Start with what was, for a long time, the "standard" cosmology:
Ho=50, OmegaM=1, OmegaL=0
Now put some data points on the age plot. Try these:
- What is the current age of this universe; ie, how old is this universe at a redshift z=0?
- If we change the Hubble constant to Ho=100, how does this change the age of the Universe? Why does the age of the Universe change?
- Hubble's initial estimate (in 1929) of the current expansion rate was H0=500 km/s/Mpc. What is the age of the Universe under this model? Is that reasonable?
- Now reduce the mass density of the Universe to OmegaM=0.5. How and why does the age change?
- Increase the mass density to OmegaM=2.0. Again, how and why does the age change?
Given these ages:
- The sun is currently about 5 billion years old.
- The age of the disk of the galaxy is about 10 billion years old.
- The oldest globular clusters in the galaxy are 12-15 billion years old.
Now add a cosmological constant by making OmegaL nonzero.
- How big can Ho be if OmegaM=1?
- If OmegaM is lower than 1, say OmegaM=0.3, how big can Ho be?
- A current estimate of Ho is Ho=65. Is Ho=65, OmegaM=0.3 consistent with the age estimates of objects in our galaxy?
Finally, put data for LBDS 53W091 on the age plot. It is a galaxy at
a redshift of 1.552, and a preliminary estimate of its age was 3 Gyr.
- For a Ho=65, OmegaM=0.3, what happens to the age of the universe as you increase OmegaL? Why does the age change?
More recent estimates of the age of LBDS 53W091 suggest it is younger,
only 1.5 Gyr old at its redshift of 1.552.
- How does adding this point constrain cosmology? Show an example
of a cosmology that was consistant with the galaxy age data but
is inconsistent with the 3 Gyr age of LBDS 53W091.
- How does this change the allowed cosmologies?