Posted on 04/24/2002 6:30:34 PM PDT by longshadow
By Paul Recer
AP Science Writer
Wednesday, April 24, 2002; 4:21 PM
WASHINGTON –– The universe is about 13 billion years old, slightly younger than previously believed, according to a study that measured the cooling of the embers in ancient dying stars.
Experts said the finding gives "very comparable results" to an earlier study that used a different method to conclude that the universe burst into existence with the theoretical "Big Bang" between 13 and 14 billion years ago.
Harvey B. Richer, an astronomer at the University of British Columbia, said the Hubble Space Telescope gathered images of the faintest dying stars it could find in M4, a star cluster some 7,000 light years away.
Richer said the fading stars, called white dwarfs, are actually burnt out coals of stars that were once up to eight times the size of the sun. After they exhausted their fuel, the stars collapsed into Earth-sized spheres of cooling embers that eventually will turn cold and wink out of sight.
Earlier studies had established the rate of cooling for these stars, said Richer. By looking at the very faintest and oldest white dwarfs possible, astronomers can use this cooling rate to estimate the age of the universe.
Speaking at a news conference Wednesday, Richer said the dimmest of the white dwarfs are about 12.7 billion years old, plus or minus about half a billion years.
Richer said it is estimated that star formation did not begin until about a billion years after the Big Bang. He said this means his best estimate for age of the universe is "about 13 billion years."
Three years ago, astronomers using another method estimated the age at 13 to 14 billion years. That was based on precise measurements of the rate at which galaxies are moving apart, an expansion that started with the Big Bang. They then back-calculated – like running a movie backward – to arrive at the age estimate.
"Our results are in very good agreement" with Richer's estimate, said Wendy L. Freedman, an astronomer at the Carnegie Observatories in Pasadena, Calif., and a leader of the group performing the universe age calculations three years ago.
Bruce Margon, an astronomer at the Space Telescope Science Institute, said both conclusions are based on "a lot of assumptions" but the fact that two independent methods arrived within 10 percent of the same answer is important.
"To find an independent way to measure the age and then get essentially the same answer is a fantastic advance," said Margon. It may not be the final answer for the universe's age, he said, but is "very, very, very close."
To get the new age estimate, the Hubble Space Telescope collected light from M4 for eight days over a 67-day period. Only then did the very faintest of the white dwarfs become visible.
"These are the coolest white dwarf stars that we know about in the universe," said Richer. "These stars get cooler and cooler and less luminous as they age."
He added: "We think we have seen the faintest ones. If we haven't, then we'll have to rethink" the conclusions.
The faintest of the white dwarfs are less than one-billionth the apparent brightness of the dimmest stars visible to the naked eye.
M4 is a globular cluster, thought to be the first group of stars that formed in the Milky Way galaxy, the home galaxy for the sun, early in the history of the universe. There are about 150 globular clusters in the Milky Way; M4 was selected because it is closest to Earth.
The new age estimate for the universe is the latest in a long series of attempts to measure the passage of time since the Big Bang. Edwin Hubble, the famed astronomer who first proved that the universe is uniformly expanding, estimated in 1928 that the universe was two billion years old.
Later studies, using the very expansion that Hubble discovered, arrived at an estimate of about nine billion years for the universe age. This created a paradox for astronomers because some stars were known to be more ancient and it is impossible for stellar bodies to be older than the universe where they formed.
Freedman and others then determined, using proven values for the brightness and distance of certain stars, that the universe throughout its history has not expanded at a constant rate. Instead, the separation of galaxies is actually accelerating, pushed by a poorly understood force known as "dark energy." By adding in calculations for this mysterious force, the Freedman group arrived at the estimate of 13 to 14 billion years.
–––––
On the Net:
Hubble Images: http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2002/10
NASA: http://www.nasa.gov
Amazing...13 billion? I could swear, it doesn't look any older than 8 billion. Really.
He added: "We think we have seen the faintest ones. If we haven't, then we'll have to rethink" the conclusions.
What if some of the white dwarfs have already "gone out"? How would you know?
the Hubble Space Telescope collected light from M4 for eight days over a 67-day period. Only then did the very faintest of the white dwarfs become visible.
If they collected light for an additional 8 days, or 80 days, would additional, "dimmer" white dwarfs become visible?
Is that the farthest cluster in which we can distinguish such stars? On the one hand, it's not all that far (cosmologically speaking); but on the other hand, resolving individual stars in such a cluster seems quite a trick.
When? Today? I didn't get it a thing. Why didn't someone tell me?
These people actually get paid to make educated guesses like this? Where can I get a job like that?
When? Today? I didn't get it a thing. Why didn't someone tell me?
Hustle down to Hallmark.
They have some of those "belated" thingys you can send.
This was addressed in the press conference today. They took exposures that were adequate to detect fainter white dwarfs if they existed, but they found none; hence they conclude that these ARE the faintest.
White dwarf stars take a gigantically long time to "go out" (which in this case means to cool until they cannot be seen).
Excellent question, grasshopper.....
It is actually the CLOSEST cluster where astronomers hoped to detect such faint beasts, because of the limitations in their equipment precluded from being able to detect objects this faint at greater distances....
..... however, the new equipment JUST installed last month on the Hubble Space Telescope will be many times more sensitive that what they used for this research, and thus will be invaluable in observing more distant clusters to see if the data collected from them supports (or contradicts) this finding.
By looking at the evidence. The universe obeys physical laws, you know.
These people actually get paid to make educated guesses like this?
No, they get paid to make measurements like this.
Where can I get a job like that?
You start by spending twelve years in college (as I did).
Well, first you start out with an IQ of say 140+, then you matriculate at a first tier university, and major in Physics, or Mathematics, or Astronomy, and after four years of hard work you get your Bachelor's degree; then you apply to grad school and get into an Astronomy/Astrophysics program, and after a couple more years of hard work, you'll have your Master's degree, and then you put in more time doing original research on your doctoral Thesis, which, with a bit of luck and a lot of hard work, might be accepted, and so you eventually get your Ph.D.
Then you go to work, continuing to do original research like these guys did, and by that time you would have come to understand how it is that scientists are able to devise observations that measure the age of the Universe using multiple independent methods, which indicate very similar results.
Actually, the error in their measurement is half a billion years, which is roughly 4%. Not bad.
What does your mascot, Plato the Platypus, say about it?
You'll get better results if you do it after the sun goes down.
Watch it; this is a family forum.
;-)
Plato says 14.2 billion years.
Oh heck, I could do that. :-)
There are dozens of very good books on the subject, written in layman's language by the very people who are doing this research. You'd be amazed to discover how much in agreement they all are. They explain their thinking, their evidence, and how they arrive at their conclusions. Very stimulating reading. Try it.
Then I suggest you restrict yourself to logic, Mathematics, and distilled spirits, the only realms in which absolute "proof" is possible.
Scientific theories are based on consonance with observed evidence and multiple unsuccessfull attempts at falsification. Thus, they are NEVER "proven" in the sense of metaphysical certitude. That is the nature of science, and it has seerved us very well, despite it's shortcomings.
This has to be the ultimate job --predicting the age of the Universe as one of the "important" tasks of an astronomer. Sorta like the "job" of counting the angels on the head of a pin.
I remember the scientists a few years ago who "discovered" asteroids colliding with the planet Jupiter. They were dancing in the streets. Total contribution to Mankind for this crucial "discovery"? Nada. Zilch. Nothing.
If you are having trouble understanding that these two concepts are NOT mutually exclusive, I suggest you avail yourself of "Physicists" knowledge, expertise, and amazing ability to explain complex scientific concepts in a manner easily understood by layman.
He's right here on this thread. I'm sure he'd be happy to explain it to you if you were to ask him.
Does it?
They're going back 13 billion light years in time to see what happened then because that's how long it took for the light to reach us. But for all we know, as another poster said the universe goes on in infinity, there are probably galaxies a hundred trillion light years away, and farther. My point is, and it's a theory, fifteen billion years for the universe is like a second for us. It's been around a lot longer than that.
Okay; I'll bite.
Show us the contradiction you alluded to.
Does it?
the universe [has] been around a lot longer than [fifteen billion years].
Has it?
Let's see a little meat with your "if's".
That's what bothers me.
Because 20 years ago they all agreed that it was a different age.
Are you smarter than you were 20 years ago?
Actually, the result being reported here measured it to within half a billion years, which is an error of about 4%. Considering that they are measuring something that happened about 13 billion years ago (give or take), 4% error is pretty darned good.
Seriously, are you going to disparage science until they can tell you the month, day, and hour of the Big Bang? How much accuracy do you demand, and why?
They're always working with the data they have. When new data arrives, from new telescopes and better technology, what do you suggest they do? Supress the new information? They don't do that. They welcome the opportunity to revise their understanding, in the light of the best available information. Why do you find this objectionable?
They're going back 13 billion light years in time to see what happened then because that's how long it took for the light to reach us. But for all we know, as another poster said the universe goes on in infinity, there are probably galaxies a hundred trillion light years away, and farther. My point is, and it's a theory, fifteen billion years for the universe is like a second for us. It's been around a lot longer than that.
I'm sorry; you lost me.
Perhaps you are communicating with the story on another astral plane, but it mentioned nothing about the age of the earth.
I eagerly await your post of the errors in the multiple independent methodologies. Please include the evidence to back up your assertion that they are erroneous.
Please also provide your analysis that explains how ALL the errors of the independent methodologies ALL produce virtually indentical results.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.