- Direct measurements of the brightness and distance of objects in the Universe such as stars, galaxies and supernovae, which allowed us to build a ruler of cosmic distances.
- Measurements of large-scale structure, galaxy clustering and baryonic acoustic oscillations.
- Oscillations in the microwave cosmic background, a kind of “snapshot” of the Universe when it was only 380,000 years old.
There is a unique relationship between the age of the Universe and its expansion during the creation of its history.
In other words, if we could measure the expansion of the Universe today and how it has expanded throughout its history, we would know exactly what the different components make it up. We learned this from a number of observations, including:
You put it all together and you get a Universe that today is 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 4.9% ordinary matter, 0.1% neutrinos, 0.01% radiation , and all sorts of little things.
Then you look at the expansion of the Universe today and extrapolate it back in time, piecing together the history of the expansion of the Universe, and therefore its age.
We get a figure - most accurately from Planck, but supplemented by other sources like supernova measurements, the key HST project and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey - the age of the Universe, 13.81 billion years, give or take 120 million years. We are 99.1 percent sure of the age of the universe, which is pretty cool.
We have a number of different data sets that point to this conclusion, but they are, in fact, obtained using a single method. We're just lucky that there's a consistent picture with all the points pointing in the same direction, but in reality it's impossible to accurately tell the age of the Universe. All these points offer different probabilities, and somewhere at the intersection our opinion about the age of our world is born. 
If the Universe had the same properties, but consisted of 100% ordinary matter (that is, without dark matter or dark energy), our Universe would be only 10 billion years old. If the Universe consisted of 5% ordinary matter (without dark matter and dark energy), and the Hubble constant was 50 km/s/Mpc rather than 70 km/s/Mpc, our Universe would be 16 billion years old. With the combination of all this, we can almost certainly say that the age of the Universe is 13.81 billion years. Finding out this figure is a huge feat for science.
This method of finding out is rightfully the best. He is the main one, the most confident, the most complete and has been verified by many different pieces of evidence pointing to him. But there is another method, and it is very useful for checking our results.
It comes down to the fact that we know how stars live, how they burn their fuel and die. In particular, we know that all stars, while they live and burn through the main fuel (synthesizing helium from hydrogen), have a certain brightness and color, and remain at these specific indicators for a specific period of time: until the fuel runs out in the cores.
At this point, bright, blue, and massive stars begin to evolve into giants or supergiants. 
By looking at these points in a cluster of stars that formed at the same time, we can find out - if, of course, we know how stars work - the age of the stars in the cluster. Looking at old globular clusters, we find that these stars most often came to life about 13.2 billion years ago. (However, there are small deviations of a billion years).
An age of 12 billion years is quite common, but an age of 14 billion years or more is something strange, although there was a period in the 90s when an age of 14-16 billion years was mentioned quite often. (Improved understanding of stars and their evolution has significantly lowered these numbers.)
So, we have two methods - cosmic history and measurements of local stars - which indicate that the age of our Universe is 13-14 billion years. It will not surprise anyone if the age is clarified to 13.6 or even 14 billion years, but it is unlikely to be 13 or 15. If you are asked, say that the age of the Universe is 13.8 billion years, there will be no complaints against you.
Chapter 3 from the book by Lisle J. Taking Back Astronomy: The Heavens Declare Creation and Science Confirms It. Ed. 4th. Green Forest: Master Books, 2011. pp. 40–70. Per. from English: Vlasov V.; Editor: Prokopenko A. Translated and published with permission of the copyright holders.
Dr. Jason Lyle graduated magna cum laude from Ohio Wesleyan University where he majored in physics and astronomy with a minor in mathematics. He received his master's and doctorate degrees from the University of Colorado, Boulder. Dr. Lyle has conducted extensive research in solar astrophysics atJILA (Joint Institute of Laboratory Astrophysics) using a spacecraftSOHO(Solar and Heliospheric Observatory). His doctoral dissertation “Study of the dynamics of solar supergranulation and its interaction with magnetism” was devoted to the study of the state of the solar subsurface, convection cells, the structure of solar plasma flow and surface magnetism.
Dr. Lyle's scientific discoveries include the discovery of the polar structure of supergranulation, the cause of an anomaly called "major disk convergence" observed in correlation analysis of Doppler radiation from the sun, the discovery of the boundaries of giant cells of the sun, and the study of the causes of the "wave-like" characteristics of the solar energy spectrum
Dr. Lyle also contributed to the development of general relativity by developing new technique computer analysis of trajectories in the Schwarzschild metric with subsequent application in other metrics.
In addition to his secular research, Dr. Lyle has written a number of popular articles (and reviews) for Ensers in Genesis, Creation magazine, and several technical articles for the Journal of Creation. He has acted as an opponent or scientific consultant for several books on the astronomical aspects of creation, including: Refuting Compromise (by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati) Universe by Design (by Dr. Danny Faulkner) and Dismantling the Big Bang (by Drs John Hartnett and Alex Williams). Dr. Lyle is a member of the Creation Research Society.
For many yo dr Lyle teaches astronomy and directs space observation programs. He is currently a fellow, author, and speaker at Answers in Genesis Kentucky, and director of the planetarium at the Creation Museum.
One of the points of contention between the Bible and most modern astronomers concerns the age of the Universe. The Bible teaches the age of the universe indirectly. In other words, it provides enough information to roughly calculate how long ago God created the universe. The Bible teaches that the entire universe was created in six earthly days (Exodus 20:11). Additionally, some biblical genealogies give age differences between parents and offspring. Based on these data, it can be calculated that about 4000 years passed between the creation of Adam and the birth of Christ. From other historical documents we know that Christ was born approximately 2000 years ago. Since Adam was created on the sixth day of creation, we can conclude that the Earth, as well as the entire Universe and everything that fills it, were created about 6,000 years ago.
Many people these days can only grin when they hear such an opinion. After all, most geology and astronomy textbooks, as well as most schools and universities, teach that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the Universe is even older. However, what is the belief in billions of years based on? Why do so many scientists choose to ignore the history told by the Bible and instead believe in a vastly inflated age of the universe?
Mutual responsibility
One answer lies in mutual responsibility: many scientists believe that the world is old because they believe that most other scientists also believe that the world is old. Although one scientist or another may be well aware of the existence of evidence that is inconsistent with the age of the universe, it is very tempting to reject such evidence, because all those other scientists cannot be wrong! How many other scientists believe that the universe is old simply because they think other scientists believe it? As a result of mutual responsibility, the majority opinion can become self-sustaining: people believe because others believe so. It's surprising that many people don't see this as a problem.
Often mutual responsibility can be interdisciplinary. A geologist may be convinced that the Earth is billions of years old because most astronomers believe that the solar system is billions of years old. In turn, the astronomer can be sure that the solar system is billions of years old, since most geologists adhere to this age of the Earth. Of course, the majority opinion may be wrong. In fact, many scientific discoveries went against the majority opinion. However, psychological pressure to agree with the majority opinion is a very powerful and well-studied phenomenon.
Evolution
It should be noted that most (if not all) scientists who believe in billions of years also believe in evolution. Evolution requires a huge age of the Universe. It is impossible for such profound changes to occur within the space of 6,000 years, otherwise we would not only see massive transformations around us, but would also have historical documents to support them. However, we have never seen living things emerge from non-living things, nor have we ever seen one living organism transform into an organism of another species with large complex changes. Not only do we not observe this, but, moreover, it seems impossible.
Imaginary billions of years are intended to make these amazing changes seem plausible. As Harvard University biology professor George Wald said, “Time is the hero of the story here.<…>After such a long time, the “impossible” becomes possible, the possible becomes probable, and the probable becomes almost undeniable. You just have to wait, time itself will work wonders.” Insurmountable obstacles standing in the way of evolution are simply swept under the rug of long eras.
However, billions of years cannot solve all the problems associated with the theory of evolution from inorganic molecules to a person. These issues have been discussed in detail in numerous publications posted on our website answersingenesis.org, so there is no need to dwell on them in a book devoted to astronomy. The most important thing to note now is that evolution requires enormous periods of time. This is an example of how worldview can influence the interpretation of evidence. Evolutionists must believe in vast periods of time. Their preconceived worldview prevents them from considering the possibility that the universe may be only a few thousand years old, no matter what they teach written history humanity and no matter what natural scientific evidence is given. Those who reject the theory of evolution from inorganic molecules to man should remember this before accepting the enormous age of the Universe.
Big Bang
I have found that most people who believe in billions of years also believe in the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang is a secular, speculative alternative to the biblical account of the origins of the universe. This is an attempt to explain the origin of the Universe without God. This theory can be considered the cosmic equivalent of human evolution. Unfortunately, many Christians have bought into the Big Bang idea without realizing that it is based on the unbiblical philosophy of naturalism (there is no God, nature is all there is and ever was). Moreover, they are generally unaware that the Big Bang contradicts the Bible in some respects and is fraught with many scientific problems.
According to the Big Bang idea, the universe is almost 14 billion years old, while the Bible indicates that the age of the universe is about 6000 years. For those who claim to believe the Bible, this difference alone should be enough to abandon the Big Bang theory. This theory changes the age of the Universe by more than two million times! But the problem isn't just the timeline; The Bible gives a different order of events than modern worldly theories suggest. The Big Bang theory/naturalistic view teaches that stars formed before the Earth, fish before fruit trees, and the Sun appeared long before plants. However, the Bible teaches the opposite: the Earth was before the stars, fruit trees were before fish, and plants were created before the Sun.
The Big Bang is not only a story about a supposed past, but also a story about a supposed future. According to the modern version of the Big Bang, the Universe will expand endlessly, while cooling more and more. Useful energy will become increasingly scarce and will eventually run out altogether, at which point the Universe will suffer “heat death.” There will be no more heat left, so the universe will reach a temperature close to absolute zero. Life will become impossible because useful energy will disappear.
Heat death is a pretty grim scenario, and it's fundamentally different from the future the Bible talks about. Scripture indicates that the Lord will return in the future for judgment. Paradise, lost in Genesis, will be restored. There will be no heat death, nor ordinary death of man or animals, since there will be no more curse. The New Earth will remain perfect forever in the presence of the Lord. Many Christians are inconsistent: they accept what the Big Bang says about the past (in favor of the Bible), but reject what it says about the future (in favor of the Bible).
Prerequisites for naturalism and uniformitarianism
Many people may hold to vastly inflated ages of the Earth and the Universe due to a belief in naturalism and uniformitarianism. Let us recall that the naturalistic worldview teaches that nothing exists outside of nature. From this point of view, the Universe and everything in it came into being through the same processes that can be observed in the Universe at the present time. Naturalism is naturally an unbiblical concept, since the Bible clearly says that God created the universe in a supernatural way. Naturalism often leads to exaggerated age estimates when applied to things of supernatural origin.
As an example, consider the first person. As you know, Adam was created as an adult, fully formed man. Suppose we were asked to estimate Adam's age on the seventh day, just 24 hours after God created him. If we were to make the mistaken assumption that Adam was not created supernaturally, but came into existence as all men come into existence today, we would get a significantly overestimated age. A naturalist might guess that one-day-old Adam was about thirty years old, incorrectly assuming that he grew up just as other people grow and mature in our day. Naturalism overestimates Adam's age by a factor of about 10,000, but the universe was also created supernaturally. Anyone who denies this will probably conclude that the age of the Universe is many times greater than it actually is.
Belief in uniformitarianism can also lead to a serious overestimation of age. Uniformitarianism is the idea that most things in our world (such as mountains and canyons) were formed by processes that occurred at the same speed and intensity as they do today. People who subscribe to the uniformitarian hypothesis assume that radioactive decay has always occurred at the same rate, that canyons have been eroded at generally the same rate as they are today, and that mountains were formed at the same rate as they are today. Supporters of this hypothesis, of course, deny the global flood (Gen. 6:8), since it does not fit into the framework of the average statistical intensity of natural processes. Uniformitarianism can be summed up by the phrase: “the present is the key to the past.”
However, both naturalism and uniformitarianism are just philosophical hypotheses. Moreover, both of them are anti-biblical, since the Bible teaches about supernatural creation and the global flood. Moreover, naturalism and uniformitarianism can lead to contradictory conclusions (as we will see) that call into question the reliability of these assumptions.
The problem of light from distant stars
One of the most common objections to young The universe is often referred to as the problem of light from distant stars. There are galaxies in the Universe that are located incredibly far away. These distances are so large that even light would take billions of years to travel from these galaxies to Earth. However, we see these galaxies, which means that light has traveled from there to here. Since this process involves billions of years, the universe must be at least billions of years old, which is much older than the age stated in the Bible. In this regard, it is argued that light from distant stars supports the Big Bang theory.
However, there are actually several different natural mechanisms by which God could bring starlight to Earth within just a few thousand years. These mechanisms have been discussed in the Creation Exclusive Technical Journal (now the Journal of Creation) and elsewhere, so there is no need to repeat them here (for more information, see Does Distant Starlight Prove the Universe Is Old ?). Here I would like to note that this objection in itself has no force. The argument that distant starlight disproves the biblical account of creation and supports the Big Bang theory is based on faulty reasoning.
First, note that the argument from distant starlight is based on the faulty premises of naturalism and uniformitarianism. He assumes that the light came to us in a completely natural way and traveled at a constant speed, covering the same distance at each given moment. Of course, God could very well have used purely natural processes to bring light to the Earth. It can also be assumed that some phenomena considered constants (for example, the speed of light) really are constants. But is there any logical reason that would make us automatically assume in advance that this is so and not otherwise?
God created the stars to shine on the Earth. This happened during creation week, when God created supernaturally. Evolutionists insist that if we cannot show natural mechanism for a specific creation week event (like the light of distant stars), then the Bible is not trustworthy. Since many of the events that took place during creation week were supernatural inherently, it is irrational to demand a natural explanation for them. It is ridiculous to claim that a supernatural explanation is wrong simply because it cannot be explained by natural causes. This would be a circular argument. Of course, there is nothing wrong with asking, “Did God use natural processes to bring starlight to Earth? And if so, what is their mechanism?” However, if there is no obvious natural mechanism, this can no more be a reason for legitimate criticism of supernatural creation than the absence of a natural mechanism for the resurrection of Christ can be a reason for the event to be annulled.
Travel time of light: a problem for the Big Bang
There is another major flaw in rejecting the Bible in favor of the Big Bang based on the timing of light (such as the light of distant stars). The travel time of light also poses a problem for the Big Bang theory! The fact is that in the Big Bang model, light needs to travel a distance much greater than is possible within 14 billion years. This serious difficulty is called the Universe Horizon Problem.
In-Depth Review:
Universe horizon problem
In the Big Bang model, the Universe began in an infinitesimal state called a cosmological singularity and then began to expand rapidly. According to this model, when the Universe was still very small, it had different temperatures at different points. Let's assume that point A is hot and point B is cold. By now, the Universe has expanded, and points A and B are far apart.
However, different parts of the Universe have very uniform temperatures, including the most distant known galaxies. In other words, points A and B now have almost the same temperature. We know this because we see electromagnetic radiation emanating in all directions through space in the form of microwaves. This is called the cosmic microwave background. The radiation frequencies have a characteristic temperature of 2.7 K and are extremely uniform in all directions. Temperature readings deviate only by thousandths of a degree.
The problem is this: how did points A and B get the same temperature? This is only possible through the exchange of energy. There are many systems where this happens. Let's take the example of an ice cube placed in hot coffee: the ice heats up and the coffee cools down - an exchange of energy occurs. In addition to direct contact, point A can transmit energy to point B in the form of electromagnetic radiation (light). (This is the fastest way to transfer energy, since nothing can travel faster than light.) However, if we follow the premises of the Big Bang theory (i.e. uniformitarianism and naturalism), then 14 billion years will not be enough for point A and They exchanged energy: they are too far from each other. This is very serious problem. After all, points A and B are currently at the same temperature, which means they must have exchanged light energy several times.
Proponents of the Big Bang have put forward a number of hypotheses aimed at solving this problem. One of the most popular is called the inflation hypothesis. In the inflationary model, the Universe has two expansion rates: normal and increased (inflationary). The universe begins to expand at normal speed (in fact, it is still very fast, but slower than the next phase). It then enters the inflation phase, where the universe expands much faster. Then the expansion of the Universe returns to normal speed. All this happens at the very beginning, long before the formation of stars and galaxies.
The inflationary model allows points A and B to exchange energy (during the first expansion at normal speed), and then suddenly move away during the inflationary phase to the vast distances they are at today. However, it is important to note that the inflation model is nothing more than a fairy tale, without any supporting evidence. This is simply a speculative hypothesis designed to smooth out the contradictions of the Big Bang theory. In addition, inflation introduces an additional set of problems and difficulties into the Big Bang model. For example, what could have caused such inflation, and as a result of which it stopped? All larger number Secular astrophysicists reject the inflationary model for these and some other reasons. Clearly, the universe's horizon problem remains a major problem for the Big Bang.
A critic might suggest that the Big Bang theory provides a better explanation of the origins of the world than the Bible because the biblical concept of creation faces the problem of the timing of light - the light of distant stars. However, such an argument is not rational, since the Big Bang also has its share of problems associated with the timing of light. If both models are essentially subject to the same problem, then that problem cannot be invoked to favor one model over the other. Thus, the light of distant stars cannot be used to reject the biblical concept in favor of the Big Bang.
Attempts at compromise
The belief is billions of years old and has become entrenched in our culture, even in the church. Many Christians have accepted the fallacious starlight argument or other eisegetical claims associated with unbiblical premises. As a result, many Christians have compromised by trying to add billions of years to the Bible. One of the most common attempts to reconcile the Bible with billions of years is called the day-age theory. According to this view, the days of creation were not actual days, but rather vast eras of many millions of years each. According to the idea of days-epochs, God created the world in six long periods.
It is important to note that even if the days-ages position were true, it would not reconcile the Bible and the secular history of the origins of the world, since the order of events between them is different. Recall that the Big Bang theory teaches that stars existed long before fruit trees, which appeared after fish. The Bible teaches that fish were created on the 5th day after the stars, which in turn were created on the 4th day, and after the trees, which were made the day before, no matter how long the days were.
Proponents of days-epochs point out that in Hebrew the word for “day” ( yom) does not always mean a day in the usual sense, but can sometimes mean an indefinite period. Indeed, in some contexts "day" can mean a longer period of time, but not in the context of the days of creation. Likewise, English word"day" in some phrases can mean an indefinite period of time, as in the expression "back in grandfather's day." However, it will not mean indefinitely in other contexts such as "five days ago", "on the third day", "day after night", "morning of the day", "evening of the same day", "evening and morning" " It is obvious that in the preceding phrases the word “day” should mean an ordinary day, and not an indefinite period of time.
Hebrew also follows grammatical rules and, like English, the meaning of a word is always determined by context. The Hebrew word for "day" means an ordinary day (and is never translated as "time") in the following contexts:
1. When combined with an ordinal number (“on the first day,” “on the third day,” etc.), day means an ordinary day, not a period of time.
2. B close connection with the word "morning" (e.g., "and it was the morning of such and such a day") day means an ordinary day, not a period of time.
3. In close connection with the word “evening” (e.g., “and it was the evening of such and such a day”) day means an ordinary day, and not a period of time.
4. When the words “evening” and “morning” appear together (eg, “and there was evening and there was morning,” even if the word “day” is not mentioned), it refers to an ordinary day, not an indefinite period of time.
5. When day is contrasted with night (eg, “there was night, then day”), day means an ordinary day, not an indefinite period of time.
As can be seen from the first chapter of Genesis, the days of creation are accompanied by all these contextual indicators at once. Therefore, the context requires that the days of creation be perceived as ordinary days rather than long periods of time. It would be a mistake to try to read the day in Genesis 1 as a period of time when the context clearly excludes such a meaning. This error is called unjustified expansion of the semantic field. The idea of days-epochs does not correspond to sound logical principles. This is simply a failed attempt to make the Bible compatible with anti-Biblical views.
Ultimately, the Bible teaches that God created everything in six days, while secular opinion is that the universe evolved over billions of years. Each of us must decide whether we will trust the secular opinion of man, or the clear teaching of the Bible. As was demonstrated in the previous chapter, the Bible has always been right when it comes to astronomy.
It is important to remember that the period in which we live is not much different from many other historical eras. During this period, people will also mock the belief in a “young Universe.” Many of them will similarly scoff at the belief that Jesus Christ is the one true God, or even at the belief in the existence of a Creator. However, the Bible has always proven itself right in the past. Therefore, there is no need to succumb to the pressure of human opinion.
Scientific data confirms the young age of the Universe
Scientific evidence matches well what the Bible says about the age of the universe. Why then do many secular scientists believe that they point to several billion years? People who believe in the Big Bang generally tend to interpret data in accordance with the Big Bang theory (sometimes without even realizing it). In other words, they assume in advance that the Big Bang is valid theory, therefore, interpret the data in accordance with their beliefs. We all interpret data in the light of our worldview, there is no escape from that. However, the Bible can also be used to interpret evidence. Since the Bible contains the true history of the universe, we will see that it gives scientific evidence makes a lot more sense than the Big Bang theory. Let's now look at some facts about the Universe.
We will see that the evidence fits well with an age of 6000 years, but does not make as much sense if we stick to the Big Bang.
Of course, Big Bang proponents can always reinterpret the data by adding additional assumptions. Therefore, we do not assume that the facts presented below will once and for all “prove” that the Bible is right about the age of the universe. The Bible is right in all matters simply because it is the Word of God. However, when we understand the scientific evidence, we will find that it agrees well with what the Bible teaches. And of course, the evidence is consistent with a young (about 6,000 year old) age of the Universe.
Moon moving away
As the Moon orbits the Earth, its gravity affects earth's oceans, causing ebbs and flows. The Earth rotates faster than the Moon, so the tidal wave caused by the Moon is always “ahead” of the Moon. For this reason, the tides actually pull the Moon "forward", causing the Moon to spiral further away. Because of this tidal interaction, the Moon moves an inch and a half away from the Earth every year. Thus, in the past the Moon must have been closer to the Earth.
Six thousand years ago, the Moon would have been 800 feet (250 m) closer to Earth (which is not much, given the distance between us of a quarter of a million miles, or 400 thousand km). So the position of the Moon is not a problem for the biblical time scale of 6000 years. But if the Earth and Moon have existed for more than 4 billion years (as Big Bang proponents teach), then big problems arise because the Moon would have been so close that it would have actually touched the Earth less than 1.5 billion years ago. This suggests that the Moon may not be as old as secular astronomers claim.
Secular astronomers who believe the Big Bang theory is correct need some explanation to get around this complexity. For example, they might suggest that the speed at which the Moon is receding was actually slower in the past (for whatever reason). However, these are additional assumptions made solely to make the billion-year model viable.
A simpler explanation is that the Moon has only been around for so long. The Moon's retreat is a problem for the billion-year belief, but fits perfectly with the young age of the Universe.
In-Depth Review:
Moon moving away
A tidal bulge occurs because the Moon is closer to one side of the Earth than the other, so its gravity has a stronger effect on the side closest to it. As a result, the Earth's shape becomes slightly elliptical. The height of the tidal bulge would be greater if the Moon were closer to the Earth. The Earth rotates faster than the Moon, so the tidal bulge is always ahead of the Moon. The bulge transfers angular momentum and kinetic energy, increasing the Moon's orbital energy, which causes it to move away from Earth. The rate of this retreat is approximately inversely proportional to the distance from the Earth to the Moon to the sixth power. To a first approximation, this can be shown as follows:
Tidal bulges can be thought of as a dipole (two points distant from the center of the Earth). The dipole separation is proportional to 1/r 3, where r is the distance of the Earth from the Moon. Thus, we can expect that the height of the tidal bulge is rounded h = 1/r 3 . However, the force with which tidal bulges affect the Moon also goes as h/r 3 for a given height (h). Thus, we expect the periodic receding rate to be approximately 1/r 6 .
It follows that the equation describing tidal removal is:
dr/dt = k/r 6
The constant k can be found using the current measured rate of lunar recession: 3.8 cm/yr. Thus, k = r 6 dr/dt = (384401 km) 6 x (0.000038 km/year) = 1.2 x 10 29 km 7 /year. Equation for the distance of the Moon from the Earth allowed for extreme values (upper limit for the age of the Moon) as follows:
Here T is the maximum age of the Moon based on the assumption that it has moved away from zero to the current distance R = 384401 km. Plugging known quantities into this equation gives an upper limit on the age of the Earth-Moon system T = 1.5 billion years, which is much less than the 4.5 billion years that evolutionists insist on.
Since critics of biblical creation cannot accept this conclusion, they are forced to accept secondary assumptions to fit the known figures to their theory. Some have suggested that k may not be constant all the time; it is possible that a different distribution of continents in the past influenced the tidal action of Earth's oceans. This assumption does not necessarily solve the problem. First, a different continental distribution does not guarantee that k would be smaller; and if this value were larger, the problem would only get worse.
Secondly, in order to mitigate the problem, k would have to be significantly smaller. Third, geological data argue against this assertion, even if we accept the evolutionary interpretation of these data, based on the great age of the Earth. Tidal curves that have been studied by secular scientists are consistent with k being roughly constant over geological time (using evolutionist dating methods). Additionally, there is no evidence of high tidal waves that would occur if the Moon were very close to the Earth. Of course, this is what biblical creationists would have expected, since at creation, some 6,000 years ago, the Moon was only 800 feet (250 m) closer than it is now.
Earth's magnetic field
Most people are at least somewhat familiar with magnets, like the ones you put on your refrigerator door. Magnets have an almost "magical" ability to attract other magnets or certain metals from a distance, so that they seem to pierce space with some invisible fingers. The space surrounding a magnet that exerts a force on other magnets is called the “magnetic field.” Magnetic fields are caused by electric current - the movement of charged particles.
The Earth's magnetic field is simplified as a “dipole”, that is, it has two poles: north and south. This dipole roughly corresponds to the Earth's rotation axis (deviation approximately 11.5 degrees). That is, the north magnetic pole is close to the north pole of the Earth's rotation. This is why the compass points roughly north, its needle oriented according to the geomagnetic field. The magnetic field surrounds the Earth and plays an important role. The universe contains radiation that is harmful to living tissue. The Earth's magnetic field protects life by deflecting dangerous cosmic rays. The atmosphere provides additional protection.
The Earth's magnetic field is caused by the presence of electric currents in its structure. Such currents encounter electrical resistance and therefore naturally weaken over time. Therefore, we expect the Earth's magnetic field to weaken over time. We've been able to measure the strength of the magnetic field for over a century and, as you'd expect, we've found that the Earth's magnetic field is indeed weakening. Every century, the magnetic field weakens by about 5 percent. Because the Earth's magnetic field weakens over time, it should have been significantly stronger in the past. About 6,000 years ago, the magnetic field would have been much stronger, but still ideal for life.
However, if the Earth were many millions of years old, then in the hypothetical distant past the geomagnetic field would be so strong that life would simply be impossible.
In-Depth Review:
Bypassing magnetic field evidence
A straightforward interpretation of the data indicating that the Earth is not billions of years old is, of course, intolerable to evolutionists. Therefore, additional assumptions are required to account for this evidence within a naturalistic worldview. Until now, however, secular explanations have not been able to withstand scrutiny. For example, some secular scientists have proposed that only the dipole component of the earth's magnetic field decreases, and the energy of the non-dipole components increases to compensate. They suggested that the total energy of the Earth's magnetic field was not thereby reduced. However, this is not the case; any increase in the non-dipole region has been shown to be much smaller than the decrease in the dipole region. Thus, the total energy of the Earth's magnetic field decreases and therefore supports the relatively recent emergence of the world.
Magnetic fields of planets
Many of the planets in the solar system also have strong dipole magnetic fields. For example, Jupiter has an extremely powerful magnetic field. The magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune are also quite strong. If these planets are truly billions of years old (as secular astronomers believe), their magnetic fields should have become extremely weak by now. However, this is not the case. A reasonable explanation is that these planets are only a few thousand years old, as the Bible teaches.
The assumption that the solar system is only a few thousand years old is, of course, intolerable to those who believe in macroevolution. Billions of years are necessary for their worldview and must be protected at all costs. Therefore, the obvious facts indicating a young age of the Universe need to find some alternative explanation. For example, secular astronomers have suggested that planetary magnetic fields may "recharge" over time. In particular, they refer to the idea of a "magnetic dynamo" that amplifies the planet's magnetic field. The essence of this hypothesis is that movement within planets can regenerate magnetic fields, so that the overall strength of the field does not weaken. However, the planets do not meet the conditions necessary for the implementation of such a mechanism. The simplest explanation is that the solar system is much less than billions of years old.
In-Depth Review:
Magnetic dynamo and magnetic decay
Magnetic and electrical energy can be obtained from mechanical energy (motion). The operation of a generator in a car is based on this principle. Of course, there are places in the Universe where mechanical energy is converted into a magnetic field. It is likely that just such a process takes place on the Sun; it changes its magnetic field every 11 years. Many secular astronomers believe that planets also undergo this process (although this is not currently observed). However, the fact that such processes can occur (earth rocks contain strong evidence of changes in the magnetic field, and creationists have a reasonable theory about this) does not necessarily solve the problem of a strong magnetic field for the “old” Universe.
First, the electromagnetic-mechanical system must be properly tuned to cause the total magnetic field energy to increase. There is no guarantee that vigorous movements that cause a change in the magnetic field can actually replenish the overall magnetic field energy and prevent it from gradually decreasing. In fact, such changes in the magnetic field may even accelerate the decay of the overall field, as may be the case with the Sun.
Secondly, there are many good reasons to believe that the magnetic fields of the planets are not dynamos and are quite different from the Sun. The sun is so hot that most of its atoms are ionized: in a state of matter called plasma, electrons are stripped from their nuclei. Plasma is very sensitive to magnetic fields and interacts with them much more strongly than neutral gas. Turbulent movements within the Sun constantly produce chaotic manifestations of magnetism. However, planets are not made of plasma and do not produce the same movements that we observe on the Sun. Moreover, in order for the process by which the Sun is believed to change its magnetic field to occur, the axis of rotation must be almost exactly aligned with magnetic poles. This is exactly the case for the Sun, but not for the planets. Moreover, the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune are highly inclined relative to their rotation axes.
The Sun also has strong toroidal magnetic fields (in addition to its dipole field). Unlike a dipole field, which has a north and south pole, toroidal magnetic fields make a complete loop around the sun, forming groups parallel to the solar equator. At least one group exists in the northern hemisphere, and another is in the southern hemisphere with the opposite polarity.
Sunspots typically occur at latitudes of these toroidal groups. Toroidal magnetic fields are critical in the process of changing the Sun's magnetic field, but planets do not have a strong toroidal magnetic field. Additionally, there is no evidence that the magnetic fields of planets today are reversible, like the Sun's magnetic field. The planetary magnetic fields currently observed are consistent with simple decay resulting from electrical resistance.
Magnetic fields confirm recent creation
Dr. Russ Humphreys (PhD in Physics and Biblical Creationist) has proposed a model of planetary magnetic fields that can explain them current state from the perspective of biblical creation. The model estimates the initial strength of each magnetic field when it was created, then calculates its current state based on 6,000 years of decay under the influence of electrical resistance. Impressively, this biblical model is able to measure the magnetic fields of all known planets and even many of their moons.
Of course, almost any model can be "corrected" to fit existing data, but what's impressive is that Dr. Humphreys' model successfully predicted the magnetic fields of the planets Uranus and Neptune before they were even measured by spacecraft." Voyager." Specific positive results– a sign of a good scientific model. Dr. Humphreys also predicted that Mars would have residual magnetism, which has now been confirmed. Residual magnetism occurs in rocks that cool and harden in the presence of an external magnetic field. Such magnetism is also present on the Moon. This confirms that both the Moon and Mars once had strong magnetic fields, as expected in Humphreys' model. Planetary magnetic fields fully support the biblical age of the solar system.
In-Depth Review:
Dr. Humphreys' Planetary Magnetic Field Model
Dr. Russ Humphreys created a model of planetary magnetic fields based on creation theory. This model suggests that when God created the planets of the solar system, He made them first from water, which He then supernaturally transformed into the substances that make up the planets today. This idea can be suggested (at least for Earth) from texts such as 2 Peter 3:5. Water molecules can have a small magnetic field of their own due to the quantum spin of the proton in each of the two hydrogen atoms. If a significant portion of these molecular magnetic fields had aligned when the planets were originally created, they would have produced a strong dipole magnetic field. Although the molecular alignment would quickly cease due to the random thermal motion of the molecules, the magnetic field would generate electric currents that would maintain the strength of the magnetic field.
After God transforms water into other materials, the electric current supporting the magnetic field will begin to disintegrate as it encounters electrical resistance within the materials. The greater the electrical conductivity of a material, the longer it will take for the magnetic field to decay. To calculate the strength of the current magnetic field of any planet, you need to know the initial magnetic field of the planet, and then reduce it by an amount corresponding to six thousand years of decay of the magnetic field. The decay rate is calculated based on (1) the sum of the alignment (k) of the original magnetic fields and (2) the size of the planet's conducting core. Large kernels will allow electric currents exist longer, so the decay of the magnetic field will take longer.
The mass of each of the planets is well known and can be calculated very accurately from the periods of any orbiting satellites (or the trajectories of space probes nearby). The dimensions of the planet's core and the magnitude of its conductivity can also be well estimated. The only free parameter of the model is the sum of the initial alignment, which can be between k = 0 (no molecular alignment) and k = 1 (maximum alignment). Dr. Humphreys currently believes that the data are most consistent with k = 1. Using this value, the Earth's current magnetic field is quite consistent with this model. Additionally, since k cannot be greater than 1, this sets an absolute upper limit for all magnetic fields of the Sun and planets. In fact, none of the known magnetic fields in the solar system exceeds the upper limit predicted by this model. The available evidence suggests that they were quite close to this limit when they were created about 6,000 years ago. These testimonies fit very well into the biblical timeline.
Spiral galaxies
A galaxy is a huge collection of stars, interstellar gas and dust. Galaxies may have different sizes and contain between a million and a trillion stars. Our galaxy (Milky Way) contains more than 100 billion stars. Galaxies vary in shape: they can be round or elliptical, and some are irregular in shape, such as the Magellan Clouds, two satellite galaxies Milky Way. Spiral galaxies are especially beautiful. A spiral galaxy has a flat disk shape with a central bulge. The disk contains spiral arm regions with a large number of stars that extend from the periphery of the galaxy to the core.
Spiral galaxies rotate slowly, but their inner regions rotate faster than their outer regions - this is called "differential rotation". This means that spiral galaxies are continuously twisting, becoming more and more dense. After a few hundred million years, the galaxy will be so tightly twisted that the spiral structure will no longer be visible. According to the Big Bang theory, galaxies should be many billions of years old, but we still see many spiral galaxies. This suggests that they are not nearly as old as Big Bang proponents claim. Spiral galaxies are compatible with the biblical age of the universe, but are problematic for the belief in billions of years.
To explain how new spiral arms form while old ones bend beyond recognition, secular astronomers have proposed the theory of "spiral density waves." The idea is that density waves traveling through the galaxy stimulate the growth of new stars. Of course, such waves are not observed in reality, so this idea remains just a hypothesis. Additionally, the concept of spiral density waves suggests that stars can form spontaneously. Although virtually all secular astronomers accept this hypothesis, spontaneous star formation comes with its own significant problems. Moreover, there are difficulties in explaining how this imaginary density wave could arise. Such complications are unnecessary if we accept the simplest interpretation of the evidence: galaxies are not billions of years old.
Comets
Comets are lumps of ice and dirt that orbit the Sun, often in highly eccentric orbits. The solid central part of a comet is called the nucleus. Typically, a comet will be surrounded by an area of vaporized material that appears as a faint “fog,” called a “coma.” Comets spend most of their time moving slowly near the point of their orbit farthest from the Sun (aphelion). As they approach the Sun, they accelerate, moving fastest at the point closest to the Sun (perihelion). It is at this point of approach that many comets develop a “tail” - a stream of evaporating material that extends from the comet. The tail points away from the Sun because material is moved by solar wind and radiation. Two tails often appear: an ion tail, consisting of light charged particles, and a dust tail, containing heavy materials. The ion tail is bluish in color and points directly perpendicular to the Sun. The dust tail is white and usually curved. Sometimes only one of the two tails is visible.
A comet's tail is a sign that its life cannot last forever. The comet loses material, becoming smaller each time it passes near the Sun. It has been estimated that a typical comet can only orbit the sun for about 100,000 years before running out of material. (This is, of course, an average figure; the actual lifespan of a comet will depend on how large it was to begin with, as well as on the parameters of its orbit.) Since there are still many comets, this suggests that the Solar System is much younger, than 100,000 years. This agrees perfectly with the Bible. Obviously, 4.5 billion years would be an absurdly high age for comets.
How do secular astronomers try to reconcile this with the belief of billions of years? Since the life of a comet cannot last that long, evolutionary astronomers assume that new comets appear in the solar system, replacing the ones that have disappeared, so they came up with the so-called “Oort Cloud”. It is assumed that this must be a huge reservoir of ice masses located in orbit far from the Sun. According to this hypothesis, sometimes ice masses get inside solar system, becoming “new” comets. Interestingly, there is currently no evidence for the existence of the Oort cloud, and there is no reason to believe it if we accept the creation described in the book of Genesis. The presence of comets is consistent with the fact that the Solar System is young.
Conclusion
Obviously, there is a lot of scientific evidence that is completely consistent with the biblical age of the universe, but which is difficult to reconcile with the belief in billions of years. Big Bang proponents can always come up with tricks to get around this evidence, but we have seen that when we use the Bible to understand the age of the universe, the evidence is certainly strong.
In most of the arguments for a young universe discussed above, we have used uniformitarian and naturalistic assumptions, which of course we do not accept. We deliberately used the opposing side's assumptions to show that they lead to contradictions. For example, we showed that if we assume that the Moon formed 4.5 billion years ago and that the rate of retreat along the spiral did not change (so that the ratio 1/r 6 was maintained), then the Moon cannot be older than 1.5 billion years - and this is in clear contradiction with the prevailing theory. Such inconsistencies are common in non-biblical worldviews.
Uniformitarianism is a blind philosophical assumption, not a conclusion based on evidence. Moreover, it is inconsistent with the Bible. The present is not the key to the past. Quite the opposite: the past is the key to the present! The Bible is a revelation from the Creator, God, who knows everything and has given us accurate information. The Bible (which tells about the past) is the key to understanding our world. When we start from the biblical testimony, the observed facts line up into a coherent picture. It's no surprise that planets have strong magnetic fields, galaxies aren't twisted, and comets still exist. All these phenomena are quite expected from the point of view of the biblical worldview. The Bible is true, and the evidence confirms that the universe is not billions of years old, but thousands of years old.
There is evidence that the Earth experienced temporary magnetic field reversals during the annual flood due to enormous tectonic activity that disrupted the circulation of electrical currents in the core.
Humphreys D.R. The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields // Creation Research Society Quarterly. No. 21/3. December 1984.
However, Pluto's magnetic field has not yet been measured. According to Dr. Humphreys' model, Pluto should not have a strong magnetic field.
URL: www.creationresearch.org/creation_matters/pdf/1999/cm0403.pdf (accessed 01/31/2013). S. 8.
IN quantum physics particles often behave as if they are spinning. This property is called "spin" because the particles have angular momentum. This is similar to the rotation of large objects, except that at the quantum level, angular momentum appears only at discrete values.
Named after the Dutch astronomer Jan Oort.
How old is our Universe? More than one generation of astronomers has been puzzled by this question and will continue to puzzle for many years until the mystery of the universe is solved.
As is known, already in 1929 cosmologists from North America It was found that the Universe is growing in its volume. Or, speaking in astronomical language, it has a constant expansion. The author of the metric expansion of the Universe is the American Edwin Hubble, who derived a constant value characterizing the steady increase in outer space.
So how old is the Universe? Ten years ago, it was believed that its age was within 13.8 billion years. This estimate was obtained based on a cosmological model based on the Hubble constant. However, today a more accurate answer to the age of the Universe has been obtained, thanks to the painstaking work of the ESA (European Space Agency) observatory staff and the advanced Planck telescope.
Scanning outer space with the Planck telescope
The telescope was put into active operation back in May 2009 to determine the most accurate possible age of our Universe. The functionality of the Planck telescope was aimed at a long session of scanning outer space, with the goal of creating the most objective picture of the radiation of all possible stellar objects resulting from the so-called Big Bang.
The lengthy scanning process was carried out in two stages. In 2010, preliminary research results were obtained, and already in 2013, the final results of space exploration were summed up, which gave a number of very interesting results.
The result of ESA research work
ESA scientists have published interesting materials in which, based on the data collected by the “eye” of the Planck telescope, they were able to clarify the Hubble constant. It turns out that the expansion rate of the Universe is 67.15 kilometers per second per parsec. To make it clearer, one parsec is the cosmic distance that can be covered in 3.2616 of our light years. For greater clarity and perception, you can imagine two galaxies that repel each other at a speed of about 67 km/s. The numbers are tiny on a cosmic scale, but nevertheless, this is an established fact.Thanks to the data collected by the Planck telescope, it was possible to clarify the age of the Universe - it is 13.798 billion years.
Image obtained based on data from the Planck telescope
This ESA research work led to a clarification of the content in the Universe mass fraction not just "ordinary" physical matter, which is equal to 4.9%, but also dark matter, which is now equal to 26.8%.
Along the way, Planck identified and confirmed the existence in distant outer space of a so-called cold spot with a super low temperature, for which there are no clear scientific explanations yet.
Other ways to estimate the age of the Universe
In addition to cosmological methods, you can find out how old the Universe is, for example, by the age of chemical elements. The phenomenon of radioactive decay will help with this.Another way is to estimate the age of stars. Having assessed the brightness of the oldest stars - white dwarfs, a group of scientists in 1996 received the result: the age of the Universe cannot be less than 11.5 billion years. This confirms the data on the age of the Universe obtained on the basis of the refined Hubble constant.
According to the latest data, the Universe is approximately 13.75 billion years old. But how did scientists arrive at this number?
Cosmologists can determine the age of the Universe using two different methods: studying the oldest objects in the Universe, And measuring the rate of its expansion.
Age restrictions
The Universe cannot be “younger” than the objects within it. By determining the age of the oldest stars, scientists will be able to estimate age boundaries.
The life cycle of a star is based on its mass. More massive stars burn faster than their smaller brothers and sisters. A star 10 times more massive than the Sun can burn for 20 million years, while a star with half the mass of the Sun will live for 20 billion years. Mass also affects the brightness of stars: the more massive the star, the brighter it is.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has captured images of red dwarf CHXR 73 and its companion, believed to be a brown dwarf. CHXR 73 is a third lighter than the Sun.
This image from the Hubble Space Telescope shows Sirius A, the brightest star in our night sky, along with its faint and tiny companion star Sirius B. The astronomers deliberately overexposed the image of Sirius A to reveal Sirius B (the tiny dot below left). The crossed diffraction beams and concentric rings around Sirius A, as well as a small ring around Sirius B, were created by the telescope's image processing system. The two stars circle each other every 50 years. Sirius A is 8.6 light years from Earth and is the fifth closest star system known to us.
Dense clusters of stars known as globular clusters have similar characteristics. The oldest known globular clusters contain stars that are between 11 and 18 billion years old. Such a large range is associated with problems in determining the distances to clusters, which affects the estimate of brightness and, therefore, mass. If the cluster is further away than scientists think, the stars will be brighter and more massive, and therefore younger.
Uncertainty still places limits on the age of the Universe; it must be at least 11 billion years old. She may be older, but she is not younger.
Expansion of the Universe
The universe we live in is not flat or unchanging, it is constantly expanding. If the rate of expansion is known, then scientists can work backwards and determine the age of the Universe. So the expansion rate of the universe, known as the Hubble constant, is the key.
A number of factors determine the value of this constant. First of all, it is the type of matter that dominates the Universe. Scientists must determine the ratio of ordinary and dark matter to dark energy. Density also plays a role. A universe with low matter density is older than one with more matter.
This composite image from the Hubble Space Telescope shows a ghostly "ring" of dark matter in the galaxy cluster Cl 0024 +17.
The galaxy cluster Abell 1689 is famous for its ability to refract light, a phenomenon called gravitational lensing. New research on the cluster is revealing secrets about how dark energy shapes the Universe.
To determine the density and composition of the Universe, scientists turned to a number of missions, such as the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and the Planck spacecraft. By measuring the thermal radiation left over from the Big Bang, missions like these can determine the density, composition and expansion rate of the Universe. Both WMAP and Planck have detected residual radiation called the cosmic microwave background and mapped it.
In 2012, WMAP suggested the age of the universe to be 13.772 billion years, with an error of 59 million years. And in 2013, Planck calculated that the Universe is 13.82 billion years old. Both results fall under the 11 billion minimum, regardless of globular clusters, and both have relatively small margins of error.
People have been interested in the age of the Universe since ancient times. And although you cannot ask her for a passport to see her date of birth, modern science has been able to answer this question. True, only quite recently.
Passport to the Universe Astronomers have studied in detail the early biography of the Universe. But they had doubts about her exact age, which were only dispelled in the last couple of decades.
The sages of Babylon and Greece considered the universe eternal and unchanging, and Hindu chroniclers in 150 BC. determined that he was exactly 1,972,949,091 years old (by the way, in terms of the order of magnitude, they were not much mistaken!). In 1642, the English theologian John Lightfoot, through a scrupulous analysis of biblical texts, calculated that the creation of the world occurred in 3929 BC; a few years later, Irish Bishop James Ussher moved it to 4004. The founders of modern science, Johannes Kepler and Isaac Newton, also did not ignore this topic. Although they appealed not only to the Bible, but also to astronomy, their results turned out to be similar to the calculations of theologians - 3993 and 3988 BC. In our enlightened times, the age of the Universe is determined in other ways. To see them in a historical perspective, let’s first take a look at our own planet and its cosmic environment.
Astronomers have studied in detail the early biography of the Universe. But they had doubts about her exact age, which were only dispelled in the last couple of decades.
Fortune telling by stones
Since the second half of the 18th century, scientists began to estimate the age of the Earth and the Sun based on physical models. Thus, in 1787, the French naturalist Georges-Louis Leclerc came to the conclusion that if our planet was a ball of molten iron at birth, it would need from 75 to 168 thousand years to cool to its current temperature. After 108 years, Irish mathematician and engineer John Perry re-calculated thermal history Earth and determined its age at 2−3 billion years. At the very beginning of the 20th century, Lord Kelvin came to the conclusion that if the Sun gradually contracts and shines solely due to the release of gravitational energy, then its age (and, consequently, the maximum age of the Earth and other planets) could be several hundred million years. But at that time, geologists could neither confirm nor refute these estimates due to the lack of reliable geochronological methods.
In the middle of the first decade of the twentieth century, Ernest Rutherford and the American chemist Bertram Boltwood developed the basis of radiometric dating of earth rocks, which showed that Perry was much closer to the truth. In the 1920s, mineral samples were found whose radiometric age was close to 2 billion years. Later, geologists increased this value more than once, and by now it has more than doubled - to 4.4 billion. Additional data is provided by the study of “heavenly stones” - meteorites. Almost all radiometric estimates of their age fall within the range of 4.4−4.6 billion years.
Modern helioseismology makes it possible to directly determine the age of the Sun, which, according to the latest data, is 4.56 - 4.58 billion years. Since the duration of the gravitational condensation of the protosolar cloud was measured in only millions of years, we can confidently say that no more than 4.6 billion years have passed from the beginning of this process to the present day. At the same time, solar matter contains many elements heavier than helium, which were formed in the thermonuclear furnaces of massive stars of previous generations that burned out and exploded in supernovae. This means that the existence of the Universe greatly exceeds the age of the Solar System. To determine the extent of this excess, you need to go first into our Galaxy, and then beyond its limits.
Following white dwarfs
The lifetime of our Galaxy can be determined in different ways, but we will limit ourselves to the two most reliable ones. The first method is based on monitoring the glow of white dwarfs. These are compact (about the size of Earth) and initially very hot celestial bodies represent the final stage of life of almost all stars except the most massive. To transform into a white dwarf, a star must completely burn all its thermonuclear fuel and undergo several cataclysms - for example, become a red giant for some time.
Natural clock
According to radiometric dating, the oldest rocks on Earth are now considered to be the gray gneisses of the Great Slave Lake coast in northwestern Canada - their age is determined to be 4.03 billion years. Even earlier (4.4 billion years ago), tiny grains of the mineral zircon, a natural zirconium silicate found in gneisses in western Australia, crystallized. And since in those days it already existed Earth's crust, our planet should be somewhat older.
As for meteorites, the most accurate information is provided by the dating of calcium-aluminum inclusions in the material of Carboniferous chondritic meteorites, which remained virtually unchanged after its formation from the gas-dust cloud that surrounded the newborn Sun. Radiometric age of similar structures in the Efremovka meteorite, found in 1962 in Pavlodar region Kazakhstan is 4 billion 567 million years old.
A typical white dwarf is composed almost entirely of carbon and oxygen ions embedded in degenerate electron gas, and has a thin atmosphere dominated by hydrogen or helium. Its surface temperature ranges from 8,000 to 40,000 K, while the central zone is heated to millions and even tens of millions of degrees. According to theoretical models, dwarfs can also be born, consisting predominantly of oxygen, neon and magnesium (in which, when certain conditions stars with a mass of 8 to 10.5 or even up to 12 solar masses transform), but their existence has not yet been proven. The theory also states that stars with at least half the mass of the Sun end up as helium white dwarfs. Such stars are very numerous, but they burn hydrogen extremely slowly and therefore live for many tens and hundreds of millions of years. So far, they simply haven’t had enough time to exhaust their hydrogen fuel (the very few helium dwarfs discovered to date live in binary systems and arose in a completely different way).
Since a white dwarf cannot support thermonuclear fusion reactions, it shines due to the accumulated energy and therefore slowly cools. The rate of this cooling can be calculated and, on this basis, determine the time required to reduce the surface temperature from the initial one (for a typical dwarf this is about 150,000 K) to the observed one. Since we are interested in the age of the Galaxy, we should look for the longest-lived, and therefore the coldest, white dwarfs. Modern telescopes make it possible to detect intragalactic dwarfs with a surface temperature of less than 4000 K, the luminosity of which is 30,000 times lower than that of the Sun. So far they have not been found - either they are not there at all, or there are very few of them. It follows that our Galaxy cannot be older than 15 billion years, otherwise they would be present in noticeable quantities.
To date rocks, an analysis of the content of decay products of various radioactive isotopes in them is used. Depending on the type of rock and dating time, different pairs of isotopes are used.
This is the upper age limit. What can we say about the bottom? The coolest white dwarfs currently known were detected by the Hubble Space Telescope in 2002 and 2007. Calculations showed that their age is 11.5 - 12 billion years. To this we must also add the age of the predecessor stars (from half a billion to a billion years). It follows that the Milky Way is no younger than 13 billion years old. So the final estimate of its age, obtained from observations of white dwarfs, is approximately 13 - 15 billion years.
Ball certificates
The second method is based on the study of spherical star clusters located in the peripheral zone of the Milky Way and orbiting its core. They contain from hundreds of thousands to more than a million stars bound by mutual attraction.
Globular clusters are found in almost all large galaxies, and their number sometimes reaches many thousands. Almost no new stars are born there, but older stars are present in abundance. About 160 such globular clusters have been registered in our Galaxy, and perhaps two to three dozen more will be discovered. The mechanisms of their formation are not entirely clear, however, most likely, many of them arose soon after the birth of the Galaxy itself. Therefore, dating the formation of the oldest globular clusters makes it possible to establish a lower limit on the galactic age.
This dating is very technically complex, but it is based on a very simple idea. All stars in the cluster (from supermassive to the lightest) are formed from the same gas cloud and therefore are born almost simultaneously. Over time, they burn out the main reserves of hydrogen - some earlier, others later. At this stage, the star leaves the main sequence and undergoes a series of transformations that culminate in either complete gravitational collapse (followed by the formation of a neutron star or black hole) or the emergence of white dwarf. Therefore, studying the composition of a globular cluster makes it possible to determine its age quite accurately. For reliable statistics, the number of clusters studied should be at least several dozen.
This work was carried out three years ago by a team of astronomers using the ACS (Advanced Camera for Survey) camera of the Hubble Space Telescope. Monitoring of 41 globular clusters in our Galaxy showed that their average age is 12.8 billion years. The record holders were the clusters NGC 6937 and NGC 6752, located 7,200 and 13,000 light years from the Sun. They are almost certainly no younger than 13 billion years old, with the most probable time the life of the second cluster is 13.4 billion years (albeit with an error of plus or minus a billion).
Stars with a mass on the order of the Sun, as their hydrogen reserves are depleted, swell and become red dwarfs, after which their helium core heats up during compression and helium combustion begins. After some time, the star sheds its shell, forming a planetary nebula, and then becomes a white dwarf and then cools down.
However, our Galaxy must be older than its clusters. Its first supermassive stars exploded as supernovae and ejected the nuclei of many elements into space, in particular the nuclei of the stable isotope beryllium-beryllium-9. When globular clusters began to form, their newborn stars already contained beryllium, and more so the later they arose. Based on the beryllium content in their atmospheres, one can determine how much younger the clusters are than the Galaxy. As evidenced by data on the NGC 6937 cluster, this difference is 200 - 300 million years. So, without much of a stretch, we can say that the age of the Milky Way exceeds 13 billion years and perhaps reaches 13.3 - 13.4 billion. This is almost the same estimate as that made on the basis of observations of white dwarfs, but it was obtained in a completely different way way.
Hubble's Law
The scientific formulation of the question about the age of the Universe became possible only at the beginning of the second quarter of the last century. In the late 1920s, Edwin Hubble and his assistant Milton Humason began to clarify the distances to dozens of nebulae outside the Milky Way, which only a few years earlier had become independent galaxies.
These galaxies are moving away from the Sun at radial velocities that were measured by the redshift of their spectra. Although the distances to most of these galaxies could be determined with a large error, Hubble still found that they were approximately proportional to the radial velocities, as he wrote about in an article published in early 1929. Two years later, Hubble and Humason confirmed this conclusion based on observations of other galaxies - some of them more than 100 million light years away.
These data formed the basis of the famous formula v=H0d, known as Hubble's law. Here v is the radial velocity of the galaxy relative to the Earth, d is the distance, H0 is the proportionality coefficient, whose dimension, as is easy to see, is the inverse of the dimension of time (previously it was called the Hubble constant, which is incorrect, since in previous epochs the value of H0 was different than Nowadays). Hubble himself and many other astronomers for a long time rejected assumptions about the physical meaning of this parameter. However, Georges Lemaitre showed back in 1927 that the general theory of relativity allows us to interpret the expansion of galaxies as evidence of the expansion of the Universe. Four years later, he had the courage to take this conclusion to its logical conclusion, putting forward the hypothesis that the Universe arose from an almost point-like embryo, which he, for lack of a better term, called an atom. This primordial atom could remain in a static state for any time up to infinity, but its “explosion” gave birth to an expanding space filled with matter and radiation, which in a finite time gave rise to the present Universe. Already in his first article, Lemaitre derived a complete analogue of the Hubble formula and, having the data known by that time on the velocities and distances of a number of galaxies, he obtained approximately the same value of the coefficient of proportionality between distances and velocities as Hubble. However, his article was published on French in a little-known Belgian magazine and initially went unnoticed. It became known to most astronomers only in 1931 after the publication of its English translation.
The evolution of the Universe is determined by the initial rate of its expansion, as well as the effects of gravity (including dark matter) and antigravity (dark energy). Depending on the relationship between these factors, the graph of the size of the Universe has different shapes both in the future and in the past, which affects the assessment of her age. Current observations show that the Universe is expanding exponentially (red graph).
Hubble time
From this work by Lemaître and the later works of both Hubble himself and other cosmologists it directly followed that the age of the Universe (naturally, measured from the initial moment of its expansion) depends on the value 1/H0, which is now called Hubble time. The nature of this dependence is determined by the specific model of the universe. If we assume that we live in flat universe, filled with gravitating matter and radiation, then to calculate its age 1/H0 must be multiplied by 2/3.
This is where the snag arose. From the measurements of Hubble and Humason it follows that the numerical value of 1/H0 is approximately equal to 1.8 billion years. It followed that the Universe was born 1.2 billion years ago, which clearly contradicted even the greatly underestimated estimates of the age of the Earth at that time. One could get out of this difficulty by assuming that galaxies are moving away more slowly than Hubble thought. Over time, this assumption was confirmed, but it did not solve the problem. According to data obtained by the end of the last century using optical astronomy, 1/H0 ranges from 13 to 15 billion years. So the discrepancy still remained, since the space of the Universe was and is considered flat, and two-thirds of Hubble time is much less than even the most modest estimates of the age of the Galaxy.
Empty world
According to the latest measurements of the Hubble parameter, the lower limit of Hubble time is 13.5 billion years, and the upper limit is 14 billion. It turns out that the current age of the Universe is approximately equal to the current Hubble time. Such equality must be strictly and invariably observed for an absolutely empty Universe, where there is neither gravitating matter nor anti-gravitating fields. But in our world there is enough of both. The fact is that space first expanded slowly, then the speed of its expansion began to increase, and in the current era these opposing trends almost compensated for each other.
IN general view this contradiction was eliminated in 1998 - 1999, when two teams of astronomers proved that over the last 5 - 6 billion years, outer space has been expanding not at a decreasing, but at an increasing rate. This acceleration is usually explained by the fact that in our Universe the influence of the anti-gravity factor, the so-called dark energy, the density of which does not change over time, is growing. Since the density of gravitating matter decreases as the Cosmos expands, dark energy competes more and more successfully with gravity. The duration of the existence of a Universe with an antigravitational component does not have to be equal to two-thirds of Hubble time. Therefore, the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe (noted in 2011) Nobel Prize) made it possible to eliminate the discrepancy between cosmological and astronomical estimates of its lifetime. It was also a prelude to the development of a new method for dating her birth.
Cosmic rhythms
On June 30, 2001, NASA sent Explorer 80 into space, two years later renamed WMAP, the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe. His equipment made it possible to record temperature fluctuations of the microwave cosmic microwave background radiation with an angular resolution of less than three tenths of a degree. It was already known then that the spectrum of this radiation almost completely coincides with the spectrum of an ideal black body heated to 2.725 K, and its temperature fluctuations in “coarse-grained” measurements with an angular resolution of 10 degrees do not exceed 0.000036 K. However, in “fine-grained” measurements on the scale of the WMAP probe, the amplitudes of such fluctuations were six times larger (about 0.0002 K). The cosmic microwave background radiation turned out to be spotty, closely dotted with slightly more and slightly less heated areas.
Fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background radiation are generated by fluctuations in the density of the electron-photon gas that once filled outer space. It dropped to almost zero about 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when virtually all the free electrons combined with the nuclei of hydrogen, helium and lithium, thereby giving rise to neutral atoms. Until this happened, electrons and photons were spreading in the electron-photon gas. sound waves, which were influenced by the gravitational fields of dark matter particles. These waves, or, as astrophysicists say, acoustic oscillations, left their mark on the spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation. This spectrum can be deciphered using the theoretical apparatus of cosmology and magnetic hydrodynamics, which makes it possible to re-evaluate the age of the Universe. As the latest calculations show, its most probable extent is 13.72 billion years. It is now considered the standard estimate of the lifetime of the Universe. If we take into account all possible inaccuracies, tolerances and approximations, we can conclude that, according to the results of the WMAP probe, the Universe has existed for between 13.5 and 14 billion years.
Thus, astronomers, estimating the age of the Universe by three different ways, obtained quite compatible results. Therefore, we now know (or, to put it more cautiously, we think that we know) when our universe arose - at least to an accuracy of several hundred million years. Probably, descendants will add the solution to this age-old riddle to the list of the most remarkable achievements of astronomy and astrophysics.
Loading...