Well, I was wondering about the real age of our universe, I found that it's estimated to be $13.8\times 10^9$ years.  Is it an approximation, or laws behind this age?
43662
Many times I have read statements like, "the age of the universe is 14 billion years" . For example this wikipedia page .   Now, my question is, which observers' are these time intervals? According to whom 14 billion years?
17632
There is something I don't understand about the  $H$, as it seems to clump two concepts together that I can't quite unify in my head. On the one side, we have  $$V = D H$$  which means that for a given distance $D$, there is a certain amount of new space created over time - and $H$ is simply the factor that makes this relationship work. So, for example, say we have two points 1 Mpc apart, this would mean they recede at about 70 km/s away from each other  (given our current approximation of $H$).  Now the thing I can't wrap my head around is that   $$T =\frac{1}{ H}$$  is also the age of the universe. Contrary to claims made on, say, Wikipedia this means that $H$ cannot possibly have been a constant throughout the past 13 billion years, because mathematically $1/H$ means that $H$ must be continually shrinking as the universe ages.  So if $H$ did start out as some huge value and is now shrinking over time, doesn't this mean the expansion of the universe is slowing down? Because if $H$ is shrinking, I'll get a lower value of $V$ today than I'll get tomorrow. Shouldn't the notation then be more like  $$V = DH(t)$$  So which one is it? If $1/H$ is simply the solution for $D=0$, how can we use it as the expansion-velocity-per-unit-of-distance at the same time? What's worse, how can literature say $H$ has probably been more or less constant forever and simultaneously assert that $1/H$ is the current age of the universe? What am I missing?
39453
I don't understand how time can be relative to different observers, and I think my confusion is around how I understand what time is.  I have always been told (and thought) that time is basically a measurement we use to keep track of long it has been since an objects inception.  If that is even somewhat true, how can time be relative? If I have a rate of decay of X and you are somehow able to observe that (such as watching me age) how could I age at a different rate to 2 observers?  If time slows down the faster you go, does that mean you age slower? Or do you age at the same rate, only it seems like it takes longer? If a second is currently defined as the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom at 0K, how can that change at higher speeds? Assuming the temperature stays the same, shouldn't the measurement be the same?  Moving faster surely can't cause cells to decay slower, or atoms to radiate slower...can it?  Can someone explain, in the simplest of terms, how time can be relative?
58544
The Hubble constant, which roughly gauges the extent to which space is being stretched, can be determined from astronomical measurements of galactic velocities (via redshifts) and positions (via standard candles) relative to us. Recently a value of 67.80 ± 0.77 (km/s)/Mpc was published. On the scale of 1 A.U. the value is small, but not infinitesimal by any means (I did the calculation a few months ago, and I think it came out to about 10 meters / year / A.U.). So, can you conceive of a measurement of the Hubble constant that does not rely on any extra-galactic observations?  I ask because, whatever the nature of the expansion described by the Hubble constant, it seems to be completely absent from sub-galactic scales. It is as though the energy of gravitational binding (planets), or for that matter electromagnetic binding (atoms) makes matter completely immune from the expansion of space. The basis for this claim is that if space were also pulling atoms apart, I would naively assume we should be able to measure this effect through modern spectroscopy. Given that we are told the majority of the universe is dark energy, responsible for accelerating the expansion, I wonder, how does this expansion manifest itself locally?   Any thoughts would be appreciated.
15224
The size of our observable universe must have grown over time in the early universe.  Conversely with the accelerated expansion, I have heard that eventually our observable universe will shrink down to our local group of gravitationally bound galaxies.  So then the observable universe must go through a maximum at some point in time.  When is that and what is that maximum size?
50119
I saw  hosted by Stephen Hawkins.  And if I didn't get it wrong, it says that there was no time before the big bang, time was created there.  So how can anything happen when there is no time (eg: the creation of time and the universe)? Is this what he calls a 'singularity'? Which I could think like this: when there is no time nothing can happen, except during this singularity.  Of course I don't know of a law that says 'when there is no time nothing can happen..', I just came up with it, as something intuitive.
66028
This is a question that has been gnawing on me for many years now. Back a long time ago, as I recall in reference to a scene in a popular science show on TV, I was asked the following.  The claim is that when you look out into the universe, you see the universe as it appeared at some past time. (This follows from the speed of light being finite, and looking at objects by observing their emitted light or other EM radiation.) The amount of time that one looks backwards is equal to the distance to the observed object in light-distance (so looking at something ten lightyears away means you are observing it as it was ten years ago).  Matter moves at a rate of speed less than the speed of light (it has to, since matter has mass, even if miniscule at the atomic level). So $v_{mass} \lt v_{EM}$ (probably significantly less, since $v_{EM} = c$).  So let's say you're looking at an object $10^{10}$ lightyears away by observing something for which $v=c$. To the observer, that object appears as it was $10^{10}$ years ago. But the Earth is much younger than $10^{10}$ years and we established that matter moves at a slower speed than EM radiation, so wouldn't the radiation that was emitted $10^{10}$ years ago long since have passed Earth's current position?  If, say, $v_{mass} = 0.5 \times c$ (a big assumption, but bear with me for a second), it would seem that the radiation emitted $10^{10}$ years ago would have passed Earth's current position $10^{10} - (0.5 \times 10^{10}) = 5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago, around the time when the solar system was still forming. Setting $v_{mass} = 0.25 \times c$ (which seems more realistic) means the radiation would have passed "us" around $7.5 \times 10^{9}$ years ago. So how could we be observing it now?  I'm not sure I'm posing this question in the best possible way (I'll admit I do find the concept somewhat confusing), and I'm sure that there's a simple explanation for it all. Just what am I missing?  I did find  which seems peripherally related but not quite the same thing. Qmechanic brought up  but that question seems to be about whether it is so, not why it is so.
122389
It is generally believed that $10^{-35}$ seconds after the Big Bang, the symmetry of a GUT was broken and after $10^{-12}$ seconds the electroweak force was broken:  \begin{equation} \mathrm{SU(2)} \times \mathrm{U(1)} \rightarrow \mathrm{U(1)} \end{equation}  This symmetry breaking is a result of the universe cooling down and undergoing a phase transition. I'm aware that the temperature of the universe it about $2.7$ Kelvin, so the temperature of the universe cannot decrease much more, but I was wondering if there is a chance that another phase transition might happen again in the future?
3178
How does the  change with the age of the universe?  This question was posted recently, and I had almost finished writing an answer when the question was deleted. Since it's a shame to waste the effort here's the answer anyway.  Maybe this can be one of the canonical answers .
6405
How can I calculate the distance of a point from Earth now vs 13 billion years ago? The excerpt below claims it is 8 times further now. Can someone provide relevant equations ?
67776
I was wondering how dark energy is effecting the rate at which the universes expansion occurs.
62369
If you ask any person about time, she/he will give you some answer.  I suspect that it is extremely difficult, (if not impossible) to define time. Is there a definition of what it is in physics? Is it an "axiom" that has to be taken as it is, without explanations? I also noticed that the tag "time" has no pop-ups with comments/definition/explanations.
98414
What exactly is meant by  when I see it in a physics equation (always something wrong?)?  And in experiment how many orders of magnitude can be treated as infinity (say, if infinity is predicted by theory)? (I would like an example, since $10^{10} sec$ can be big comparing to a blink of eye, or small comparing to the age of universe)
86645
OK...before everyone blasts this with references to the relativistic invariance of the physical laws, time dilation, etc let me add some context. Also, I am an amateur with an interest in physics, so I don't know the details of the physics. However, I have read enough about the cosmological principle and cosmic time to develop this "confusion" .  Based on evidence gathered to-date, it appears that the universe is both , as evidenced by observations and the . This principle, when combined with the FLRW metric, allows space-time to be divided into non-intersecting slices and therefore establish a "cosmic time."   Now, the existance of such a time in no way suggests that it is the "right" time or a true "now", hence violating relativity -- although some presentist philosophers (e.g., W.L. Craig) have tried to make this argument, but it is not generally accepted in philosophical circles.  However, this leaves me confused about an apparent disconnect between relativity and the cosmological principle:  Isotropy only holds if we are at rest relative to the cosmic microwave background radiation (universal rest frame), o/w anisotropy is present - yet each reference frame is supposed to allow equally valid observations. How can these two be reconciled when most reference frames would lead us to conclude that the universe is NOT isotropic?  It seems that only by appealing to the idea of being at rest relative to "universal rest frame" can we explain away any discrepancies from isotropy as due to "peculiar motion". However, doesn't this give this "universal rest frame" and its associated time an empirically privileged status, even though physical laws work just fine in every reference frame?   For example (pardon any abuse of astronomy): if look off in some part of space and see only quasars, and then in another part of space and see only brown dwarfs, but I measure both as apparently the same distance from me, then can I conclude that we are in motion, since otherwise we would have an empirical contradiction (kind of like finding dinosaur and human remains in the same strata)?  Any help on where I am going wrong would be helpful. Intuitively, I don't think there should be a way to establish absolute ordering between space-like separated events, but the above reasoning suggests otherwise.
105555
Just watched the 'How Big is the Universe?' TV program and it indicated that the universe is believed to be infinite in size. They used an approach involving measuring the internal angles of triangles. Or something like that anyway.  But hang on, the Universe has a known starting time and size followed by a finite time expanding at a finite speed. So surely, by definition, it cannot be infinite? I can accept it is honking big but by definition it cannot be infinite. Are they misleading me?
120395
Ideally I like a single formula or multiple formulas for different time ranges that would cover the time from the end of inflation through 100+ billion years after the big bang using  the $\Lambda CDM$ Model.  I know that from the end of inflation back to the time of the big bang would be much more speculative, but some wild estimate would be appreciated for that time range also!  The Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric defines the scale factor, a(t), from the metric: $$-c^2d\tau^2 = -c^2dt^2+a(t)^2d\Sigma^2$$ where $d\Sigma^2$ ranges over the 3 dimensional space of the universe and does not depend on time. Usually the scale of the scale factor is set by defining  $a(t_{now}) = a(13.78 B yr) \equiv 1$
22861
Hubble's law states that $v=Hx$  Age of the universe is calculated by $T= \frac{x}{v} = \frac{1}{H}$  but the velocity is not constant; it changes with distance, so I think that this equation cannot be applied because simply the velocity is NOT uniform  $v$ should have been replaced with $\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}$, so it gives this differential equation $\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}t}=Hx$.  Nevertheless, when this differential equation is solved, and we substitute for initial condition ($x=0$ when $t=0$), it appears that there are no solutions, because it will be an exponential function, which can't take the value $0$ ever.   What is wrong with my understanding?