Is the Universe older than we think?

  • #1
TheOrionNebula
3
4
TL;DR Summary
Is the Universe older than we think - or are the distance / look back times / redshift estimates from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) systematically biassed?
The James Webb Space Telescope, JWST, has revolutionised our views of galaxy formation in the early universe, suggesting that galaxies showing structure may have been formed at much earlier times than our best models of galaxy evolution predict. This has even led to suggestions that The Universe may be much older than we have believed (https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-evolved-galaxy-early-universe)

Yet others have suggested that JWST’s estimates of the distances, or the look back times to objects in the very distant Universe are affected by systematic biases (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-02093-8) , for example the well known Malmqvist bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmquist_bias).

What do you think … could our galaxy evolution models be completely wrong, or might the estimates of very distant objects now coming from the JWST be systematically over estimated, or is there even some other effect or new Physics that is causing this conundrum in contemporary astrophysics?
 
Last edited:
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

EDIT -- thread reopened provisionally...
 
Last edited:
  • #3
TheOrionNebula said:
TL;DR Summary: Is the Universe older than we think - or are the distance / look back times / redshift estimates from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) systematically biassed?
This situation is reminescent of OPERA's observation of faster-than-light neutrinos: either a) everything we know is wrong; or b) there is something wrong with the observations or our interpretation of them.

History says that although the former cannot be excluded, chances are that it's the latter.
 
  • #4
Is the universe older than we think?
I think so.

If this were a 1960's SciFi show, at this point the computer would start smoking and explode.

However, taking thsi result at face value, there are two possibilities:
  1. The universe is older than all the other cosmological evidence points to.
  2. Galaxies of this sort formed earlier than we thought.
Take your pick.
 
  • #5
Moderator's note: An off topic subthread started by a now banned member has been deleted. Thread remains open.
 

1. How old do we currently believe the universe to be?

The most widely accepted estimate for the age of the universe is approximately 13.8 billion years. This estimation is based on observations of the cosmic microwave background radiation and measurements of the expansion rate of the universe, among other data.

2. What evidence supports the current understanding of the universe's age?

The age of the universe is primarily derived from the cosmic microwave background radiation, which provides a snapshot of the early universe, and the expansion rate measured through Hubble's Law. Additionally, the ages of the oldest star clusters and white dwarf stars also support this timeline.

3. Could the universe be older than we currently estimate?

While the current estimate is well-supported by data, some theoretical models and alternative interpretations of observational data suggest that the universe could be older. These include models involving different assumptions about dark energy or modifications to general relativity. However, these are not widely accepted without more conclusive evidence.

4. How would a change in the estimated age of the universe impact our understanding of cosmology?

If the universe were found to be significantly older, it would require a reevaluation of many aspects of cosmological theory, including the rates of cosmic expansion, the nature of dark matter and dark energy, and the timeline of cosmic events such as the formation of stars and galaxies.

5. What future observations or technologies could clarify the age of the universe?

Advancements in telescope technology, such as the James Webb Space Telescope, and further studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation or gravitational waves could provide deeper insights into the early universe. These could potentially lead to more precise measurements of the universe's expansion rate and age.

Similar threads

B NGC 4590, more than 1,400 stars found in various evolutionary stages
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
610
I Help me on the timeline of star formation in the early Universe
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Did James Webb cast serious doubt on the Big Bang?
    • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
1K
B Observable universe and overlapping spheres
    • Cosmology
Replies
15
Views
745
B Cosmological time dilation of high-redshift quasars
    • Cosmology
Replies
8
Views
1K
I A cold, massive, rotating disk galaxy 1.5 billion years after the BB
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
2K
I What do high-mass X-ray binaries, or HMXBs, tell us?
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
1
Views
1K
I Galaxy at z=11.1, farthest yet, unusually bright (GN-z11)
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
16
Views
6K
B The Hubble deep field photos and the edge of the universe
    • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
17
Views
2K
I Exploring Galaxy Evolution in μ¨ Based Cosmologies
    • Cosmology
Replies
7
Views
1K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top