The universe could be nearly twice as old as previously estimated

[DragonSlayer101]

In context: The universe and everything in it have always fascinated humans, inspiring countless studies over the years to unravel its mysteries. Despite the considerable progress made through decades of research, there is still much more to be discovered. We often get surprising new information that debunks old beliefs, forcing us to jettison what we thought we knew about the universe.

Such a study has recently been published, refuting everything we thought we knew about the age of the universe. The work, published in the journal 'Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society,' suggests that the universe could be twice as old as previously believed. As per the new study, data gathered from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) suggests that the current model used to determine the universe's age is inaccurate.

The researcher argue that the widely-used Lambda-CDM concordance model can no longer be relied upon to age the universe in light of new information from the JWST. The most notable problem with the current model is that it cannot correctly age many of the ancient galaxies that have been spotted by the James Webb Space Telescope. This is referred to as the 'impossible early galaxy problem,' as they appear to be much older than the estimated age of the universe itself.

While the data from the JWST could theoretically be flawed, this is unlikely for all practical considerations. If this is the case, the only remaining explanation for the discrepancy is that the current model, which uses redshift from the lights of stars to determine the age and origin of our universe, is not entirely accurate.

While the age of the universe is currently estimated to be around 13.797 billion years, the new model suggests that it could be as much as 26.7 billion years old. The author of this study, Rajendra Gupta - an adjunct professor of physics in the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa - asserts that the updated age is more likely accurate. He argues that the recently discovered ancient galaxies appear much more mature than the 300 million years suggested by the current redshift model.

That being said, this study's methodology for measuring the universe's age has yet to gain widespread acceptance among researchers, so it remains to be seen whether this new approach will be adopted in the future.

Image: NASA

Permalink to story.

https://www.techspot.com/news/99420-universe-could-nearly-twice-old-previously-estimated.html

 

[VitalyT]

Thanks for the heads-up! By the time I was done reading it, I felt much older myself.

 

[UdyrL]

...or 10 times as old
...or 20 times as old.

It's all theoretical. Our limited technology can't really confirm this information.

 

[dirtyferret]

Jesus created the universe 6,000 years ago in the year 1776 when he signed the declaration of independence

 

[EdmondRC]

Yet, scientists will not question big-bang theory, instead they will simple say, it must be older than we thought and adjust the theory to fit the evidence. Which is exactly what they are doing here.

Honestly, it doesn't jive at all. On one hand the universe appears much older than predicted. On the other hand, studies of our own Solar System actually make it appear much younger. There is not enough moon dust for example. There are too many volcanically active planets. There are rings around most planets. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are too thick and too strong.

I think it would be better if science would just stick to the observable facts when it comes to the Universe and stop guessing how it came into existence. Because that's all it is, guessing.

By the way, I brought this up months ago and I remember a mod telling me I was wrong about what JWST was observing. Yet here we are.

 

[EdmondRC]

Jesus created the universe 6,000 years ago in the year 1776 when he signed the declaration of independence

The irony is, you are closer to figuring it out than the scientist with this jest.

 

[wiyosaya]

Jesus created the universe 6,000 years ago in the year 1776 when he signed the declaration of independence

Joke of the day right here.

 

[wiyosaya]

Yet, scientists will not question big-bang theory, instead they will simple say, it must be older than we thought and adjust the theory to fit the evidence. Which is exactly what they are doing here.

Honestly, it doesn't jive at all. On one hand the universe appears much older than predicted. On the other hand, studies of our own Solar System actually make it appear much younger. There is not enough moon dust for example. There are too many volcanically active planets. There are rings around most planets. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are too thick and too strong.

I think it would be better if science would just stick to the observable facts when it comes to the Universe and stop guessing how it came into existence. Because that's all it is, guessing.

By the way, I brought this up months ago and I remember a mod telling me I was wrong about what JWST was observing. Yet here we are.

Personally, I think the Big Bang Theory is a by-product of humanity's entrance into the Nuclear era.

At some point, maybe science will abandon the BBT as a model of "how it all began," who knows? But that is the nature of science - postulate, experiment and confirm, adjust as new information becomes available - such as this info from JWST.

EDIT: I bet I know who the mod was but I will leave them unnamed. Unfortunately, there are "scientists" out there that think that what is known is the ultimate answer. IMO, that's not being a scientist.

 

[FF222]

Jesus created the universe 6,000 years ago in the year 1776 when he signed the declaration of independence

Finally someone set the record straight. That's how real science works.

 

[ZedRM]

The comments here are, well, staggering.

I'll offer the following: Observations always over-rule and supersede theories. Always. When an observation is made that contradicts a theory, the theory is dismissed in favor of the observation. This is how true scientific discoveries are made. To say or do otherwise is little more than human pride, arrogance and ignorance.

 

[NetNomad]

Maybe they are observing galaxies beyond the big bang center point, which are expending to the opposite direction that solar system is moving

 

[ZedRM]

Maybe they are observing galaxies beyond the big bang center point, which are expending to the opposite direction that solar system is moving

That is not possible. The central region of the Universe, IE the point of the Big Bang, has been out of our observable range for many billions of years. It is not possible for us to observe that area, nor anything beyond it as we are moving away from those areas at a rate greater than the speed of light. You have the right idea, but the physics does not work in our favor.

 

[Vulcanproject]

Lies about age
Lots of research undertaken to understand it
Still nobody knows much about it after centuries of study

So you're saying the universe is probably a woman then

 

[ZedRM]

Lies about age

The Universe tells no lies. We are the ones improperly estimating.

Lots of research undertaken to understand it

True.

Still nobody knows much about it after centuries of study

Not true. We know a lot. It's the fine-grained details that are throwing some of us off.

So you're saying the universe is probably a woman then

There's a joke there, but it would torque the mods to tell it, so I will refrain...

 

[mcnabney]

Not true. We know a lot. It's the fine-grained details that are throwing some of us off.

These aren't 'fine-grained details'. Webb is showing us things that are impossible. Mature galaxies only a couple hundred million years after BB. Impossible.

A lot of the scientific community are trying to see why our models aren't holding up. This researcher is questioning the lynchpin - red-shifting. Others are too. Entirely too much of the scientific community are playing defense on the data from Webb. That is bad science. This is what the Newtonians did when that upstart nobody called Einstein flipped over the apple cart.

I'm not saying this guy is right, but we need to start approaching this with a fresh set of eyes instead of doing things like inventing Dark Matter / Energy because our calculations were off by a factor of ten. We need to step back and start thinking about other options. Then get ready to be shocked when the solution shows up and puts it all together.

 

[kiwigraeme]

That is not possible. The central region of the Universe, IE the point of the Big Bang, has been out of our observable range for many billions of years. It is not possible for us to observe that area, nor anything beyond it as we are moving away from those areas at a rate greater than the speed of light. You have the right idea, but the physics does not work in our favor.

There is no center of the universe - the Universe is expanding everywhere - if you live on the surface of a balloon and you only see that surface - and someone blows it up - no matter where you are the balloon will be expanding --I used to think there was a centre of the universe - especially when they talk about a big crash ( now considered unlikely - just slow death ).
But yes you are right if the observation is verifiable - then theory must be reworked or thrown out -
So far many observations have initially cast doubt on the Standard model - but it's still holding just - But it will be changed - as not complete and too many fixes

 

[ChrisH1]

I'm just waiting for the day when they say "Oh hah, *that's* why the stars in galaxies rotate at the speed they do. Makes sense. Dark Matter? Oh that's just something we made up to explain it because we couldn't think of anything else."

 

[Cabuzzi]

Yet, scientists will not question big-bang theory, instead they will simple say, it must be older than we thought and adjust the theory to fit the evidence. Which is exactly what they are doing here.

Honestly, it doesn't jive at all. On one hand the universe appears much older than predicted. On the other hand, studies of our own Solar System actually make it appear much younger. There is not enough moon dust for example. There are too many volcanically active planets. There are rings around most planets. Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field are too thick and too strong.

I think it would be better if science would just stick to the observable facts when it comes to the Universe and stop guessing how it came into existence. Because that's all it is, guessing.

By the way, I brought this up months ago and I remember a mod telling me I was wrong about what JWST was observing. Yet here we are.

We should always be adjusting the theories based on evidence. Unfortunately in this world, our elite continuously adjust the "evidence" based on the "theory", and therefore never admit when they are wrong (eg: "global cooling/global warming/climate change).

 

[Cabuzzi]

The comments here are, well, staggering.

I'll offer the following: Observations always over-rule and supersede theories. Always. When an observation is made that contradicts a theory, the theory is dismissed in favor of the observation. This is how true scientific discoveries are made. To say or do otherwise is little more than human pride, arrogance and ignorance.

This. Said it better than I could have.

 

[trieste1s]

There is no center of the universe - the Universe is expanding everywhere - if you live on the surface of a balloon and you only see that surface - and someone blows it up - no matter where you are the balloon will be expanding --I used to think there was a centre of the universe - especially when they talk about a big crash ( now considered unlikely - just slow death ).
But yes you are right if the observation is verifiable - then theory must be reworked or thrown out -
So far many observations have initially cast doubt on the Standard model - but it's still holding just - But it will be changed - as not complete and too many fixes

If there's no general centre, how would you explain concentric shells of different redshift velocities from earth's perspective?

 

[godrilla]

Remember trust the science. Scientists we are God! Even chatgpt anomaly rate is much lower.

 

[godrilla]

There is no center of the universe - the Universe is expanding everywhere - if you live on the surface of a balloon and you only see that surface - and someone blows it up - no matter where you are the balloon will be expanding --I used to think there was a centre of the universe - especially when they talk about a big crash ( now considered unlikely - just slow death ).
But yes you are right if the observation is verifiable - then theory must be reworked or thrown out -
So far many observations have initially cast doubt on the Standard model - but it's still holding just - But it will be changed - as not complete and too many fixes

What about Black hole? It's expanding but it's also not expanding? I always thought matter is sucked into these black holes creates this mega structure that is unstable and bangs again and again until Infinity into Infinite amount of parrallel universes in a random cyclical pattern.

 

[kiwigraeme]

If there's no general centre, how would you explain concentric shells of different redshift velocities from earth's perspective?

No matter where you are in the universe - you would also see concentric shells from that position,

Yeah kind of hard to get your head around
Edit - realized as I shut off PC last night - My balloon example works here - anyway on surface of expanding balloon - no matter where you are it expands out in circles

Past my bed time - here is a general link

Why There Is No Center Of The Universe

There is no special place in our cosmos, as far as we can tell.

www.iflscience.com

 

[PEnnn]

Remember trust the science. Scientists we are God! Even chatgpt anomaly rate is much lower.

Nah, we all know (and you I bet) that the flat-earth cultists, orange-faced US politicians, Anti-vaxxers, everything-is-a-hoax imbeciles AND especially oil-companies' shills are the real Gods and should be believed.

 

[kiwigraeme]

What about Black whole? It's expanding but it's also not expanding? I always thought matter is sucked into these black wholes creates this mega structure that is unstable and bangs again and again until Infinity into Infinite amount of parrallel universes in a random cyclical pattern.

Still a lot unknown about black holes - apparently maintain information of matter going into it - They can have properties like spin , I think maybe charge - they leak out slowly with Howkins radiation
Not all black holes are dangerous - billions of nano black holes could quantumly appear in earth , but they disappear in an instant - how long they last is proportional to size
Some believe Black holes have can form world holes , or pump energy aka quasars,

If the Universe had enough mass to contract back to a big crash - that would mean we are living in a black hole - as light could not escape this fate - light carries Information
Most galaxies have a huge black hole at their centres
Watching some fall into a blackhole may seem very quick for an outsider, but for that person time will really slow down

That's most I know off the top of my head