Age and Relativity

[pinoy_09]

---

si Pinoy and Hitch nag exchange of Likes sila

Mga gwapo man gud mi.

[balipseyev]

OT:
The Big Bang was actually Chuck Norris roundhouse kicking God in the face.

LoL

[noel_llapa]

bawsi sab ninyo. hehe. pag-buhat mo'g topic with all the technical mambo-jumbo from your respective fields. ^_^

Don't know much about Physics but I think there's no place for absolute time (or space) in relativity. Since the "age" of the universe is determined by tracing the point whence all the particles of universe started separating away from each other, such determination is thus dependent on events relative to other events, without any need for an absolute fixed point of reference. The "age" of the universe (and time for that matter) is thus dependent on the ones perceiving it.

[denkyo]

By the way, the TS took the question from this forum:

Age And Relativity - Hypography Science Forums

try lng nato ang comment sa mga bisaya. just like you na may pagka sweto...

[yanong_banikanhon]

My question would be, relative to who?

Short answer: Relative to the observable universe.

Testingan nako'g explain ha.

Imadyena nga sa imong nahimutangan nagkubot ka og stopwatch. Sa imong atubangan imong makita ang usa ka very hot dense point of light (aka as singularity). Nakabalo ka nga ang sunod mahitabo mao ang big bang (the origin of the universe) so nangandam ka pagpindot sa imong stopwatch. Tuod man, pagbuto sa maong point of light, imo pud gi-start ang imong stopwatch.

Then that speck of light expands. Ug nipadayon pa gyud pag-expand. Nalingaw ka sa imong nakita. Swirling hot gases becoming the very first stars, planets, etc...Ug sa kalit imong nahinumdoman ang imong stopwatch. Imong gitan-aw ang elapsed time: 13.75 billion years!

Kanang figure nga imong nakita sa stopwatch, mao na ang age of the universe. According sa IAU definition, age of the universe is the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe.

Take note nga gikan sa pag-start nimo sa stopwatch hangtud karon, wala KA naglihok. Nagbarog ra ka for 13.75 billion years! Since you are not moving near the speed of light, ang imong frame of reference mao ang observable universe. In other words, dili na nimo kinahanglan iapil sa equation sa imong calculation ang relativity kay maapply man lang ang relativity if you are moving at the speed which is almost equal to the speed of light.

The thought experiment above may not be very accurate (lot of factors are ignore for the purpose of simplification) but I hope it shed a light on why relativity is ignored sa calculation of the age of the universe.

P.S. This thread should be transferred to the science section. Mas mahatagan ni og attention sa mga expert didto. Kana kun ang TS tinuod gyud nga interesado sa question sa iyang thread. Diri man gud sa General discussion, inato' nga explanation lang ang atong mahimo. Mga expert ani nga subject, please feel free to correct any mistakes sa akong post.

[denkyo]

Short answer: Relative to the observable universe.

Testingan nako'g explain ha.

Imadyena nga sa imong nahimutangan nagkubot ka og stopwatch. Sa imong atubangan imong makita ang usa ka very hot dense point of light (aka as singularity). Nakabalo ka nga ang sunod mahitabo mao ang big bang (the origin of the universe) so nangandam ka pagpindot sa imong stopwatch. Tuod man, pagbuto sa maong point of light, imo pud gi-start ang imong stopwatch.

Then that speck of light expands. Ug nipadayon pa gyud pag-expand. Nalingaw ka sa imong nakita. Swirling hot gases becoming the very first stars, planets, etc...Ug sa kalit imong nahinumdoman ang imong stopwatch. Imong gitan-aw ang elapsed time: 13.75 billion years!

Kanang figure nga imong nakita stopwatch, mao na ang age of the universe. According sa IAU definition, age of the universe is the elapsed time since the Big Bang in the current observable universe.

Take note nga gikan sa pag-start nimo sa stopwatch hangtud karon, wala KA naglihok. Nagbarog ra ka for 13.75 billion years! Since you are not moving near the speed of light, ang imong frame of reference mao ang observable universe. In other words, dili na nimo kinahanglan iapil sa equation sa imong calculation ang relativity kay maapply man lang ang relativity if you are moving at the speed which is almost equal to the speed of light.

The thought experiment above may not be very accurate (lot of factors are ignore for the purpose of simplification) but I hope it shed a light on why relativity is ignored sa calculation of the age of the universe.

P.S. This thread should be transferred to the science section. Mas mahatagan ni og attention sa mga expert didto. Kana kun ang TS tinuod gyud nga interesado sa question sa iyang thread. Diri man gud sa General discussion, inato' nga explanation lang ang atong mahimo. Mga expert ani nga subject, please feel free to correct any mistakes sa akong post.

Mao sa Science jud sory diri man gud nagfucos, i have spent some time thinking about it, but without much success. The answer given by you is good, but I have one question and a comment.

Has anyone gone to the frame of reference where the CMB is isotropic and measured it from there? Or is this special frame of reference predicted to exist? I will settle for a reference on this question. Out of curiosity, how does this frame compare with the motion of the earth?

As I understand, there is a preferred frame of reference where the microwave background is isotropic and from this we conclude the expansion of the universe is also isotropic with respect to this frame. This privileged frame seems like trying to sneak Newton in the back door. Consider the privileged frame as belonging to one twin in the famous twins paradox of special relativity. When the twins are reunited, they will disagree on the how much time has elapsed and therefore disagree on the true age of the universe. So I am still unconvinced – it seems like special relativity must allow for a non-unique age for our universe.

But I do think this is a really fascinating question and I am hoping for some interesting responses!

[yanong_banikanhon]

^^ Two things:
1. I-express kuno in your own words kanang imong pangutana sa taas. Kay mura'g ikaw mismo wala makasabot ana, igo lang na nimong gikopya gikan physicsforum site. Basin mahulog nga spamming ang imong gibuhat. Delikado ka anan kun makit-an ka sa mga mods.

2. This section is for general discussion. Dili ni para sa mga highly technical/scientific topics. Nganong imo man gyu'ng gipili ang gen. discussion para dinhi nimo i-paste ang mga question nga imong nakit-an sa physicsforum nga site? There is a 'science section' para ana, so adto didto paghimo'g thread.

[denkyo]

^^ Two things:
1. I-express kuno in your own words kanang imong pangutana sa taas. Kay mura'g ikaw mismo wala makasabot ana, igo lang na nimong gikopya gikan physicsforum site. Basin mahulog nga spamming ang imong gibuhat. Delikado ka anan kun makit-an ka sa mga mods.

2. This section is for general discussion. Dili ni para sa mga highly technical/scientific topics. Nganong imo man gyu'ng gipili ang gen. discussion para dinhi nimo i-paste ang mga question nga imong nakit-an sa physicsforum nga site? There is a 'science section' para ana, so adto didto paghimo'g thread.

Brad suko ka birahan ko dah ang puso mo murag seryoso na kaayo ka. di ba kibalo ka ang tanan dre sa general discussion pwede mabalhin if dili mo fit. I know i was wrong pero curious lng ko ato nga thread pero na change na nako as my own question. basta ingon permi inyo paagi sige pamikil wa tay makuha ani sige lng ta debate..sabta lng ang question sa thread bay if wala pud ka kasabot undang nlng.hibaw-an bitaw ra na kung bawal o pwede kay ma close man.

[yanong_banikanhon]

Wa ko masuko, bay. I'm just stating the obvious.

Magpaabot pa diay ka nga ibalhin sa mods ang imong thread sa appropriate section bisan ikaw mismo, TS, nakabalo nga sa Science Section dapat ang imong thread?

Now, let's go back to your question. I-express kuno sa imong kaugalingong words ang imong question bahin sa isotropy, CMB ug frame of reference. Aron masabtan sa kadaghanan.

[denkyo]

Magpaabot pa diay ka nga ibalhin sa mods ang imong thread sa appropriate section bisan ikaw mismo, TS, nakabalo nga sa Science Section dapat ang imong thread?

Wa ko masuko, bay. I'm just stating the obvious.

Now, let's go back to your question. I-express kuno sa imong kaugalingong words ang imong question bahin sa isotropy, CMB ug frame of reference. Aron masabtan sa kadaghan.

Ikaw bay masayop ug butang sa kadaghan tab imo na open nasugdan mn saon walay ma hims. ayaw brad hap sa sige nimo tubay florigaga murag naliwat naka hapit gahi pud..ako ok raman akoa nangutana ra btaw ko.mao bitaw mangutana ug question para makahibalo tubagon sa mga expert.

CMB)cosmic microwave background-piece of evidence for the Big Bang is the existence of an isotropic radiation bath that permeates the entirety of the universe.

An isotropic radiator is a theoretical point source of electromagnetic or sound waves which radiates the same intensity of radiation in all directions. It has no preferred direction of radiation.