Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# Age of universe Calculator

## Recommended Posts

so was playing with calculators online for age of universe and it shows age as   age of the Universe at z  =  12.473 Gyr and not billions

i thought the universe was billions years old not giga years old

Edited by Damien99

##### Share on other sites

Do you know the difference between a billion and a giga ?

##### Share on other sites

Kilo = 1,000
Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

• 4

##### Share on other sites
Just now, sci-nerd said:

Kilo = 1,000
Mega = 1,000,000
Giga = 1,000,000,000

Oh sorry my bad and is the OmegaM value currently 0.286 how is that calculated

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

Oh sorry my bad and is the OmegaM value currently 0.286 how is that calculated

OmegaM ?? Do you mean OmegaΛ (lambda)?

Edited by sci-nerd

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sci-nerd said:

OmegaM ?? Do you mean OmegaΛ (lambda)?

Yes so that the current cosmological constant. Once you said lambda it clicked

thank you all

##### Share on other sites

The age of the universe isn't really determinable. If they run the best models of the expansion of the universe backward, mathematically, it can be inferred that they converge on a point, or singularity about 13 billion, 779 million years ago, plus or minus 21 million years. Neither observations, nor firm physical theory can reach back to the very beginning, though.

Edited by bison
• 2

##### Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bison said:

The age of the universe isn't really determinable. If they run the best models of the expansion of the universe backward, mathematically, it can be inferred that they converge on a point, or singularity about 13 billion, 779 million years ago, plus or minus 21 million years. Neither observations, nor firm physical theory can reach back to the very beginning, though.

Thank you bison believe it or not I actually new that 13.7 b years plus or minus about 20 m

##### Share on other sites

If our universe  really were in a series of expansions and contractions, that would seem to contradict the increasing rate of expansion that has recently been observed. If that holds, the universe will, it seems, expand unto infinity.

Yet if the universe really is a 'one-off', then it's hard to see how it happened, in just one go, to have all the right properties to allow life and intelligence to exist. Given all the possible variables in forces and constants, the odds of that happening appear, well, astronomical.

Edited by bison

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bison said:

Yet if the universe really is a 'one-off', then it's hard to see how it happened, in just one go, to have all the right properties to allow life and intelligence to exist. Given all the possible variables in forces and constants, the odds of that happening appear, well, astronomical.

Seems we might be living in a (mem)brane multiverse.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

Seems we might be living in a (mem)brane multiverse.

I didn’t see the article stating this?

##### Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Damien99 said:

I didn’t see the article stating this?

It's not from an article. It's M-theory.

##### Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Damien99 said:

I didn’t see the article stating this?

Damien99, do you have a search engine?  Sometimes when you don't understand something you can google it.

##### Share on other sites

The problem I see with cosmological multiverse theories in general, is this:

Assuming multiverses are real, they would  exist as a series, one budding off from another, presumably endlessly, back through time. Eventually, though, one would have to turn up in any such series that did not allow this 'budding ' process to continue. Our own universe, with its increasing rate of expansion, appears too be an example of this sort of universe.  That would  apparently break the series. Since this process has been going on forever, it would have broken down a very long time, dare I say, an infinitely long time ago. If this causal chain was broken, our universe couldn't exist today. Since it does, there would seem to be something seriously wrong with cosmological multiverse scenarios.

##### Share on other sites
On 6/6/2020 at 3:39 PM, bison said:

The problem I see with cosmological multiverse theories in general, is this:

Assuming multiverses are real, they would  exist as a series, one budding off from another, presumably endlessly, back through time. Eventually, though, one would have to turn up in any such series that did not allow this 'budding ' process to continue. Our own universe, with its increasing rate of expansion, appears too be an example of this sort of universe.  That would  apparently break the series. Since this process has been going on forever, it would have broken down a very long time, dare I say, an infinitely long time ago. If this causal chain was broken, our universe couldn't exist today. Since it does, there would seem to be something seriously wrong with cosmological multiverse scenarios.

No, I don't think that's what the multiverse theory states - they don't come out of each other in a long chain. To be honest there isn't a fixed idea of how mutliverses could exist - Brian Greene has described 9 possible types alone.

• 4

##### Share on other sites

Yes, I've heard about the nine proposed types of multiverses. I selected the one that seemed the most germane to this discussion. It's called 'eternal inflation'. Each universe would 'bud' or 'pinch off from' an existing universe, while it was still in its  inflationary stage. The chain or series I was thinking of is the causal chain of one universe depending on the previous one for its origin.

We have two alternatives in the evolution of a single universe. Either it continues to expand, endlessly, or it collapses in on itself, presumably giving rise to another singularity, another 'big bang', and another universe. Whether this happens in isolation, or as part of a larger multiverse, the basic problem appears the same. When a universe continues to expand, the possibility of it contracting is eliminated.  It's ability to form another universe is foreclosed.

Given an infinity of time in the past, all the branches of a budding and rebutting universe will have already managed to create a ever-expanding universe at some point, after which no more universes will be created from it. The process of universe creation is brought to a halt before our universe comes to exist. Since out universe does exist, there seems to be something wrong with any idea that has one universe arising from another.

##### Share on other sites

So if the expected lofe of the universe is 10 to the power of 10 to 10 to the power of 14 and the age of the  universe is currently 1.37 X 10 to the power of 10 does that mean we have passed the expected age of the Universe

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

So if the expected lofe of the universe is 10 to the power of 10 to 10 to the power of 14 and the age of the  universe is currently 1.37 X 10 to the power of 10 does that mean we have passed the expected age of the Universe

Where did you get that figure for the expected life of the universe?

How the universe will ultimately end is not known, and depends on many variables which are not fully understood, but even the most pessimistic of these theories put the end of the universe some 15 billion years from now.

• 2

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

Where did you get that figure for the expected life of the universe?

How the universe will ultimately end is not known, and depends on many variables which are not fully understood, but even the most pessimistic of these theories put the end of the universe some 15 billion years from now.

I got it from here, was doing some reading on basic astronomy as per your suggestion and kept following the links to here

The paper where this was calculated is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6497v1.pdf

So, according to this calculation the expected lifetime of the universe is between 10*10 years and 10^14  years (for comparison, the universe is currently 1.37×10*10 years old already).

Edited by Damien99

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Damien99 said:

I got it from here, was doing some reading on basic astronomy as per your suggestion and kept following the links to here

The paper where this was calculated is here: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.6497v1.pdf

So, according to this calculation the expected lifetime of the universe is between 10*10 years and 10^14  years (for comparison, the universe is currently 1.37×10*10 years old already).

You were doing reading on basic astronomy? You really need to buy a dictionary and look up the word basic.

You have been googling, "false vacuum" again haven't you? What you have linked to is a highly specialist paper with highly complex mathematics which I don't pretend to understand, and know, without a doubt, that you don't either.

I have done a word search and it comes up blank on your quote. No where in that document can I find the expression:

Quote

So, according to this calculation the expected lifetime of the universe is between 10*10 years and 10^14  years (for comparison, the universe is currently 1.37×10*10 years old already).

In fact the word, "years" is totally missing form the linked document.

As the document is 35 pages long would you care to tell me EXACTLY where it says what you are claiming it does?

• 1

##### Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Waspie_Dwarf said:

You were doing reading on basic astronomy? You really need to buy a dictionary and look up the word basic.

You have been googling, "false vacuum" again haven't you? What you have linked to is a highly specialist paper with highly complex mathematics which I don't pretend to understand, and know, without a doubt, that you don't either.

I have done a word search and it comes up blank on your quote. No where in that document can I find the expression:

In fact the word, "years" is totally missing form the linked document.

As the document is 35 pages long would you care to tell me EXACTLY where it says what you are claiming it does?

So I started with basic astronomy then while going through the reading it brought me to constants. Then from there brought me to cosmological constant and from there brought me to quora which brought me to this link which had this info

Edited by Damien99

##### Share on other sites

The physicist states in his response that the calculation is taken from the paper

So, according to this calculation the expected lifetime of the universe is between 10*10 years and 10^14  years (for comparison, the universe is currently 1.37×10*10 years old already).

##### Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 8:50 AM, Damien99 said:

So if the expected lofe of the universe is 10 to the power of 10 to 10 to the power of 14 and the age of the  universe is currently 1.37 X 10 to the power of 10 does that mean we have passed the expected age of the Universe

Well, not really.

First, note that the article provided an age range between 10 billion and 100 trillion years, a range of 4 orders of magnitude. Seeing as we've only just entered the low end of the range but haven't passed the high end, pretty much by definition we haven't exceeded the expected age of the Universe. Look at it this way: I sell you a car and tell you it will permanently break down somewhere between tomorrow and 27 years time (27 years being around 10,000 times longer than a day). Do you start panicking tomorrow afternoon that your car may break down? My guess is you don't.

Second, note the next sentence in the Quora article after that date range is given: "This prediction depends on the Standard Model of particle physics (and on some theoreticians' calculations). But particle physicists (both theoretical and experimental) know that the Standard Model cannot be exactly correct..." The prediction is based on a model for physics we know is inaccurate. To me that makes the prediction pretty worthless.

• 1