Talk:Age of the universe

message: Reading our current lead gives the impression that the age of the universe is known to an accuracy of better than plus or minus 1 part in 500, despite the body of the article telling us that it depends on the Hubble Constant. Yet our Hubble's Law article has a large table that gives recent Hubble Constant measurements (within the last 10 years, and also within the last 2 years) that range from under 68 (km/s)/Mpc to over 73 (and under 67 to over 75 if you factor in the published estimated errors on these measurements), a range of plus or minus 1 part in about 30 (or worse), with the additional problem that the different measurements are further apart than is consistent with the published estimated errors on the individual measurements. I've just been watching this month's The Sky at Night on BBC4, which was entirely devoted to this problem. (It basically said that measurements derived from analysing CMB fluctuations tended to give figures under 68, while measurements derived by using standard candles (Type 1a supernovae and sometimes also Cepheid variables) tended to give figures of about 73). So I get the distinct impression that either our article is misleading our readers by failing to bring this issue to their attention, or alternatively that it is not misleading them but that it is confusing at least those of us readers who are aware of the apparent problem (or who come across it by reading our Hubble's Law article, which is wikilinked from our current article) by not offering a clear explanation of why the problem is more apparent than real (if that is in fact the case). I understand far too little about the matter to be able to try to fix it myself, but perhaps some other better informed editors can try to do so. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion over accuracy claims 

message: The article claims that the uncertainty is only 20 million years. The age given in the article is 13.8 +/- 0.2 billion years, which means 13.8 billion years plus or minus 20 million, which means between 13.78 and 13.82, an uncertainty of 40 million years. Primal Groudon (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I know I definitely signed this. Primal Groudon (talk) 22:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is accurate to say that the age is known to within 20 million years in the context of the ΛCDM model. As in, the actual age is no more than 20 million years different from the estimated age. 40 million is the range from highest to lowest estimate. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That number is provided by the LCDM concordance model. Why aren't the numbers given by other concordance models shown? Primal Groudon (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you make a typo and mean to ask what estimates are given by other models, and not why other models estimates are shown? In the latter case, what you literally wrote, the estimates are all from the same model, although different figures are given for different methods of estimation (all with overlapping intervals, though). Estimates on the age of the universe from different models are not provided, as they would be undue. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Wikipedia policy you mentioned says if a view is held by an extremely small minority, regardless of truth or verifiability, it does not belong on Wikipedia. That literally means Wikipedia subscribes to argumentum at populum. Primal Groudon (talk) 03:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite ad populum - we only count the commonality of a viewpoint among relevant experts. But if you want to continue a general discussion of policy, that should be done at a policy talk page, or we can talk on my user talk page if you'd like. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give at least a paper or book where the uncertainties using other models are discussed? EternalAsker (talk) 10:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncertainty 

message: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for the general public. It's read by a lot of people who don't have higher education, or the equivalent of a high school diploma, or any interest in math. There's plenty of room to just as exact as the research allows us to be, but we also need to have a simple definition that's easy to read. "13.8*10^9 years (as of 2015[1]) – 13.799±0.021 billion years within the Lambda-CDM concordance model" doesn't cover that need. /Julle (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentences and simplicity 

message: There is a Dec 2020 analysis based on ACT data in the Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics; see . I didn't add it myself because I can't gauge its significance for inclusion. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  December 2020 ACT estimate 

message: Since the title of this article is "Age of the universe," then it seems to me that the article should provide an overview, and history, of the various cultural and scientific explanations to that question. But the article, without acknowledging that there have ever been other points of view, starts by concluding that the Big Bang theory is the only valid model for estimating the age of the universe. I'm trying to find out what the Steady-State theory has, or had, to say about the age of the universe. The Steady-State theory seems to suggest that the universe is infinitely old. But I'm not sure that I have it right, and I'm writing a chapter in a book and discussing the age of the universe. If this Wikipedia article is all about the Big Bang then a different title is needed. Call it, "The age of the universe according to the Big Bang theory." 2600:8801:BE26:2700:B09F:3FEF:E7EB:2AC5 (talk) 00:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to the opening paragraph of this article.  

message: Looking at the timeline at the beginning of the History section, it looks like sexual reproduction started 2 billion years ago, but according to Sexual reproduction#Evolution, it should be 1 to 1.2 bya.  And now that I look at it, fungi have been around 400 mya, not 1.5bya.  So I think the whole scale is off.  
-Keith (Hypergeek14)Talk 16:22, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timeline scale incorrect? 

message: is it possible to place a link to its definition? thanks, pietro 151.29.14.248 (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  F 

message: AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 17:05, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Impossibly Early Galaxy Problem 

message: The article states universe is about 13.8B years old, but the oldest star is 14.8B years. This has to be a mistake, even in the weird world of physics. Can we fix this or explain the inconsistency? RJHeron (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Star older than universe?