Expert: Tom Whiting - 1/28/2010

Question
QUESTION: Hi Tom,firstly would like to thank you on your previous replys to myself. As far as i am aware we have dated the universe to be approximately 14 billion years old,depending on what methods are use to date this. i believe this calculations involve mass/expansion rates etc and extrapulating backwards. That all seems logical to me. However, do any of the calculations allow for time-dilation? The density of mass in a given area affects the flow of time. So as the universe expands 'universal' time would slow down. Conversly, if we go back to when matter was in a much smaller universe,the gravity density would mean a much faster 'universal' time. The expansion of space causes time to change its flow/rate and so 14billion years is a subjective term we would use NOW. So, do any of our universe-dating techniques allow for any time dilation or is time taken as purely linear ie a year measured now is the same as a year measured billions of years ago?
On a more personal nature,i have been thinking about joining an astronomy club. However, i do not have much interest in observational astronomy,although i understand ultimately this is the way to actually study the things im interested in. I like the theory side and the 'big' questions rather than what gasses may be on,say Jupiter. Would an average,local astronomy club be suitable for me,would there be people like myself there who are not too interested in observatory but like to talk over scientific papers etc?   Thanks very much Tom    Regards Richard

ANSWER: Hi Richard,
Second question first....We have, in our own club, about 3/4 of the members are just like you.  They don't really participate that much in actual night observing, but rather enjoy the discussions and theory (and facts) concerning the subject.  So yes, definitely join your local astronomy club, and you should find that at least half the people are just like you.

I'm no expert on how they find the actual age of the Universe... I just accept what the real professionals determine and write about, namely 13.7 billion years ago.  Even if time dilation is taken into account, it probably can't amount to very much, because using the Lorentz transformation formula for time dilation, one has to get up to 86.6% light speed just to give one second = 2 seconds, or a doubling of time relative to Earth time.  (It's an exponential thingy). I just don't think that there is that much of the matter in the Universe that's
receding at those extreme velocities to change the figures that much. But to be honest, I have
no idea how the professionals calculate it, other than it's a factor of redshift at those
very large distances.  My own opinion is that since 13.7 billion is such a short time frame, compared to the total Universe lifespan of hundreds of trillions of years (10 to the 14th power)...it's pretty much academic with that short a time span of 13.7 billion years. We have only just begun.  I know this because of the original H/He mix from the Big Bang, our Universe
is only up to 3% of the heavier elements...Lithium #3 to Uranium #92.  With that very low
concentration of the heavies, (created by past supernovae)... I think we're darn lucky to be here... this early! One would have expected the heavies to be up to at least 10% before rocky planets and carbon-based life could form.  I think we got very lucky in our little corner, with an excess of the heavy elements present.  How many other corners are there that were that lucky?
Probably not very many... you can't have rocky planets and life with just hydrogen and helium.
In fact, we could in the end, be the first ones that "hit the lottery" bigtime.
In My opinion.
Clear Skies,
Tom Whiting
Erie, PA USA

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi,was pleasantly surprised on your astronomy club membership which has encouraged me-Thankyou. My question was more directed to a given amount of mass in a given area,rather than the speed of that mass. I accept its not your area of expertise and will continue to research that. You seemed to be saying that it is accepted that the universe is much older than 14billion years? I thought this was a generally accepted (aproximate) figure. The time-dilation effect i was wondering about would mean the universe is much older,so if that is what you are saying,it pleased me! Your comments about ratio of elements interested me-something i was not aware of. More food for thought!!   Regards  Richard

ANSWER: Sorry, I did not mean to imply that I disagree with the 13.7 billion year value.
I accept that number at face value.
I only think that it constitutes a very short timeframe, relative to the total lifespan
of the Universe, measured in hundreds of trillions of years.
On that scale, the Big Bang occurred 30 days ago, and the Solar system formed up about 10 days ago and us humans have only been around one second.
Clear Skies,
Tom



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Sorry Tom,now im totally confused. You talk of total lifespan of universe as trillions of years and say you accept 13.7 billion years at face value! So what is the 13.7 billion years? I asked what we calculate the age of the universe to be-now i have 2 figures for what,i dont know!! The joys of communicating by email   Regards Richard

Answer
No confusion at all.
Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago.  (In current time)... so that's our current Universe age.  Solar System formed up about 4.6 billion years ago. (In current time)

The Universe will, in the future, hundreds of trillions of years FROM NOW, (in current time) will end either in a heat death (all the hydrogen fuel will be used up) or the Big Rip as the spacetime continuum acceleration continues to expand faster and faster.
These are the current numbers as we know them... pretty much today carved in granite among
most cosmologists.
If you don't like these numbers, then I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone else more knowledgeable, for their opinion and their numbers.  But that's the best I can do for you.
If you want different numbers, then you'll have to consult with the "metaphysical" occult
people, with their reams and reams of bewilterintg dissertations and convoluted, confusing interpretations...  as those given above, are the current scientific accepted values.
Clear Skies,
Tom