Please help astronomers and physicists out there....
2007-04-02 07:52:04 · 4 answers · asked by jason b 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
If an astronomer's calculations showed that the universe was only 4 billion years old that would be a problem for the scientist - it would show that his calculations are way off. There are too many proofs that the universe is much older. This comes from studies of the oldest stars, the expansion of the universe and the background radiation from the big bang which are all in accordance with the age of the universe being appoximately 13.7 billion years old.
2007-04-02 08:05:16 · answer #1 · answered by Twizard113 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Universe cannot be younger than the objects it contains! So, it would be a problem indeed.
This situation actually happened in 1953 when Clair Patterson working in his lab discovered that the age of a meteorite he was examining was 4.5 billion years old (he discovered the age of the Earth in that respect). While in 1952 Baade had announced that the age of the Universe should be set to 3.6 billion years old.
This inconsistency was corrected in 1954 when Sandage used new photographic techniques and moved up the age of the Universe at 5.5 billion years old (still a wrong figure as we know today).
2007-04-02 18:14:49 · answer #2 · answered by stardom65 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
IT would be interesting to be sure. Since the universe is 15 billion light years across, that would mean that there are a lot of objects whose light has not reached us yet.
So the "unknown universe" would be larger than the "known universe".
2007-04-02 15:14:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a large portion of the stars and galaxies would be older than the universe. .. our sun and the earth included
2007-04-02 14:58:50 · answer #4 · answered by Gene 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋