New age of universe?

[taeto]

4 minutes ago, swansont said:

You mean 100%, right?
The number you arrive at is the most likely correct value, based on the information you have. But the problem is that all you can do is make more measurements - there’s no way to peek inside the black box and see what “truth” is.

I took at face value the information from a previous post that the measurements show (13,799 +/- 20) million years. In that case 13.820B lies outside, so to 0% inside. Either way it is besides the point, since the true value will always be either 100% or 0% in any given interval.

And no, the truth does not have different values with various probabilities. It is our confidence that our measurements give us a close enough estimate of the true value which is expressed. 

[Bmpbmp1975]

This post has gotten confused I thought I understood and now I think I am confused again. Lol

From my understanding the our universe is 13.7 ish billions years of age five or take 20 millions. Now différence variances are also included in wiki article age of universe still out is in the same ball park of 13.8billion. 

the last few comments from what understand seems to be insinuating this can be completely wrong or am I misunderstanding 

Edited April 7, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[taeto]

4 hours ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

This post has gotten confused I thought I understood and now I think I am confused again. Lol

From my understanding the our universe is 13.7 ish billions years of age five or take 20 millions. Now différence variances are also included in wiki article age of universe still out is in the same ball park of 13.8billion. 

the last few comments from what understand seems to be insinuating this can be completely wrong or am I misunderstanding 

From a statistical point of view, no, you are not misunderstanding. The figures that came up from combined measurements were 13.8 billion years plus/minus 20 million. As swansont points out, we take this to mean that 13.8 billion is the most likely true answer, but other true answers are possible, according to a normal distribution (Bell curve) with standard deviation of some million years, probably either 10 or 20 million. Because the standard deviation is so relatively small, it is very unlikely based on our measurements that the age can be as small as 13.7 billion or as large as 13.9 billion years. Although from a statistical point of view, neither is completely impossible, only extremely unlikely. The estimate is also based on our current model of the universe.

[Bmpbmp1975]

1 hour ago, taeto said:

but other true answers are possible, according to a normal distribution (Bell curve) with standard deviation of some million years, probably either 10 or 20 million. Because the standard deviation is so relatively small, it is very unlikely based on our measurements.

When you say other answers are possible we are still always in the range of about 13 billion years old right. We are talking - difference of millions of years and not billions of yearss right

Edited April 7, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[taeto]

6 minutes ago, Bmpbmp1975 said:

When you say other answers are possible we are still always in the range of about 13 billion years old right. We are talking - difference of millions of years and not billions of years?

Exactly. Unless our interpretation of our observations is very much off, we are very close to the 13.8 billion year mark, relatively speaking. It would be surprising if our measurements have fooled us so much that the actual value does not lie between 13.7 and 13.9. 

[Bmpbmp1975]

Just now, taeto said:

Exactly. Unless our interpretation of our observations is very much off, we are very close to the 13.8 billion year mark, relatively speaking. It would be surprising if our measurements have fooled us so much that the actual value does not lie between 13.7 and 13.9. 

Thank you I get it now 

[Mordred]

Ok good one of the things to understand is that we have to rely on measurements of expansion rate to calculate the age of the universe. The formula used involves the Hubble parameter.

 This parameter will vary somewhat between different datasets as we fine tune it's precision. So you will get some variations of age between older to newer research papers etc. 

 Though with current accuracy the precision is getting far more accurate.

[Bmpbmp1975]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Ok good one of the things to understand is that we have to rely on measurements of expansion rate to calculate the age of the universe. The formula used involves the Hubble parameter.

 This parameter will vary somewhat between different datasets as we fine tune it's precision. So you will get some variations of age between older to newer research papers etc. 

 Though with current accuracy the precision is getting far more accurate.

And this is what gives us the 13.8 billions plus or minus 10-20 million years.

[Mordred]

Correct vary the value of the Hubble constant and you will get a different age of the universe upon calculation.

The simple estimate formula is 

[math]t_h=\frac{1}{H}[/math] Hubble time being the inverse of the Hubble constant. This a first order estimate more complex is to incorporate the evolution of the density parameters such as matter and radiation with the cosmological constant being constant. The former method though does give a ballpark figure. (Though you will have to convert the units)

Edited April 8, 2020 by Mordred

[Bmpbmp1975]

it’s amazing how we can calculate this to 13.8 billions with a margin of 10-20 millions of years. 13.7 to 13.9 .

Thanks so much for helping me understand 

40 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Correct vary the value of the Hubble constant and you will get a different age of the universe upon calculation.

The simple estimate formula is 

th=1H Hubble time being the inverse of the Hubble constant. This a first order estimate more complex is to incorporate the evolution of the density parameters such as matter and radiation with the cosmological constant being constant. The former method though does give a ballpark figure. (Though you will have to convert the units)

When you said 

Correct vary the value of the , I assume you meant I was correct. Lol

 

it’s amazing how we can calculate this to 13.8 billions with a margin of 10-20 millions of years. 13.7 to 13.9 .

Thanks so much for helping me understand 

Edited April 8, 2020 by Bmpbmp1975

[Mordred]

Your welcome. I gave you a +1 as your showing more interest in learning. Keep it up

Edited April 8, 2020 by Mordred