New research puts age of the Universe at 26.7 billion years

In summary: I am not a cosmology guy. But I do know that, in any model of anything, if you allow your constants to vary you can get a better fit. These seems only mildly interesting. I look forward to someone who actually knows issuing forth.
  • #1
pinball1970
Gold Member
2,803
3,933
TL;DR Summary
"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.
The article https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-u...d be twice,"impossible early galaxy problem."

The paper

https://academic.oup.com/mnras/adva...2/7221343?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

From the abstract.

"We present a model with covarying coupling constants (CCC), starting from the modified FLRW metric and resulting Einstein and Friedmann equations, and a CCC + TL hybrid model. They fit the Pantheon + data admirably, and the CCC + TL model is compliant with the JWST observations. It stretches the age of the universe to 26.7 Gyr with 5.8 Gyr at z=10�=10 and 3.5 Gyr at z=20�=20⁠, giving enough time to form massive galaxies. It thus resolves the ‘impossible early galaxy’ problem without requiring the existence of primordial black hole seeds or modified power spectrum, rapid formation of massive population III stars, and super Eddington accretion rates. One could infer the CCC model as an extension of the ΛΛCDM model with a dynamic cosmological constant."

The article mentions Zwicky's tired light theory which I thought was debunked.

These sound like large claims to say the least, it would be appreciated to get a view from the pf cosmology guys.
 
  • Skeptical
Likes ohwilleke
Space news on Phys.org
  • #2
I am not a cosmology guy. But I do know that, in any model of anything, if you allow your constants to vary you can get a better fit. These seems only mildly interesting. I look forward to someone who actually knows issuing forth.
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and pinball1970
  • #3
Um, the last time this notion hypothesis surfaced, after finding field-stars apparently much older than ~15 BY, turned out to be due to binary-mergers which sorta-rejuvenated the combination rather than eg triggering a super-nova...

Cousin to 'Blue Stragglers' ??

Whatever, IMHO, there's still enough wriggle-room error bars to stick with the current age until better data emerges...
 
  • Like
Likes ohwilleke and pinball1970
  • #4
This is about a cosmological model developed by Rajendra Gupta, which is a hybrid model of tired light with the big bang. The tired light in this model is simply an addition to the big bang in an attempt to extend the time it takes for light to travel from distant objects to Earth; it isn't acting as a replacement for the big bang.

When cosmologists usually talk about the age of the universe, they are usually talking about something that is hugely dependent upon the cosmological model, since the age of the universe is calculated from the model, not measured. What is usually measured is the cosmological redshift of an object. For example, different early dark energy models developed to resolve the Hubble tension have the age of the universe anywhere between 12 and 15 billion years. The previous standard model of cosmology without dark energy, SCDM, had the age of the universe between 9 and 12 billion years. So I'm not surprised that Gupta's cosmological model would also have a different answer for the age of the universe compared to Lambda CDM.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Like
Likes horacio torres and Motore
  • #5
hutchphd said:
I am not a cosmology guy. But I do know that, in any model of anything, if you allow your constants to vary you can get a better fit. These seems only mildly interesting. I look forward to someone who actually knows issuing forth.
Dyson, full both of knowledge and the chutzpah of youth, did from Cornell go forth unto Fermi. In the great city of Chicago he did lay at the feet of Fermi a theory of the nucleus, made full through the labors of underpaid PhD candidates. The gaze of Fermi was cast upon these offerings. Fermi spake thusly. "You know Johnny von Neumann always used to say, with four free parameters I can fit an elephant, with five I can wiggle his trunk." Dyson, heeding the great learning of Johnny, was sore dismayed. Of this heresy he did repent. Dyson went forth to sin no more. The graduate students were released of their bondage.

The Visit According To Dyson
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Care
  • Haha
Likes pinball1970, Tom.G, DaveC426913 and 3 others
  • #6
Covarying coupling constants are a dubious proposition. Every observation calculated to determine if coupling constants have varied over time has confirmed that they do not to limits of experimental accuracy. There are less extreme ways to accommodate the "impossible early galaxy problem" than this paper.
 
  • Like
Likes pinball1970
  • #7
Hornbein said:
The Visit According To Dyson
That is a wonderful interview....thank you.
 
  • Like
Likes nomadreid and pinball1970

Related to New research puts age of the Universe at 26.7 billion years

What is the basis for the new estimate of the Universe's age?

The new estimate of 26.7 billion years is based on revised interpretations of observational data, including cosmic microwave background radiation and the redshift of distant galaxies. This research suggests that previous models may have underestimated the Universe's age by not fully accounting for certain factors like dark energy and the expansion rate.

How does this new age compare to the previously accepted age of the Universe?

The previously accepted age of the Universe was approximately 13.8 billion years. The new estimate of 26.7 billion years is almost double this figure, indicating a significant revision in our understanding of the Universe's timeline.

What implications does this new age have for our understanding of cosmic evolution?

If the Universe is indeed 26.7 billion years old, it would imply that cosmic structures like galaxies, stars, and black holes have had much longer to form and evolve than previously thought. This could lead to new insights into the processes that govern cosmic evolution and the lifecycle of celestial bodies.

How might this new age affect the Big Bang theory?

The new age does not necessarily contradict the Big Bang theory but may require adjustments to our understanding of the events that followed the initial explosion. It could suggest a more prolonged period of cosmic inflation or different rates of expansion at various stages of the Universe's history.

What are the next steps for researchers in light of this new estimate?

Researchers will likely conduct further observations and simulations to test the validity of the new age estimate. This includes re-examining existing data, looking for corroborating evidence, and refining theoretical models to better align with the new timeline. Peer review and independent verification will be crucial steps in establishing the new age as a widely accepted scientific consensus.

Back
Top