An accurate age of the universe

[Gustafson, S]

The age of the universe has recently been determined with unprecedented accuracy, by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe or WMAP, to be 13.7 billion years to within 0.9 %. Even if this value is in error by a percentage that is an order of magnitude larger (as may be the case if certain cosmological corrections are applied), it is sufficiently accurate for renewed consideration of “numerology” in the sense of the well-known Dirac large number hypothesis.

 

In particular, the age of the universe to within 0.5 % of the WMAP value is given by A = [h/(2π)][e^2/(4πε_0)]/[2πc^2G(4πm)^3], where h is Planck’s constant, e^2/(4πε_0) = q^2 is the squared electron charge, G is the gravitational constant, c is the speed of light, and m is the electron mass.

 

This expression has the following intriguing interpretation. Over an arbitrary distance r, the ratio of the electron mass force to the universe quantization force is (mc^2/r) / [(hA^-1)/r]. Over the same distance the ratio of the electron electrostatic force to the electron gravitational force is [(q^2/2)/ (2πr)^2] / [(Gm^2)/(r/2π)^2], where q^2 is divided by 2 because the electrostatic force is “signed”, r is multiplied by 2π for the electrostatic force because it is “circumferential”, and r is divided by 2π for the gravitational force because it is “anti-circumferential”.

 

The terms “signed”, “circumferential”, and “anti-circumferential” obviously require further interpretation and justification. Nevertheless, setting the two ratios equal yields the above expression, which predicts an age of the universe that is 0.5% larger than the current WMAP value and which is well within its 0.9% error.

[iNow]

And.... you want to talk about WHAT exactly?

[Sayonara]

Gustafson, you mind find this thread useful: LaTex tutorial.

[Klaynos]

I think the question "Where is the Physics?" springs to mind... What is the physical origin of the starting point?

[Gustafson, S]

My post, “An accurate age of the universe” is in the spirit of the well-known speculations of Nobel Prize winning physicist Paul Dirac. Essentially, it sets the electron mass energy divided by the quantum energy of the universe (Planck’s constant divided by the universe age) equal to the electron electrostatic energy divided by the electron gravitational energy. The result, after rearranging and using a factor of 2 and two factors of two times pi, is a value for the age of the universe that agrees with the value obtained from recent measurements of the cosmic background microwave radiation (13.7 billion years) to well within 1%. My questions are: Is this result interesting, significant, worthy of further study, etc.?

[Klaynos]

Is this result interesting, significant, worthy of further study, etc.?

 

It depends how Dirac came up with his equation, hence my question about where is the physics...

[swansont]

My questions are: Is this result interesting, significant, worthy of further study, etc.?

 

Given that you can arrange just about any combination of constants, especially with multiplying by 2 and 2*pi, to make numbers work out to be anything you wish, I'd say no.

[pioneer]

If the universe is expanding, because space-time is expanding, doesn't the light from distance objects, reaching us see billions of years after traveling through expanding space-time, experience extra red shift, beyond the initial red shift due to initial doppler motion?

 

For example, we start with early space-time as a dense foam. One event gives off energy at that point in the history of space-time. It is fixed in terms of wavelength after doppler. Next, that light has to travel billions of years while the foam is still expanding.

 

A wild card variable that has been added is the accelerated expansion. Is this happening only now, or has space-time always been accelerating in terms of expansion? If always, it was expanding slowest at the beginning. Yet we have the highest velocity objects being credited to the time when they should be the slowest? Is most of the red shift actually due to light traveling through the expanding space-time?

 

Is what we see, not the past of the object, but the present state of the light that was given off long ago. Would this make a slow object look like it was fast?

[Martin]

... after traveling through expanding space-time, experience extra red shift, ... Is most of the red shift actually due to light traveling through the expanding space-time?

...

 

Yes, most or all.

In a beginning astro/cosmo course one of the first things they tell you is not to think of the cosmological redshift as a Doppler effect.

 

There might be small doppler shifts due to motion towards or away but at cosmo scales these are, as a rule, negligible.

 

To a first approximation the entire cosmo redshift is due to the factor by which space distances have expanded while the light was in transit.

 

Pioneer, that is a good question! However I don't think it fits into the topic of the thread very well. You could make a separate thread to discuss redshift. Like how to we estimate the redshift of the CMB (how much have distances expanded since year 380,000 when CMB was emitted) and stuff like that.

[Stevie]

"13.7 billion years to within 0.9 %".

 

Hi, new to the forum and just wondering, how does the inflation effect influence the calculation?