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.

  • Deestan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    50
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • 𝕽𝖚𝖆𝖎𝖉𝖍𝖗𝖎𝖌𝖍@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      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.

      • newcool1230@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        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.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_paradox

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • XeroxCool@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

            • shalafi@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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.

  • Lath@kbin.earth
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    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!

  • prime_number_314159@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    8 months ago

    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.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    8 months ago

    As soon as this is a confirmed truth, all scientists and astrophysicists will be required to double their own age as well.

    If they refuse, their reputation will be halved.

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Considering that universes are best before 25 billion years I think it goes a long way towards explaining how disappointing humanity is.