Holes in Big Bang

[Michael Mozina]

So you admit you were wrong when you asserted "Of course that particular measurement is based upon two primary assumptions"?

No. I'll simply revise the word "point" to "lump".

Pardon me for taking your words seriously.

Pardon you for fixating on the word "point"' rather than the actual issue.

How did you arrive at the figure of 5-10%?

I pulled it out of my backside just like you pulled out any other number.

 

[sol invictus]

I'll simply revise the word "point" to "lump".

That's a yes. Good.

Question: in a few months, will you go back to using "point" even though you've agreed it was wrong?

I pulled it out of my backside

Thanks for admitting that. Are you interested in the real answer, the one that scientists have actually thought through and tested carefully?

 

[Michael Mozina]

That's a yes. Good.

Question: in a few months, will you go back to using "point" even though you've agreed it was wrong?

Oh no. I'll remember how intensely you tried to derail this conversation over a use of terms. "Lump" it is.

Are you interested in the real answer, the one that scientists have actually thought through and tested carefully?

You haven't "tested" anything in a controlled way. When you say "test", you aren't talking about anything with any sort of control mechanism or any sort of empirical test. It's all 'make-believe math' based on mythical dead inflation deities and "negative pressure vacuums".

 

[Perpetual Student]

Question: do you know what an "error bar" is?

I assume it means the same thing in physics as it does in other fields. Is it one standard deviation? As such, it would be based on the uncertainty of all the measurements made in calculating some value.
So, was the 15 to 20 billion years so often thrown around not so long ago based on one or two standard deviations? In any case, 13.7 billion years is certainly outside of that range.

 

[sol invictus]

Oh no. I'll remember how intensely you tried to derail this conversation over a use of terms. "Lump" it is.

It's annoying when people actually pay attention to the wrong things you say, isn't it Michael!

You haven't "tested" anything in a controlled way. When you say "test", you aren't talking about anything with any sort of control mechanism or any sort of empirical test. It's all 'make-believe math' based on mythical dead inflation deities and "negative pressure vacuums".

I guess that's a "no". OK!

I assume it means the same thing in physics as it does in other fields. Is it one standard deviation?

Usually, yes (although it's a good idea to check in any particular plot).

As such, it would be based on the uncertainty of all the measurements made in calculating some value.

Right.

So, was the 15 to 20 billion years so often thrown around not so long ago based on one or two standard deviations? In any case, 13.7 billion years is certainly outside of that range.

You'll have to provide a reference. Are you saying you think the result was 17.5 plus/minus 2.5 at one sigma? If it was, 13.7 is only off by about 1.5 sigma, which is perfectly normal and FAR below 4, let alone 8!

Remember, the probability is exponential in the number of standard deviations.

 

[Reality Check]

I assume it means the same thing in physics as it does in other fields. Is it one standard deviation? As such, it would be based on the uncertainty of all the measurements made in calculating some value.

In a statistical analysis you would be right, i.e. the error bars are selected as standard deviations (sigmas).
The 13.69 +/- 0.13 billion years has an uncertainties that is worked out from the uncertainties in the inputs to the parameters to the model used.
You need to read the papers cited by DeiRenDopa to get the exact method used to determine the uncertainties.

So, was the 15 to 20 billion years so often thrown around not so long ago based on one or two standard deviations? In any case, 13.7 billion years is certainly outside of that range.

I do not know where you get this 15 to 20 billion years or what "not so long ago" means.
The Age of the Universe web page by Ned Wright has measurements from ~1999 as:
11.5-17.5 Gyr and 12.3-17.3 Gyr from radioactive decay.
15.2 +/- 3.5 Gyr, 15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr, 12.5 +/- 3 and 14.1 +/- 2.5 from ages of stars.
etc.

Can you give a citation?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Question: do you know what an "error bar" is?

I assume it means the same thing in physics as it does in other fields.

One of the things I tried to explain - unsuccessfully it seems - is that one cannot rely upon the assumption that an error bar (or uncertainty) in the abstract of a paper is estimated by any particular method ... you actually need to read the paper to learn what the estimated uncertainty is and how it was calculated.

Is it one standard deviation? As such, it would be based on the uncertainty of all the measurements made in calculating some value.

In the case of WMAP team papers, a very great deal of work has gone into estimating the uncertainties, and I think you'll find the +/- values are 68% confidence limits. While this seems to the same as one sigma, I think you'll find there are some differences. Further, at least some papers also quote 95% and 99% CLs (IIRC, I could be wrong), and if you do some simple arithmetic on them, you'll see they cannot be 2 and 3 sigma (respectively).

Normally I'd offer to go through a paper or two on this, to help you (and any other reader) understand what has actually been done, but in this case I am not prepared to do so ... the effort would be far greater than the time I have available (the analyses are very extensive, and are presented in a number of quite heavy papers); perhaps another JREF Forum member might like to step in?

So, was the 15 to 20 billion years so often thrown around not so long ago based on one or two standard deviations? In any case, 13.7 billion years is certainly outside of that range.

I see this point has already been addressed ...

 

[Perpetual Student]

This age of the universe discussion has gone beyond my purpose in bringing it up in the first place. Please understand that I have a very deep respect for all the physicists, astronomers and cosmologists who work in this field. I understand that these estimates are based on a lot of hard work and meticulous analysis and calculations. I do not want to be cast in the role of one who in any way depreciates the value of their work and achievements.
I am basing my comments on my more than 50 years of following developments in this area. I have witnessed drastic revisions in cosmological theories several times (in my youth Fred Hoyle seemed to have all the answers -- think about that -- continuous creation of one hydrogen atom per cubic meter per year -- or something like that). I simply feel that it is naive to believe that "now we've got it right." Based on my experience in this area I have come to expect the unexpected. Nevertheless, DieR. you have been very helpful in providing material that gives me some reason to believe that the current estimate is far more well founded than those of the past and finally, we may be on the trail of the ultimate answer -- maybe. Thanks again, I will continue to read and attempt to comprehend the sources you have recommended.

 

[Perpetual Student]

Are you saying you think the result was 17.5 plus/minus 2.5 at one sigma?

I have no idea. 15 to 20 billion years was a range often repeated in cosmological discussions.

If it was, 13.7 is only off by about 1.5 sigma, which is perfectly normal and FAR below 4, let alone 8!

Remember, the probability is exponential in the number of standard deviations.

OK, good points.