Is the Universe 13.8 or 26.7 billion years old?
Our universe is actually 27 billion years old, almost double the current age estimate
According to the “Standard Model” of cosmology, the Universe is 68% dark energy, 27% dark matter, 5% normal matter, and is 13.8 billion years old: as measured since the hot Big Bang.
Recent observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), however, have found numerous galaxies that appear early, but look surprisingly grown-up. A new theory claims to solve this “early, grown-up galaxies” problem by changing the age of the Universe to 26.7 billion years old.
A new theory claims
Hypothesis, not theory. It is a small distinction but an important one in science.
It’s not even a small distinction. It’s a big one.
I was being polite. Lol.
So as not to offend Mr. & Mrs. Hypothesis?
(whisper) - “They’re standing right behind you.”Oh shit. stammers Um… Heyyyyy thereeee, I didn’t say anything about you guys…
Um… Shit.
Astrophysicists are generally annoyed at the standard model. It’s got too many fudges in it. Maybe this will make a new and more explanatory model be discovered and accepted.
Practically, nothing much will change except for astrophysicists being really excited for a while because this kind of thing is what science is all about.
One thing will change. There’s a theory that one answer to the Fermi Paradox is that is because humans have appeared relatively early in the formation of the universe; we got an early sun, early solar system, life evolved rapidly… we can’t hear anyone else because we’re one of the firsts. If the age of the universe is double what we thought, this explanation becomes less probable, and the Fermi Paradox more concerning.
For those (like me) who was wondering what the Fermi Paradox was:
The Fermi paradox is the discrepancy between the lack of conclusive evidence of advanced extraterrestrial life and the apparently high likelihood of its existence. As a 2015 article put it, “If life is so easy, someone from somewhere must have come calling by now.”
To further add to this. The concern is related to what is nicknamed “the great filter”. The drake equation tries to estimate the number of communicating civilisations within range of us. Even with quite pessimistic terms, it still implies there should be lots of them. Therefore, a term is likely missing or wrong. This is known as the great filter.
If the great filter is behind us, that’s fine. E.g. abiogenesis being vastly harder, and so less likely, than we think. However, it could also be ahead of us. If it is, it likely won’t be far. We are already entering the era where we are detectable on an interstellar distance. Nukes and climate change have been raised as potential “great filters”.
An alternative idea is that we are not typical. If we are one of the first civilisations to reach this level, at least locally, then we would see very little. An older universe makes this significantly less likely.
An interesting point about the radio visibility of our civilization is that it was incredibly short lived. Sure, we have some unique items that may be visible if specifically searched, such as radiation or organic chemical signatures/ratios. But the whole thing about blasting space with radio and TV signals? Basically just a 100 year stint. Current devices are much more focused, so there’s less spill, and by going digital, identifiable waveforms are much rarer. We went form nothing, to being the social media addict of the solar system, to blending back into the static in a matter of a century.
The question is, how that trend develops. Right now, our footprint is dropping, due to efficiency improvements. At the same time, that might change again. E.g. large scale Comms between a home world, like earth, and other planets.
There is also the problem of older civilisations. Any approaching type 2 will be VERY visible, as the spectrum of their star changes. In terms of human history, we are a long way off. In ages of the universe scales, 10,000 years is practically a blip. We see no evidence of Dyson swarms or anything of that nature. An extra 13 billion years is a LONG time for no one to leave a detectable footprint.
You nailed a thing I think many miss. Our signals will be static soon, and I don’t care what kind of magical tech aliens have. Static is static, truly random noise.
And as a civilization progresses, less and less need for EMF broadcast. Think fiber vs. AM radio. Maybe we’ll hit a tech point where, for whatever reason, we broadcast more EMF, dunno.
It’s still a far shot away from 5000 years so I’ll be fine.
+/- a couple billion years
This changes everything!!!
Think of the rate of decay!
Think of the motion!
Think of the odds of finding life!
Think of the light!
Think of time itself!
We were nothing before, but we are doubly nothing now, which is much worse!
Panic! Panic at the disco!
Much better to face these kinds of things with a sense of poise and rationality.
I guess finding a galaxy that is older than 13.8 billion years would lend credence to the hypothesis.
But yeah, there’s definitely something wrong with cosmology.
Here’s a good video about the topic from an astrophysicist. https://youtu.be/aBYgck1zAgQ
Dr. Becky is the best!
She’s always at the top of my science-videos playlist when she has a new video out.
Same. I jump on her vids right away unless, maybe, an acollierastro video was also released.
I seem to recall hearing recently about results that seemed to indicate that a certain galaxy is older than we’d expect.
Well they found a galaxy at 390 million years after the big bang, that according to current understanding should be billions of years old. That should do, I think?
Great YouTube channel thanks for sharing!
That estimate is based on assuming that the ratio of matter to light output is the same between galaxies 10 billion years apart in age. The high light output of these young galaxies could also be supermassive stars that burn out very quickly, larger stars typically forming faster than smaller stars, or many other things.
Blindly assuming a linear relationship between two things, then extrapolating is how you get the Windows loading bar circa 2000.
Separately, but just as big a potential issue, the data itself may be incorrect. Previous galaxies measured at extreme redshift values were remeasured, and found to have less extreme values. This can be as simple as there aren’t that many photons from these galaxies reaching us, so a short measurement period might not be enough to get an accurate picture.
Considering that universes are best before 25 billion years I think it goes a long way towards explaining how disappointing humanity is.
by 13 billion
The age of our sun would be what would concern me the most. Personally
deleted by creator
