The Age of the Universe Quiz

PDF page 1053: In previous chapters, we explored the contents of the universe—planets, stars, and galaxies—and learned about how these objects change with time. But what about the universe as a whole? How old is it? What did it look like in the beginning? How has it changed since then? What will be its fate? Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole and is the subject of this chapter. The story of observational cosmology really begins in 1929 when Edwin Hubble published observations of redshifts and distances for a small sample of galaxies and showed the then-revolutionary result that we live in an expanding universe—one which in the past was denser, hotter, and smoother. From this early discovery, astronomers developed many predictions about the origin and evolution of the universe and then tested those predictions with observations. In this chapter, we will describe what we already know about the history of our dynamic universe and highlight some of the mysteries that remain.

PDF page 1053: In previous chapters, we explored the contents of the universe—planets, stars, and galaxies—and learned about how these objects change with time. But what about the universe as a whole? How old is it? What did it look like in the beginning? How has it changed since then? What will be its fate? Cosmology is the study of the universe as a whole and is the subject of this chapter. The story of observational cosmology really begins in 1929 when Edwin Hubble published observations of redshifts and distances for a small sample of galaxies and showed the then-revolutionary result that we live in an expanding universe—one which in the past was denser, hotter, and smoother. From this early discovery, astronomers developed many predictions about the origin and evolution of the universe and then tested those predictions with observations. In this chapter, we will describe what we already know about the history of our dynamic universe and highlight some of the mysteries that remain.

PDF page 1055: About a decade later, Hubble, and his coworkers reported that the universe is expanding, so that no mysterious balancing force is needed. (We discussed this in the chapter on Galaxies.) Einstein is reported to have said that the introduction of the cosmological constant was “the biggest blunder of my life.” As we shall see later in this

PDF page 1055: If we had a movie of the expanding universe and ran the film backward, what would we see? The galaxies, instead of moving apart, would move together in our movie—getting closer and closer all the time. Eventually, we would find that all the matter we can see today was once concentrated in an infinitesimally small volume. Astronomers identify this time with the beginning of the universe. The explosion of that concentrated universe at the beginning of time is called the Big Bang (not a bad term, since you can’t have a bigger bang than one that creates the entire universe). But when did this bang occur? We can make a reasonable estimate of the time since the universal expansion began. To see how astronomers do this, let’s begin with an analogy. Suppose your astronomy class decides to have a party (a kind of “Big Bang”) at someone’s home to celebrate the end of the semester. Unfortunately, everyone is celebrating with so much enthusiasm that the neighbors call the police, who arrive and send everyone away at the same moment. You

PDF page 1056: We see, then, that the work of calculating this time was already done for us when astronomers measured the Hubble constant. The age of the universe estimated in this way turns out to be just the reciprocal of the Hubble constant (that is, 1/H). This age estimate is sometimes called the Hubble time. For a Hubble constant of 20 kilometers/second per million light-years, the Hubble time is about 15 billion years. The unit used by astronomers for the Hubble constant is kilometers/second per million parsecs. In these units, the Hubble constant is equal to about 70 kilometers/second per million parsecs, again with an uncertainty of about 5%. To make numbers easier to remember, we have done some rounding here. Estimates for the Hubble constant are actually closer to 21 or 22 kilometers/second per million light-years, which would make the age closer to 14 billion years. But there is still about a 5% uncertainty in the Hubble constant, which means the age of the universe estimated in this way is also uncertain by about 5%. To put these uncertainties in perspective, however, you should know that 50 years ago, the uncertainty was a factor of 2. Remarkable progress toward pinning down the Hubble constant has been made in the last couple of decades.

PDF page 1056: We see, then, that the work of calculating this time was already done for us when astronomers measured the Hubble constant. The age of the universe estimated in this way turns out to be just the reciprocal of the Hubble constant (that is, 1/H). This age estimate is sometimes called the Hubble time. For a Hubble constant of 20 kilometers/second per million light-years, the Hubble time is about 15 billion years. The unit used by astronomers for the Hubble constant is kilometers/second per million parsecs. In these units, the Hubble constant is equal to about 70 kilometers/second per million parsecs, again with an uncertainty of about 5%. To make numbers easier to remember, we have done some rounding here. Estimates for the Hubble constant are actually closer to 21 or 22 kilometers/second per million light-years, which would make the age closer to 14 billion years. But there is still about a 5% uncertainty in the Hubble constant, which means the age of the universe estimated in this way is also uncertain by about 5%. To put these uncertainties in perspective, however, you should know that 50 years ago, the uncertainty was a factor of 2. Remarkable progress toward pinning down the Hubble constant has been made in the last couple of decades.

PDF page 1056: We see, then, that the work of calculating this time was already done for us when astronomers measured the Hubble constant. The age of the universe estimated in this way turns out to be just the reciprocal of the Hubble constant (that is, 1/H). This age estimate is sometimes called the Hubble time. For a Hubble constant of 20 kilometers/second per million light-years, the Hubble time is about 15 billion years. The unit used by astronomers for the Hubble constant is kilometers/second per million parsecs. In these units, the Hubble constant is equal to about 70 kilometers/second per million parsecs, again with an uncertainty of about 5%. To make numbers easier to remember, we have done some rounding here. Estimates for the Hubble constant are actually closer to 21 or 22 kilometers/second per million light-years, which would make the age closer to 14 billion years. But there is still about a 5% uncertainty in the Hubble constant, which means the age of the universe estimated in this way is also uncertain by about 5%. To put these uncertainties in perspective, however, you should know that 50 years ago, the uncertainty was a factor of 2. Remarkable progress toward pinning down the Hubble constant has been made in the last couple of decades.

PDF page 1057: equivalent to assuming that you traveled home from the party at a constant rate, when in fact this may not have been the case. At first, mad about having to leave, you may have driven fast, but then as you calmed down—and thought about police cars on the highway—you may have begun to slow down until you were driving at a more socially acceptable speed (such as 80 kilometers/hour). In this case, given that you were driving faster at the beginning, the trip home would have taken less than a half-hour. In the same way, in calculating the Hubble time, we have assumed that H has been constant throughout all of time. It turns out that this is not a good assumption. Earlier in their thinking about this, astronomers expected that the rate of expansion should be slowing down. We know that matter creates gravity, whereby all objects pull on all other objects. The mutual attraction between galaxies was expected to slow the expansion as time passed. This means that, if gravity were the only force acting (a big if, as we shall see in the next section), then the rate of expansion must have been faster in the past than it is today. In this case, we would say the universe has been decelerating since the beginning. How much it has decelerated depends on the importance of gravity in slowing the expansion. If the universe were nearly empty, the role of gravity would be minor. Then the deceleration would be close to zero, and the universe would have been expanding at a constant rate. But in a universe with any significant density of matter, the pull of gravity means that the rate of expansion should be slower now than it used to be. If we use the current rate of expansion to estimate how long it took the galaxies to reach their current separations, we will overestimate the age of the universe—just as we may have overestimated the time it took for you to get home from the party.

PDF page 1057: Astronomers spent several decades looking for evidence that the expansion was decelerating, but they were not successful. What they needed were 1) larger telescopes so that they could measure the redshifts of more distant galaxies and 2) a very luminous standard bulb (or standard candle), that is, some astronomical object with known luminosity that produces an enormous amount of energy and can be observed at distances of a billion light-years or more. Recall that we discussed standard bulbs in the chapter on Galaxies. If we compare how luminous a standard bulb is supposed to be and how dim it actually looks in our telescopes, the difference allows us to calculate its distance. The redshift of the galaxy such a bulb is in can tell us how fast it is moving in the universe. So we can measure its distance and motion independently. These two requirements were finally met in the 1990s. Astronomers showed that supernovae of type Ia (see The Death of Stars), with some corrections based on the shapes of their light curves, are standard bulbs. This type of supernova occurs when a white dwarf accretes enough material from a companion star to exceed the Chandrasekhar limit and then collapses and explodes. At the time of maximum brightness, these dramatic supernovae can briefly outshine the galaxies that host them, and hence, they can be observed at very large distances. Large 8- to 10-meter telescopes can be used to obtain the spectra needed to measure the redshifts of the host galaxies (Figure 29.3).

PDF page 1058: The result of painstaking, careful study of these supernovae in a range of galaxies, carried out by two groups of researchers, was published in 1998. It was shocking—and so revolutionary that their discovery received the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. What the researchers found was that these type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies were fainter than expected from Hubble’s law, given the measured redshifts of their host galaxies. In other words, distances estimated from the supernovae used as standard bulbs disagreed with the distances measured from the redshifts. If the universe were decelerating, we would expect the far-away supernovae to be brighter than expected. The slowing down would have kept them closer to us. Instead, they were fainter, which at first seemed to make no sense. Before accepting this shocking development, astronomers first explored the possibility that the supernovae might not really be as useful as standard bulbs as they thought. Perhaps the supernovae appeared too faint because dust along our line of sight to them absorbed some of their light. Or perhaps the supernovae at large distances were for some reason intrinsically less luminous than nearby supernovae of type Ia. A host of more detailed observations ruled out these possibilities. Scientists then had to consider the alternative that the distance estimated from the redshift was incorrect. Distances derived from redshifts assume that the Hubble constant has been truly constant for all time. We saw that one way it might not be constant is that the expansion is slowing down. But suppose neither assumption is right (steady speed or slowing down.) Suppose, instead, that the universe is accelerating. If the universe is expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago, our motion away from the distant supernovae has sped up since the explosion occurred, sweeping us farther away from them. The light of the explosion has to travel a greater distance to reach us than if the expansion rate were constant. The farther the light travels, the fainter it appears. This conclusion would explain the supernova observations in a natural way, and this has now been substantiated by many additional observations over the last couple of decades. It really seems that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a notion so unexpected that astronomers at first resisted considering it. How can the expansion of the universe be speeding up? If you want to accelerate your car, you must supply energy by stepping on the gas. Similarly, energy must be supplied to accelerate the expansion of the universe. The discovery of the acceleration was shocking because scientists still have no idea what the source of the energy is. Scientists call whatever it is dark energy, which is a clear sign of how little we understand it.

PDF page 1058: The result of painstaking, careful study of these supernovae in a range of galaxies, carried out by two groups of researchers, was published in 1998. It was shocking—and so revolutionary that their discovery received the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. What the researchers found was that these type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies were fainter than expected from Hubble’s law, given the measured redshifts of their host galaxies. In other words, distances estimated from the supernovae used as standard bulbs disagreed with the distances measured from the redshifts. If the universe were decelerating, we would expect the far-away supernovae to be brighter than expected. The slowing down would have kept them closer to us. Instead, they were fainter, which at first seemed to make no sense. Before accepting this shocking development, astronomers first explored the possibility that the supernovae might not really be as useful as standard bulbs as they thought. Perhaps the supernovae appeared too faint because dust along our line of sight to them absorbed some of their light. Or perhaps the supernovae at large distances were for some reason intrinsically less luminous than nearby supernovae of type Ia. A host of more detailed observations ruled out these possibilities. Scientists then had to consider the alternative that the distance estimated from the redshift was incorrect. Distances derived from redshifts assume that the Hubble constant has been truly constant for all time. We saw that one way it might not be constant is that the expansion is slowing down. But suppose neither assumption is right (steady speed or slowing down.) Suppose, instead, that the universe is accelerating. If the universe is expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago, our motion away from the distant supernovae has sped up since the explosion occurred, sweeping us farther away from them. The light of the explosion has to travel a greater distance to reach us than if the expansion rate were constant. The farther the light travels, the fainter it appears. This conclusion would explain the supernova observations in a natural way, and this has now been substantiated by many additional observations over the last couple of decades. It really seems that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a notion so unexpected that astronomers at first resisted considering it. How can the expansion of the universe be speeding up? If you want to accelerate your car, you must supply energy by stepping on the gas. Similarly, energy must be supplied to accelerate the expansion of the universe. The discovery of the acceleration was shocking because scientists still have no idea what the source of the energy is. Scientists call whatever it is dark energy, which is a clear sign of how little we understand it.

PDF page 1058: The result of painstaking, careful study of these supernovae in a range of galaxies, carried out by two groups of researchers, was published in 1998. It was shocking—and so revolutionary that their discovery received the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics. What the researchers found was that these type Ia supernovae in distant galaxies were fainter than expected from Hubble’s law, given the measured redshifts of their host galaxies. In other words, distances estimated from the supernovae used as standard bulbs disagreed with the distances measured from the redshifts. If the universe were decelerating, we would expect the far-away supernovae to be brighter than expected. The slowing down would have kept them closer to us. Instead, they were fainter, which at first seemed to make no sense. Before accepting this shocking development, astronomers first explored the possibility that the supernovae might not really be as useful as standard bulbs as they thought. Perhaps the supernovae appeared too faint because dust along our line of sight to them absorbed some of their light. Or perhaps the supernovae at large distances were for some reason intrinsically less luminous than nearby supernovae of type Ia. A host of more detailed observations ruled out these possibilities. Scientists then had to consider the alternative that the distance estimated from the redshift was incorrect. Distances derived from redshifts assume that the Hubble constant has been truly constant for all time. We saw that one way it might not be constant is that the expansion is slowing down. But suppose neither assumption is right (steady speed or slowing down.) Suppose, instead, that the universe is accelerating. If the universe is expanding faster now than it was billions of years ago, our motion away from the distant supernovae has sped up since the explosion occurred, sweeping us farther away from them. The light of the explosion has to travel a greater distance to reach us than if the expansion rate were constant. The farther the light travels, the fainter it appears. This conclusion would explain the supernova observations in a natural way, and this has now been substantiated by many additional observations over the last couple of decades. It really seems that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, a notion so unexpected that astronomers at first resisted considering it. How can the expansion of the universe be speeding up? If you want to accelerate your car, you must supply energy by stepping on the gas. Similarly, energy must be supplied to accelerate the expansion of the universe. The discovery of the acceleration was shocking because scientists still have no idea what the source of the energy is. Scientists call whatever it is dark energy, which is a clear sign of how little we understand it.