2y ago

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

phys.org

Technology @lemmy.world

L4sBot @lemmy.world

BOT

2y ago

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

phys.org /news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html

26 comments

I feel like they should have used "suggests" instead of "puts." "Puts" makes it sound like it's a sure thing, but it seems like it hasn't been verified yet
- Agreed, there’s a lot of significant changes in this new model that will need to be investigated
Wow, that's quite a jump. Since I can remember following the topic the jumps in estimated age were getting smaller and smaller as measurements were getting more and more precise. So this is a bit mind-blowing if true.
- The tired light hypothesis has been fringe for decades. This is an interesting application of it, but this paper isn't going to be accepted without some rather vigorous challenge. It'll be years of new observations and dozens of new studies re-examining already published data before the dust settles on this.
This seems to be using the initial red shift data that has been shown to be wrong with none being over 15. The initial redshift of z ≈ 16.4 was actually 4.9 after spectroscopic verification. This study had only 2 over 10 with the max of 11.4.
source: https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.15431
Give it 1-2 years before making a validity judgement on this
- But then it'll be 26,700,000,002 years old and we'll have to wait a couple more years to see if the new age estimate is valid.
Pretty interesting finding. Have to wonder if time functioned differently that close to the Big Bang.
JWST illuminating as always, but would love to see this confirmed with another telescope/methodology.
Link to the original study
There is a much better explanation which is either MOND or MoND-mimicking superfluid dark matter causing structure formation a little sooner, plus early usual overestimation of the number of actual early galaxies. New data always takes a little time to analyze properly. Tired light is outdated.
There’s definitely been life in other places beyond earth. That’s an unfathomable amount of time for matter not to have self-organised in the unfathomable amount of space that exists before it happened here. It may all be dead by now and we may never see it, but this feels like game over for any earth-centric model that still exists.
- It seems likely, even highly likely, but not "definitely". Making absolute claims without supporting evidence is the sort of thing that antivaxers do.
  
  I’m not a scientist, I’m a writer. Throwing words around is what I do, which hopefully gets other people talking. That’s kinda my point.
  Don’t get real opinions from random internet comments.
- I'm not convinced of this. It could also be that it's also that unfathomably likely to like to develop and evolve.
  
  Then how are we here?
  What are the odds of us being here to talk about the odds of us being here talking about this versus fungus or bacteria literally everywhere?
  Simple life being everywhere is more likely than complex life being anywhere, yet here we are.

26 comments