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

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
28,924
Reputation
-7,204
Daps
56,254
Reppin
Bucktown
Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."

The work is published in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.

"Our newly-devised model stretches the galaxy formation time by a several billion years, making the universe 26.7 billion years old, and not 13.7 as previously estimated," says author Rajendra Gupta, adjunct professor of physics in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa.

For years, astronomers and physicists have calculated the age of our universe by measuring the time elapsed since the Big Bang and by studying the oldest starsbased on the redshift of light coming from distant galaxies. In 2021, thanks to new techniques and advances in technology, the age of our universe was thus estimated at 13.797 billion years using the Lambda-CDM concordance model.

However, many scientists have been puzzled by the existence of stars like the Methuselah that appear to be older than the estimated age of our universe and by the discovery of early galaxies in an advanced state of evolution made possible by the James Webb Space Telescope. These galaxies, existing a mere 300 million years or so after the Big Bang, appear to have a level of maturity and mass typically associated with billions of years of cosmic evolution. Furthermore, they're surprisingly small in size, adding another layer of mystery to the equation.

Zwicky's tired light theory proposes that the redshift of light from distant galaxies is due to the gradual loss of energy by photons over vast cosmic distances. However, it was seen to conflict with observations. Yet Gupta found that "by allowing this theory to coexist with the expanding universe, it becomes possible to reinterpret the redshift as a hybrid phenomenon, rather than purely due to expansion."

In addition to Zwicky's tired light theory, Gupta introduces the idea of evolving "coupling constants," as hypothesized by Paul Dirac. Coupling constants are fundamental physical constants that govern the interactions between particles. According to Dirac, these constants might have varied over time. By allowing them to evolve, the timeframe for the formation of early galaxies observed by the Webb telescope at high redshifts can be extended from a few hundred million years to several billion years. This provides a more feasible explanation for the advanced level of development and mass observed in these ancient galaxies.

Moreover, Gupta suggests that the traditional interpretation of the "cosmological constant," which represents dark energy responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, needs revision. Instead, he proposes a constant that accounts for the evolution of the coupling constants. This modification in the cosmological model helps address the puzzle of small galaxy sizes observed in the early universe, allowing for more accurate observations.

 

skylove4

Veteran
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
18,528
Reputation
4,875
Daps
89,518
I love shyt like this :ohlawd:
neil-degrasse-tyson-gravity.gif
 

Ghost Utmost

The Soul of the Internet
Supporter
Joined
May 2, 2012
Messages
19,907
Reputation
8,451
Daps
72,063
Reppin
the Aether
Science evolves .

If you take everything as undisputed fact from that community you’re a fool because scientists,physicists or whatever don’t do that themselves

Exactly. Science is the best info we currently have. It's aim is to continue to refine.

It's fine to make calculations based on certain data, then revise your calculations when you get new data.

Time moves on endlessly we can’t even fathom at the thought of it

Humans only existed for about 10% of it

Waaaay less than that.

The actual number is like 0.00000000000000001%
 

Manny2828

Pro
Joined
Mar 11, 2022
Messages
337
Reputation
-125
Daps
1,349
This isn't 'new research'. It's taking an old hypothesis and trying to make it fit to current observations, when that hypothesis has no particular supporting evidence. It's valuable as a thought exercise but not remotely an actual valid result saying our previous understanding of the age of the universe is wrong.

It's "if our entire understanding of redshift is wrong, maybe the universe is older than we think it is". The article title is misleading at best.
 

FunkDoc1112

Heavily Armed
Joined
Sep 14, 2013
Messages
19,622
Reputation
5,948
Daps
102,504
Reppin
The 718
Exactly. Science is the best info we currently have. It's aim is to continue to refine.

It's fine to make calculations based on certain data, then revise your calculations when you get new data.



Waaaay less than that.

The actual number is like 0.00000000000000001%
People don't realize the whole point of science is constantly reassessing data
 

Prince.Skeletor

Don’t Be Like He-Man
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
28,924
Reputation
-7,204
Daps
56,254
Reppin
Bucktown
People don't realize the whole point of science is constantly reassessing data

Correct.
And worse i think people expect the first theory to be the correct theory.
And if after new data your theory is revisited they say oh well you weren't right the first time why should i believe you now,
 
Top