Making the universe way older than we think it is

Schilcote · Aug 14, 2012

For a setting I'm building, I need the universe to be really, really old. Like, tens of trillions of years old. The problem is, our science puts the age of existence at a mere 14.6 billion years.

Now, here's what I'm thinking: our estimates are based on two things- background radiation left over from the Big Bang, and the expansion rate of the universe.

Now in this setting, people are already messing with the expansion rate of the universe (specifically, they're trying to slow it down- I assume this would make the estimate go down, but I might be wrong), so that's covered. As for the radiation, I was thinking that the excess radiation detected would be waste radiation from space travel- interstellar exhaust fumes, if you will.

Does this work? If not, how can I justify an excessively old universe?

Polenth · Aug 14, 2012

Why do you need to justify it? It could simply be an alternate reality where the universe is older, with all the expected spangles that come with being older. This would be a smoother solution than trying to explain why science got the age wrong.

Jozzy · Aug 14, 2012

I'm not 100% sure what you're asking, but if you are looking for a plausible explanation of a very old universe you could use a scalar-field version of dark energy, which you can modify however needed to suit the story.

If you are looking for a quantitatively accurate hypothesis that could explain it, you are in for a LOT of study...not sure there is anyone alive who could write one.

Just asking...what's wrong with having a scientist stand up at a podium somewhere and say "we were wrong...the universe is really, really old" and leave it at that?

RichardGarfinkle · Aug 14, 2012

The cosmic microwave background is too evenly distributed to be space travel excess. Slowing down the expansion rate has other problems. If things were closer together longer they'd also be differently distributed.
Remember looking far into space is looking back in time. So we have a lot of evidence to go on for our current estimates.

There are also subtler complications. Like how many generations of stars have there been? Over a lifetime a star will turn a lot of hydrogen into heavier elements. If you've got hundreds of stellar generations as a trillion year old universe would you'll have a lot more heavy elements.

Also, galactic formation in that stretched out a time period would end up rather differently. In particular, you would have less mass available at galactic centers to be eaten by super massive black holes, so you would have fewer radio noisy galaxies.

In short, if you want to do this you need a really really big lie. Fortunately, you're writing fiction. So lie brazenly rather than trying to reconcile things.

blacbird · Aug 14, 2012

SF readers are conditioned to accept the impossible and implausible (FTL travel, time travel, teleportation, etc.) as standard story tropes. You really don't need to strain yourself to explain the concept. Write the damn story.

caw

Snick · Aug 15, 2012

That shouldn't be a problem for two reasons:
The speed of expansion and the age estimate derived, in part, from it assume that the expansion rate is uniform, when the rate that we can most readily observe is of a leading wave. We are actually measuring the up and down of the wave rather than the overall speed of the wave.

You probably should read up on expansion. The Big Bang was a major expansion point, but there are localized expansions going on all the time. There is a high probability that the universe that we observe was part of an earlier universe, and a piece of the ole universe expanded to become this one. As such, there are regions in this universe that are from the old universe, and those pieces are much older than this universe.

If you just need part of the universe to be older, then go with the second. It is good science that is backed up by observation. If you want to be obscure, then the wave paeak and trough theory could work wonders.

J.W. Alden · Aug 15, 2012

If you're willing to throw out things like the accepted cause of the cosmic microwave background radiation, why not just set your story against a different cosmic origin theory in general, such as Plasma Cosmology?

I'm not well read enough on that particular example (which is just an example) to know if it would give you what you need, but I think if you're willing to toss something as widely accepted and touted as the age of the universe you may as well say eff it and embrace something wholly different altogether.

Making the universe way older than we think it is

Schilcote

Polenth

Mushroom

Jozzy

Please, sir, I want some more.

RichardGarfinkle

Nurture Phoenixes

blacbird

Snick

J.W. Alden

The King Who Bore the Sword