes it was a bit over my head there. The idea of a GUT epoch for example, are we talking about a speculated period of time in the expanding early universe, or are we talking about a recent decade where GUT reigned supreme?

The GUT epoch is a specific period of time in the early universe when the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces were unified.

While using analogies in physics are generally fraught with danger, forces exhibit a similar behavior to water.
Depending on temperature water exists in three states as a solid liquid or gas and a transition of one state to another is known as a phase transition.
Forces undergo phase transitions as well depending on temperature; in the very early universe when temperatures were extremely high the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces were unified.
As the universe expanded and cooled a phase transition occurred and the strong force separated from the electroweak force.
Further cooling resulted in the electroweak force separating into the electromagnetic and weak forces.

While a GUT is beyond our technological capacity to test, particle accelerators are able to produce temperatures hot enough to reunify the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force.
This was accomplished in 1983 with the discovery of the W and Z bosons.

 

[PeterDona]

While a GUT is beyond our technological capacity to test, particle accelerators are able to produce temperatures hot enough to reunify the electromagnetic and weak forces into the electroweak force.
This was accomplished in 1983 with the discovery of the W and Z bosons.

Yes, this much I remember from reading the endpages of my father's engineering weekly journal when I was young (in the 80s). I only became acquainted with "living" christianity when I was well into my 20's.
As such, there may be a mingling of facts involved. I mean, it is a feat to obtain a unification of natural forces. But when you call it "re unify", there is the certain implication that you trust the BB theory. I would say, God of course has created the universe in some way that we may be able to explore, and find an underlying reality, like what is described in those references you have given here.
But to me a BB is out of reason. The very simplistic explanation why I am convinced about it is that an explosion can not produce those fine tuned systems like galaxies and objects rotating around one another. And generally an explosion cannot produce rotation. So therefore I must reject a BB as such, and you should probably too.

 

[prodromos]

The idea that God should create light on its way is of course ridiculous. I cannot think that God should need to cover up his tracks.

I don't see it as God covering His tracks, I just see it as God being God, creating a mature universe just as He created a mature Adam.