Oldest surviving light reveals the universe's true age

Jul 18, 2020
1
0
10
So the physicists are arguing about theoretical issues that can't be proven. Not yet anyway. I love it.
 
Jul 19, 2020
1
0
10
All of the observations listed in this article are interpreted through the lens of a 100 year old paradigm, so it stands to reason that the anachronistic theory comes up short to explain what is observed...🙄
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
Cool, I saw the preliminary paper a few weeks back [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.01139 ]but I thought the result would wait a year or so!

Even better, they confirm Planck alone - and with independent TE, EE modes (basic Planck used TT and in 2018 also BB) - and improve on the integrated result in some senses (Planck was more precise).

On the recent expansion rate tension with mostly low-z data, the ACT starts out towards the median. The recent discovery that the H0 current expansion rate tension can be replaced by a CMB T0 current temperature tension [ https://astrobites.org/2020/06/27/h0-or-t0-tension/ ] is informative here: the ACT work do not extract the temperature, but they use observations of Uranus as beam calibration. The old WMAP used their beam as temperature calibration and it is that result that sits on the median of 70 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 [ https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19 ]. So that supports the H0 <-> T0 result.

I also twigged another source of measurement error from the paper. They note that a recalibrated and data added work on the H0LiCOW gravitational lensing low-z, high-H0 result resulted in a low-H0 result without resolving the mass density profile H0LiCOW model with [ https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.02941 ]. "... our new analysis does not statistically invalidate the mass profile assumptions by H0LiCOW, ...". Meaning H0LiCOW method is not very sensitive yet.

I'm not sure measurement problems is the reason for the recent years spread, but each paper released in the area seems to accumulate evidence along those lines. I could see from the recent paper that the median H0 of 70 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 indeed do not suggest new physics, and from the figures it seems to me a H0 < 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 would give "same old, same old".
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
By coincidence, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey just released "the largest three-dimensional map of the universe ever created", advancing cosmology even further to 1 % uncertainty.

"By combining SDSS data with additional data from the Cosmic Microwave Background, supernovae, and other programs, we can simultaneously measure many fundamental properties of the universe," says Mueller. "The SDSS data cover such a large swath of cosmic time that they provide the biggest advances of any probe to measure the geometrical curvature of the universe, finding it to be flat. They also allow measurements of the local expansion rate to better than one percent."

Oddly, the papers seem to have been released to arXiv already before the weekend. The summary paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08991 .

- Being an integrative cosmological summary based on the baryonic acoustic oscillations and the cosmic microwave background to establish flatness it reinforces the standard model nicely.
- The structure data in the survey strongly fit dark matter evolving according to general relativity.
- The flatness of space is now 10^-4 - yielding a universe volume at least 100 million times larger than the observable - which is just an order of magnitude from the detection limit.
- Dark energy can be detected at 8 sigma based on accepting flatness, it is constant and yields a current expansion rate at H0 = 68.20 +/- 0,81 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. This likely means no physics since it is < 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 at nearly 3 sigma.

Most exciting to me is that it is consistent with simplest selection bias ("anthropic") finetuning which they point out as possible and substantially strengthened explanation.

"Nevertheless, the observed consistency with flat ΛCDM at the higher precision of this work points increasingly towards a pure cosmological constant solution, for example, as would be produced by a vacuum energy finetuned to have a small value. This fine-tuning represents a theoretical difficulty without any agreed-upon resolution and one that may not be resolvable through fundamental physics considerations alone (Weinberg 1989; Brax & Valageas 2019). This difficulty has been substantially sharpened by the observations presented here."

[The paper describes more data products on Github in case someone wants to look at the analysis and raw data.]

More here: https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=117340 , https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/astrophysicists-fill-in-11-billion-years-of-universe-expansion-history .
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
[/QUOTE]
So the physicists are arguing about theoretical issues that can't be proven. Not yet anyway.
Except that the published result show that they can test it, and has. There is one remaining tension in the data, out of thousands of explained data.

Maybe if you tried to read the work - scientists have worked hard for it and it deserves better than unfounded dismissal.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
All of the observations listed in this article are interpreted through the lens of a 100 year old paradigm, so it stands to reason that the anachronistic theory comes up short to explain what is observed...🙄
Or you can say, on the contrary, since gravity is a 400 year old paradigm that has never been rejected by data it is firm.

Also, the current inflationary hot big bang cosmology is only 40 years old, the century old big bang theory had problems with observations at that time that we seem to have now solved. Here is a short video based on a know astrophysicist's script that explains that (but doesn't describe mechanisms):
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P1Q8tS-9hYo


Enjoy!
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
Quote from the article -

"The CMB, which formed as the universe cooled after the Big Bang, is detectable in every direction in space as a microwave glow. It's more than 13 billion light-years in the distance, a relic of a time before stars and galaxies formed."

The radius of the observable universe is 46.5 billion light-years, The CMB is the very edge of the observable universe, so why has the article said the distance to the CMB is ~ 13 billion light-years instead of 46.5 billion light-years?
 
Jul 23, 2020
1
0
0
By coincidence, the Sloan Digital Sky Survey just released "the largest three-dimensional map of the universe ever created", advancing cosmology even further to 1 % uncertainty.

"By combining SDSS data with additional data from the Cosmic Microwave Background, supernovae, and other programs, we can simultaneously measure many fundamental properties of the universe," says Mueller. "The SDSS data cover such a large swath of cosmic time that they provide the biggest advances of any probe to measure the geometrical curvature of the universe, finding it to be flat. They also allow measurements of the local expansion rate to better than one percent."

Oddly, the papers seem to have been released to arXiv already before the weekend. The summary paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.08991 .

- Being an integrative cosmological summary based on the baryonic acoustic oscillations and the cosmic microwave background to establish flatness it reinforces the standard model nicely.
- The structure data in the survey strongly fit dark matter evolving according to general relativity.
- The flatness of space is now 10^-4 - yielding a universe volume at least 100 million times larger than the observable - which is just an order of magnitude from the detection limit.
- Dark energy can be detected at 8 sigma based on accepting flatness, it is constant and yields a current expansion rate at H0 = 68.20 +/- 0,81 km s^-1 Mpc^-1. This likely means no physics since it is < 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 at nearly 3 sigma.

Most exciting to me is that it is consistent with simplest selection bias ("anthropic") finetuning which they point out as possible and substantially strengthened explanation.

"Nevertheless, the observed consistency with flat ΛCDM at the higher precision of this work points increasingly towards a pure cosmological constant solution, for example, as would be produced by a vacuum energy finetuned to have a small value. This fine-tuning represents a theoretical difficulty without any agreed-upon resolution and one that may not be resolvable through fundamental physics considerations alone (Weinberg 1989; Brax & Valageas 2019). This difficulty has been substantially sharpened by the observations presented here."

[The paper describes more data products on Github in case someone wants to look at the analysis and raw data.]

More here: https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=117340 , https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/news/astrophysicists-fill-in-11-billion-years-of-universe-expansion-history .
This likely means no physics since it is < 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 at nearly 3 sigma.

A curious amateur here. Why would it not be a fit for the Standard Model ? Please explain.
 
Last edited:
Jun 7, 2021
4
0
10
AA ...

Here is a mathematical derivation of ASTRONOMICAL age of universe basis the knowledge of eternal cycles of time (or Kaalchakra) ...


Astronomical age of universe: 13.802585355 billion human solar years

Note
: This is not the real age of universe ... I say so as this age us only after start of present GREAT DAY (MAHA KALPA) of the Creator (I mean Brahma) ... This Mahakalpa is calculated here ...


The real age of universe is closer to 156-157 trillion human solar years


BB ...

And basis this we can calculate the expanses of Observable universe as calculated in this link ...




Cheers.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
The radius of the observable universe is 46.5 billion light-years, The CMB is the very edge of the observable universe, so why has the article said the distance to the CMB is ~ 13 billion light-years instead of 46.5 billion light-years?
You seem to assume the expansion rate is constant. It is not, it depends on the inner energy state of space as described by Einstein's general relativity [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) ]. E.g. now with vacuum ("dark") energy dominating the energy content, the expansion rate approach an exponential, see the link.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
This likely means no physics since it is < 72 km s^-1 Mpc^-1 at nearly 3 sigma.

A curious amateur here. Why would it not be a fit for the Standard Model ? Please explain.
That is the claim in the Planck survey 2018 collaboration cosmological summary paper - they can fit LCDM to the data up to that expansion rate according to the statistics. But at higher rates, something must be changed.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
Here is a mathematical derivation of ASTRONOMICAL age of universe basis the knowledge of eternal cycles of time (or Kaalchakra) ...
That is superstition. And by the way, astronomical estimates are not "mathematical derivations", they are empirical estimates based on data - physics.
 
Feb 28, 2020
51
22
555
You seem to assume the expansion rate is constant. It is not, it depends on the inner energy state of space as described by Einstein's general relativity [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) ]. E.g. now with vacuum ("dark") energy dominating the energy content, the expansion rate approach an exponential, see the link.
Quote from the article -

"The CMB, which formed as the universe cooled after the Big Bang, is detectable in every direction in space as a microwave glow. It's more than 13 billion light-years in the distance, a relic of a time before stars and galaxies formed."

I did not assume anything. I got the radius, 46.5 billion light years, of the observable universe from Wikipedia, which should have already taken into account expansion rates. The CMB is the furthest we can see. So, the matter from which it came IS the edge of the observable universe and therefore is 46.5 billion light years away. Thats why I was questioning the 13 billion light years in the article.

I found the quote a bit sloppy. It says the CMB is "13 billion light-years in the distance". CMB is radiation not a thing, how can you have a distance to it? It should have said the distance to the original matter source of the CMB. The distance to the CMB is zero and always has been, because we are being bathed in it now!

It might seem like nit picking but us public have a hard enough time understanding these things even when explained properly. Anything scientific should be a bit more accurate, precise and explanatory when aimed at the public IMO.
 
Jan 3, 2020
160
12
605
I did not assume anything. I got the radius, 46.5 billion light years, of the observable universe from Wikipedia, which should have already taken into account expansion rates. The CMB is the furthest we can see. So, the matter from which it came IS the edge of the observable universe and therefore is 46.5 billion light years away. Thats why I was questioning the 13 billion light years in the article.
I was trying to reconstruct why you said the article claims that the article says the distance is 13 billion light years when it clearly says 13+ billion years is its age at the beginning. But when I read further I see another description of age - the one you quote - that I can agree is erroneously wrought.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY