# With the determination of the age of the universe why do astronomers seems to forget the NON-visible part of the universe?

Since they used the Hubble Constant to measure the expanding speed of the universe, which is now said to believed to be at 70km/s per parsec, roughly? Anyway, by calculating back they come to conclusion that the universe must be about 13,6 billion years old. But what eludes me is they don t take into account ALL the space that is beyond the horizon. Just imagine, that horizon is nothing else but an edge where the cumulative expansion of space is exceeding the speed of light, but does not mark the spot the universe ends. I don t believe the universe is just 13.6 billion years old. I think it s MUCH older.

### 14 Answers

- goringLv 66 months ago
No one really knows when the beginning was. The present calculation shows time as too miniscule..

- Log in to reply to the answers

- cosmoLv 76 months ago
The current best estimate of the age of the Universe by astronomers is a combination of all observations, and the determination of the Hubble "constant" by optical telescopes now makes only a small contribution to the mix. The largest contribution is made by the structure of anisotropies in the cosmic microwave background (certainly a non-visible part of the Universe). As far as visual-wavelength contributions, the measurement of "Baryon Acoustic Oscillations" is more accurate than direct measures of the Hubble flow.

- Log in to reply to the answers

- 6 months ago
Because the non-visible universe is not visible. In otherwords, we don't even know if there is any. It is invisible. Duh!

- Log in to reply to the answers

- DixonLv 76 months ago
The mistake you are making is thinking that the universe started at a point and expanded outward into pre existing nothingness. It did not. It started *everywhere* and expanded inside itself - inpanded if you like. Every scientist is well aware that the calculated size of the universe refers to the size of the visible universe only but some are sloppy with their speech and don't always say the visible universe.

- ...Show all comments
- DixonLv 76 months agoReport
We already know our model breaks down at time zero. But it is still good enough to let us determine when time zero occurred. And time zero would the beginning of everything - the visible universe and beyond the current horizon.

- Log in to reply to the answers

- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- daniel gLv 76 months ago
First, we simply have no clue as to the age of the universe. That 13 billion year figure is based on 'what we can see'

This 'horizon' notion that the expansion is something faster than light doesnt jive with other celestial dynamics and is not supported by Hubble constant. That is like generalizing and you would have to explain why only few objects display red shift. IF that notion were credible, all distant objects would have a shift and beyond just the red which is just a stretching of light wavelength of light from objects speeding away from earth.

A more credible notion is the universe is vastly larger and what lies beyond what we see is simply more universe and its age much older by orders of magnitude. Since the big bang, it has simply taken light that long to reach us and the illusion of expansion is light just now getting to us.

Now consider 'what we can see' is just a tiny bit of the electromagnetic spectrum, we have telescopes that SEE outside this visible part. Radio from a meter to a couple hundred nanometers, scopes like Chandra look at X-ray

and gamma ray. They see no further than this horizon, supporting the laws nothing goes faster than light.

Hawking radiation now proven by evidence of X-ray jets from black holes going faster than light show this not quite true. Within Swartzchild radius of black holes, theory is viable that matter exceeds the speed of light but as no radiation at this threshold, can't be proven.

General relativity alone concludes there is no boundary to the universe, and its age based on 'what we see'.

Not taken into account often is these far distant objects, light just getting here, took no less than that time to get where they are, again, only what we can see and detect. The universe may well be infinitely large and how many 'big bangs' from prior universes. The cosmic heartbeat notion.

- ...Show all comments
Well, see,,that is why you fail,,Hawking radiation HAS been proven, you you seem to know not what Hawking radiation is. Burst leaves at time 1 and travel's a great distance by time 2 and the formula for time distance greater than the speed of light.

- Log in to reply to the answers

- nebLv 76 months ago
As difficult as it is to understand, there is not a direct relationship between the size of the universe and it’s age. There are a couple of reasons why. The universe went through a period of rapid inflation shortly after the Big Bang. That rapid inflationary period increased the size of the universe dramatically. So, the size of the universe depended on the magnitude of that rapid inflation.

The second reason is that the universe has been determined to be spatially flat (WMAP results) to within .4%. This implies - by general relativity - that the universe may be infinite (there are some topological caveats). If it is infinite, it doesn’t imply that it existed for an infinite amount of time but that it was always infinite. Keep in mind that an observable universe horizon would look the same in both a finite and infinite universe.

- ...Show all comments
Space is often referred to as ‘flat’ when the space has zero curvature. It is not intended to mean the space has any particular dimensionality.

- Log in to reply to the answers

- Ronald 7Lv 76 months ago
It is too far ahead of everybody

Even at the Speed of Light

Until we can work out the speed of thought

We may never know

- Log in to reply to the answers

- IridflareLv 76 months ago
" 70km/s per parsec" that should be megaparsec, but that doesn't affect the logic. We look at an object 1mpc away and it's receding at 70km/sec. We look at something at 2 mpc and it's receding at 140 km/sec, and so on. We can look at CMB data and use that instead. The thing is, we can get enough data to determine the Hubble constant without worrying about the unobservable universe, and if we know the Hubble constant we can work out the age of the universe.

- ...Show all comments
What?

- Log in to reply to the answers

- RaymondLv 76 months ago
Space is expanding.

The universe? we don't know -- all we can observe, and measure, is that SPACE is expanding.

Everywhere. Even inside individual photons of light. Inside atoms, inside you and me, between stars, between galaxies...

It is not that things are moving away from each other. It is rather that more space is being added everywhere, all the time.

Locally, the rate is extremely small. For example, during a 70-year lifetime, the amount of space being added over a length of 2 metres (a somewhat tall man), adds up to almost the size of one atom.

Space is expanding everywhere. Over long distances, it does add up. Over a distance of one MILLION parsecs (3.26 million light-years), the amount of space being added comes to approximately 70 km every second.

This expansion is the same everywhere, therefore the amount being added is "linear" -- translation = if you double the distance, you get twice as much "new space" every second.

Two million parsecs = expansion of 140 km/s

This sounds like a lot, but if you could imagine the size of a million parsec (more than the distance from here to the Andromeda galaxy), you'd see that the rate of expansion is extremely small.

And yet. If you apply this rate backwards (going back in time) to two points separated by a million parsecs, you'd see that the distance between them reaches zero, when you apply a time duration of 13.8 billion years (the real calculation is done in seconds, but you get the drift).

If you take two points further apart? Then you need to account that the rate is linear (since the expansion is cumulative over distance). Two points separated by two million parsecs would see 140 km of new space being added every second. Calculate backwards until the distance reaches zero and... you get the same 13.8 billion years.

--What about the non-visible part of the universe?

Of course, things COULD be different beyond our horizon (outside the Observable Universe) but, for now, we have no reason to think so. It is like waking up on a ship in the middle of the ocean. You can see water all around and, climb as you may, you can only see as far as the horizon. If the highest place you can climb is 400 feet above the water line, then your horizon would be at roughly 22 nautical miles (approx. 43 km, the length of a marathon race).

If you are in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, this is nothing. However, by studying the ocean within this 43 km radius, there are things you understand. For example, the link between the speed of the waves and the surface tension of the water; they determine how energy is transported on the surface of the ocean. Strong binoculars may not allow you to see the surface beyond the horizon (just like telescopes do not let us see outside the Observable Universe), but they show you that the waves coming over the horizon seem to behave the same way than the waves close to your ship. And this is true regardless of the direction.

You conclude that the ocean, outside your 43-km radius, probably looks a lot like your little patch of water.

We do not know about the whole universe. However, based on observations made with the WMAP a few decades ago, it looks like the "outside" universe behaves a lot like our little patch of Observable Universe, at least for a distance three times our horizon radius. If that is so, then we know that 13.8 billion years ago, all distances between any two points within that region would have been zero. Whatever our part of the universe really is, it could not have existed in any state that we would recognize before that moment 13.8 billion years ago.

WMAP = Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe

- Log in to reply to the answers

- Anonymous6 months ago
Basically fossil records

- Log in to reply to the answers