Technology

59656 readers

2786 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

430

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed (phys.org)

submitted 1 year ago by L4s@lemmy.world to c/technology@lemmy.world

53 comments fedilink hide all child comments

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed::Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called "impossible early galaxy problem."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] ProcurementCat@feddit.de 100 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (8 children)

many scientists have been puzzled by the existence of stars like the Methuselah that appear to be older than the estimated age of our universe

No, not really, because the age of that star is compatible with the age of the universe within the error bars.

These galaxies, existing a mere 300 million years or so after the Big Bang, appear to have a level of maturity and mass typically associated with billions of years of cosmic evolution.

Galaxy formation is still an active area of research und different models predict different evolutionary rates

Instead, he proposes a constant that accounts for the evolution of the coupling constants.

That's exactly what Brans-Dicke theory is trying to do, and other modified theories of gravitation as well. Yet they can't explain stuff so well as Lambda CDM can.

Overall, tired light pretty much doesn't work well explaining the perfect black body behavior of the cosmic microwave background or surface brightnesses of galaxies.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

[–] SakaiSama@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago (4 children)

The idea of evolving fundamental constants is pretty mind blowing to me. Is this a well based theory?

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I mean, it's a bold idea, but I don't find it so shocking.

It's well possible that what we call a "fundamental" constant is a variable that depends on other deeper variables. For instance, an earth-bound observer might consider acceleration in freefall to be a constant, but knowledge of universal gravitation tells us it's a variable that depends on the masses of the objects involved and distance between them.

It makes sense that other ostensible "fundamental constants" are also dependent on the structure of the universe at any given point in space and time, but the limited window of our observations makes them appear as constants.

[–] SakaiSama@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but I wouldn’t call gravitational acceleration on earth a fundamental constant, since it’s only locally useful. If something like the charge on an electron started changing though, then there would be profound consequences on the way the universe works

[–] 1bluepixel@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I don't disagree; I was using g as an example of a variable that appears constant under a specific set of circumstances. Obviously the charge of an electron is much more consistent.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (4 replies)