alt Hacker NewsScientists claim the universe is twice as old as believed
Comments
> while also matching the universe’s historical expansion rate without requiring dark energy.
I wonder which number this matches, since we’ve repeatedly measured 2 different values and we can’t figure out why they disagree. As much as this is currently non-peer reviewed ideas that probably won’t lead anywhere (as with most news articles about new research), radical ideas like this are probably what is needed to get to the truth of the Hubble tension and other paradoxes in cosmology.
Fascinating idea. It reminds me of an attempt from a few decades ago where scientists recalculated all fundamental constants from fundamental properties instead of the rather arbitrary quantities we're used to. A surprising finding of that project was that all fundamental constants ended up very close to 1, with two big exceptions: and the age of the universe at 10^40 and the gravitational constant at 10^-40, suggestiong an inverse relationship between the two.
It was probably a coincidence, but now there's another model with changing constants. I'd love to see where this goes.
Does someone else get overwhelmed and just give up whenever you start thinking of how everything was created? It's an endless streak. I think by design – as in obviously if you start thinking what made a -> what made that made a -> … and very soon you have a recursive loop without an exit condition. So basically universe creation is possible case of OOM if ever it ran on any fathomable system, unless we posit that the resources will keep increasing for that system. I mean it's the same if we insert a deity like entity in this, because then there's who created that deity. As in – you know there's no end to it, unless you accept that one "<that> just happened" or "whatever".
One possible falsification of this hypothesis (from earlier this year): https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/547/3/stag430/8507252...
I've never liked big bang as a concept. It sounds cartoonish for me like geocentric model. It's way too convenient that entire space evolved from a single point long time ago. It sounds like a child story in comparison to everything else we can prove so far.
Have there been any peer reviewed papers published into reputable journals?
100 billion stars 100 billion galaxies 100 billion years.
Give or take some orders of magnitude. It is enough to sit in awe
If true, then that's a heavy hit for the big bang theory intro song. I don't think they can just replace the fourteen with a twenty-seven, without the whole flow breaking completely.
Funny how modern science is all about belief
Oh poor universe. As if she wasn't old enough already :)
Every year or so we hear about new studies that double or halve the age of the universe.
Until we get radically new data, I'll consider the universe ageless. This is the most elegant solution anyway.
"Scientists have determined there may be as many as..."
pauses to look at mafioso behind him
"...24 stars in the cosmos."
But those hair implants...
Another hit to having answer for the fermi paradox, a universe this quiet is something to marvel at
Big Bong
Seeing as the universe existed before time existed, it would seem that the universe is infinitely old.
Discussed before:
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36714228 (249 Comments)
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41847656 (79 Comments)
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41760006 (40 Comments)
[4] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36784319 (1 Comment)
Needless to say, this result is not considered credible by the scientific community. It's borderline crackpot territory if you ask me.
Further reading: https://www.iflscience.com/why-its-extremely-unlikely-the-un...