Dan’s Estimation of the Age of the Universe

As a follow up to my post on the theory of relativity’s implications on the age of the universe and the nature of reality, I am pointing out something that has been bugging me for see time.

How did quasars get 33 billions years away from us in just 13.75 billion years since the big bang is said to have occurred when the god of randomness “created” the universe in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

Here are two links from Wikipedia as sources:

Big Bang


It is a bit harder to visualize and understand a dynamic relativistic reality but no matter how I look at possible scenarios, I can’t make a 33 billion year old quasar fit into a 13.75 billion year old universe (+/- 100 million years).

If at the time of the big bang, the energy and matter that created our solar system went in the opposite direction as the energy that formed the quasar, both traveling near the speed of light relative to each other, then the light reaching us now cannot be older than the universe. The quasar, regardless of any false impression of its “real age” at any possible position within the expanding event cone, could not appear older than the universe. Period.


5 responses to “Dan’s Estimation of the Age of the Universe

  1. One problem I have with your theory. Is your theory based on the idea that the Big Bang happened here, right at our current location? Because the way I see it we don’t know where it could have happened, making the distance from us not an issue. Also wouldn’t Einstein’s theory of relativity fit into your question

  2. Sorry forgot to check the box for notification in the last comment. Please reply to this comment so can receive notification. Thank you

  3. TheQuantumBuddha

    If we are the farthest part from the centre of the Big Bang, and the quasar in question being 33 billion light years away, is on the exact opposite side of the universe, and each left at .99c, from the singularities original position, then the oldest quasar could be 28 billion light years away max, assuming our observation point can travel at 1.98c relative to the quasar in question. And the quasar would itself only be able to appear to be 13.75 billion years old if it formed immediately, which I do not believe is the accepted theory of quasar development, though little is known. It is supposed to have taken 400,000 years to even form galaxies if I recall.

  4. TheQuantumBuddha

    I posted another reply besides this one, but in summary, the universe has to be as old, or older than the oldest object in it. If not, we’ll be time travelling in no time, pardon the pun.

  5. TheQuantumBuddha

    Have you read this post? (Below). It really screws up my whole perception of the universe even having an “age”…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s