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

[John Caldwell]

That makes it very hard to calculate the rate of matter generation from it then.

We, how would energy manifest out of nothing?

 

[John Caldwell]

Then you just answered your own question about the odds(?)

Yep.

 

[Hans Blaster]

We, how would energy manifest out of nothing?

I no longer know what you are trying to say.

 

[John Caldwell]

I no longer know what you are trying to say.

I am trying to say that something is not spontaneously created from nothing.

The idea this universe was created by matter or energy from another universe just passes the buck.

 

[46AND2]

I am trying to say that something is not spontaneously created from nothing.

The idea this universe was created by matter or energy from another universe just passes the buck.

Nobody claims something comes from nothing.

 

[John Caldwell]

Nobody claims something comes from nothing.

What was the first thing, and how did it come to be?

 

[PeterDona]

It is a fact that a year in astronomy is defined as being exactly 365.25 days, where each day is of 86400 SI seconds each.

Wow this discussion is really active at the moment, so I am replying to something you stated on page 7.
A mathematical year is a year that is based on mathematical speculation. A real year is a year that actually happened.

When I was younger, I remember "they" changed the time of the dinosaur from 130 mio years ago to 65 mio years ago. I thought, that is a heck many years to go wrong. Then I realized, hm, this is based purely on mathematical speculation.
Scientists do not have a calendar in front of them. They only have their mathematical formulas, but somehow most people accept that anyway.

 

[sjastro]

I am trying to say that something is not spontaneously created from nothing.

The idea this universe was created by matter or energy from another universe just passes the buck.

I see where this has gone to the old creatio ex nihilo argument.
As I mentioned in my previous post vacuum energy is a property of space-time in which case there is no such thing as absolute nothingness.
I went into some detail in this post and recall the angry reactions from a certain creationist who accused me of being sick and insane.
I found it quite remarkable this technical topic would arouse such passion.

We can use the example of beta decay to show how mass appears to come out of nothing where a neutron decays into a proton, electron and anti-neutrino.

n → p + eˉ+ ṽₑ.

The decay can be expressed at more fundamental level using quantum field theory.

In the diagram the W⁻ boson which is the carrier for the weak force pops into and out of existence when a neutron decays into a proton and hangs around with a half life of Δt ≈ 3 x 10⁻²⁵ s.
Its mass is around 80X greater than the neutron which has been confirmed by experiment.
So where did the mass of the W⁻ boson come from; certainly not from the neutron but from the (Higgs) vacuum energy of the field.

Without going into detail of what is a complicated subject, quantum field theory tells us ‘what causes mass’ is via a Higgs mechanism which is the perturbation of an unbroken vacuum which undergoes a spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Similar mechanisms are used to explain the production of matter in the early history of the universe where particles appear to pop out of "nothing" when in fact there is a "something" in the form of vacuum energy.

 

[PeterDona]

Yeah, my paltry memory seems to bring back that I encountered just a taste of this back in 8th grade physical science class, but I'm sure what we covered back then had little to do with what we're talking about here.

I guess I'm not clear as to why consideration of Angular Momentum has much to do with the age of the universe? I mean, I'm seeing lots of books on my shelf that say some things other than what you're implying (and I have some books that agree with your leanings too, really).

But why should I think one way or another, brother?

angular momentum is what to me finishes the BB model. The 13.7B years number is hinged on the BB model. That is the connection.

Since the 13.7B years age is now generally viewed as a fact, then it stands to reason, that if something holds such a weight in our society, it has to be more than a loose saturday night theory. Someone stated that it is to this day the best model that we can produce. OK. But when I attack the model for a serious flaw, it simply stands that the model is not good enough to account for major phenomena, and therefore it should not be credited such weight.

 

[Bradskii]

But when I attack the model for a serious flaw, it simply stands that the model is not good enough to account for major phenomena, and therefore it should not be credited such weight.

We have to revise cosmology and theoretical physics because you think you've found 'a serious flaw'?

Wow...

Edit: You have heard of gravity?

 

[46AND2]

What was the first thing, and how did it come to be?

Don't know. Since time began with the expansion during the BB, then I suppose "first" would be the singularity, but it's not really the right way to think about it. The term "first" is dependent on time, and asking what there was before time makes about as much sense as asking what is north of the north pole.

 

[PeterDona]

You are familiar with the balloon analogy to explain space-time expansion?
If you draw dots on the balloon and inflate it, the dots don’t move across the surface of the balloon but the space between the dots increases.
The dots remain stationary relative to the surface of the balloon.

Similarly galaxies are stationary while space-time between them expands hence they have zero velocity in space-time.
Since the velocity v = 0, the linear momentum P and angular momentum L, must also be zero since
P =mv and L =mvr where m and r are the mass and radius respectively.

The recessional velocity R of a galaxy from the observer due to space-time expansion is the motion of the galaxy away from the observer as it appears in the observer’s frame of reference even though in the galaxy’s frame of reference it is zero.
The motion always appears to be radial or along the observer’s line of sight irrespective of the observer’s location.

If a receding galaxy has a motion which is not 100% radial but has a transverse component which is perpendicular to the line of sight of the observer then the galaxy has what is known as a peculiar velocity where v ≠ 0 and it has motion in space-time along with a recessional velocity R.
This is due to the influence of gravity.

I do really appreciate that you take part in this discussion with all your specialized knowledge.

I understand that the only thing we can really measure with respect to distances in the universe is the red shift. Even doing a simple triangulation has only succeeded for the nearest star as far as I remember.

In your original post #92 (what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?) you made statements that sounded like the angular momentum is a simple effect of space-time. If you believe that I would be really interested that you can elaborate on that.

Example: The solar system is believed to have come out of a supernova that was rotating, so the rotation of planets is due to the cloud of gas already being in rotation. But how did the supernova / the cloud of gas start rotating in the first place.

 

[PeterDona]

We have to revise cosmology and theoretical physics because you think you've found 'a serious flaw'?

Wow...

Edit: You have heard of gravity?

i have reported you post for flaming.

 

[46AND2]

Wow this discussion is really active at the moment, so I am replying to something you stated on page 7.
A mathematical year is a year that is based on mathematical speculation. A real year is a year that actually happened.

When I was younger, I remember "they" changed the time of the dinosaur from 130 mio years ago to 65 mio years ago. I thought, that is a heck many years to go wrong. Then I realized, hm, this is based purely on mathematical speculation.
Scientists do not have a calendar in front of them. They only have their mathematical formulas, but somehow most people accept that anyway.

If that's how you feel about the math, you'll need to disregard pretty much all of Calculus.

 

[PeterDona]

Since we are pushing 10 pages and approaching 200 posts … did anyone ever identify the source of the data that the OP requested? (That’s too much Off Topic debate on YEC vs OE Science to wade through).

Thanks for asking. Being the OP I will do an answer.

I think the end conclusion is that there was a meeting where all liars were invited, but they could not agree on a good lie.

ok no, it seems there was never such a meeting, but scientific journal material has been referenced in this thread. So when people state that there is good agreement between different sciences or different lines of evidence, it is simply their own evaluation of the evidence that they are aware of.

 

[Bradskii]

i have reported you post for flaming.

Hey, get real. You are questioning decades of science because you haven't considered gravitational effects? How about you address that rather than complain that you are being insulted.

 

[PeterDona]

Then with the atomic age came radiometric dating, specifically techniques involving the decay of Uranium. These put the age of the Earth in the 4.5 Gyr (with 0.2 Gyr or smaller error bars) range about 60 years ago and the value hasn't budged since. This gives a *minimum* age for the Universe since the Earth is presumably not older than the Universe. (Unless the Earth is *really* weird.) Radioactivities from meteors and the Moon. Confirm this age.

There is so much good material in your post that I will have to limit myself. Just one question. Have you got a source reference for the age of the earth being decided from uranium? I was for years a physics teacher in secondary school, and radioactivity was a topic in grade 8-9, and I wanted to explain how the age of earth and radioactivity was connected, but I could not find the reference.

 

[PeterDona]

Hey, get real. You are questioning decades of science because you haven't considered gravitational effects? How about you address that rather than complain that you are being insulted.

I am having a conversation with another person and you jump in and snatch a sentence out of context, and start flaming me. Get out of here.

 

[46AND2]

There is so much good material in your post that I will have to limit myself. Just one question. Have you got a source reference for the age of the earth being decided from uranium? I was for years a physics teacher in secondary school, and radioactivity was a topic in grade 8-9, and I wanted to explain how the age of earth and radioactivity was connected, but I could not find the reference.

"The Age of the Earth" by Brent Dalrymple is a good starter. It was written in '91, and we have more/better methods now, but it gives a good synopsis about how the estimates got better over the years. I believe he developed the K/Ar and/or Ar/Ar methods.

 

[Bradskii]

I am having a conversation with another person and you jump in and snatch a sentence out of context, and start flaming me. Get out of here.

You can address the question asked. Which referenced gravitational effects. Is it not apparent that those effects will cause rotational effects in any moving mass?