Return to Answer

Although there is some current tension about the expansion rate, it is measured quite accurately, and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomgeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. Note that inflation in general is now considered part of 'standard cosmology'. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are seen with skepticism by a lot of cosmologists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.

Although there is some current tension about the expansion rate, it is measured quite accurately, and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomogeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. Note that inflation in general is now considered part of 'standard cosmology'. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are seen with skepticism by a lot of cosmologists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.

Although there is some current tension about the expansion rate, it is measured quite accurately, and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomgeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are seen with skepticism by a lot of cosmologists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.

Although there is some current tension about the expansion rate, it is measured quite accurately, and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomgeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. Note that inflation in general is now considered part of 'standard cosmology'. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are seen with skepticism by a lot of cosmologists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.

The expansion is measured quite accurately and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomgeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was much earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are still seen with skepticism by a lot of physicists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.

Although there is some current tension about the expansion rate, it is measured quite accurately, and the age of our observable universe is derived from that (and other observables). What you mean by the 'age of the universe' (so explicitly NOT only the observable universe) can be different depending on your model. If you just look at the standard Big-Bang model and assume that the universe is as homogeneous and isotropic, which is usually done, than the time since the Big Bang happened is the same even outside of the observable universe, no matter how large it is (the current observations leave it open if the whole universe is just much larger than the observable universe, or infinite).

If you also consider the theory of cosmic inflation (proposed to solve some problems with the Big Bang model and capable of explaining the inhomgeneities we observe from initial quantum fluctuations that have been exponentially enlarged) the situation could be different. In inflation, what we observe as Big Bang (i.e. the very hot thermal bath of all the particles we know expanding non-exponentially) was the end of inflation giving rise to all the known particles in a process called 'reheating'. Inflation needed to endure for some time to solve some of the cosmological problems. The duration of inflation is usually not given in any time unit, but in $e$-folds, the time that is needed so the universe grows by a factor of $e$. Different models usually predict the number of $e$-folds needed to solve most of the cosmological problems inflation is supposed to solve, but it can very well be that it lasted much longer.

In 'eternal inflation' models, inflation still goes on in most of the universe, and in only a small fraction (if I am not mistaken a measure zero fraction) of the actual universe inflation ends, while every such 'pocket' calls their end of inflation 'Big Bang', and measures time from that point on, while in other parts of the whole universe, inflation goes on, and in other parts, the respective Big Bang was earlier. If I am correctly informed, eternal inflation models are seen with skepticism by a lot of cosmologists, as are a lot of proposals concerned with things outside the observable universe. Also note that Alan Guth et al showed that inflationary space-times are not 'past complete', i.e. that inflation cannot be the initial state of the universe, i.e. cannot have gone on 'forever'. I am not sure if this has been disproven since then.