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.”
“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.
For years, astronomers and physicists have calculated the age of our universe by measuring the time elapsed since the Big Bang and by studying the oldest stars based on the redshift of light coming from distant galaxies. In 2021, thanks to new techniques and advances in technology, the age of our universe was thus estimated at 13.797 billion years using the Lambda-CDM concordance model.
However, 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 and by the discovery of early galaxies in an advanced state of evolution made possible by the James Webb Space Telescope. 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. Furthermore, they’re surprisingly small in size, adding another layer of mystery to the equation.
Zwicky’s tired light theory proposes that the redshift of light from distant galaxies is due to the gradual loss of energy by photons over vast cosmic distances. However, it was seen to conflict with observations. Yet Gupta found that “by allowing this theory to coexist with the expanding universe, it becomes possible to reinterpret the redshift as a hybrid phenomenon, rather than purely due to expansion.”
In addition to Zwicky’s tired light theory, Gupta introduces the idea of evolving “coupling constants,” as hypothesized by Paul Dirac. Coupling constants are fundamental physical constants that govern the interactions between particles. According to Dirac, these constants might have varied over time. By allowing them to evolve, the timeframe for the formation of early galaxies observed by the Webb telescope at high redshifts can be extended from a few hundred million years to several billion years. This provides a more feasible explanation for the advanced level of development and mass observed in these ancient galaxies.
Moreover, Gupta suggests that the traditional interpretation of the “cosmological constant,” which represents dark energy responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, needs revision. Instead, he proposes a constant that accounts for the evolution of the coupling constants. This modification in the cosmological model helps address the puzzle of small galaxy sizes observed in the early universe, allowing for more accurate observations.
Reference:
R Gupta. JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology. Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2023; DOI: 10.1093/mnras/stad2032
So what was there just Before the big bang ?
Did God created all conditions like a DNA for the singularity of the big bang which evolves and expands continuously?
Bwaahaahaaa! …Just as I (we) predicted….As soon as the JWST started to show that the Big Bang Theory was untenable (as per a mountain of previous observational evidence), they move the goal posts and simply add another ad hoc epicycle to the system (as they have done repeatedly with such as ‘inflation’, ‘dark matter’, ‘dark energy’ etc).
Thank you! I thought I was the only one with that idea. You put it into words marvelously.
Grow up Tony. This isn’t peer reviewed. You add nothing but ignorance to the conversation. Shoo fly shoo
Errr, this is how science works! We put forward hypotheses we collect evidence and decide whether to accept the hypothesis. Then we invent ways to collect even better ways to collect evidence and we revise our hypotheses. The whole purpose of science is to move the goalposts as we understand more. That does not invalidate science. It is religion that refuses to change in the face of contrary evidence.
Exactly. Thanks. Maybe every time someone patiently explains this, a few more people who apparently never were educated properly about how human knowledge and technology advances will finally catch on, instead of displaying how little they understand of why they live in a world of high tech and science when their ancestors didn’t. It’s hard to believe that anyone old enough to know how to read, write and use a computer can remain either so incurious or so reluctant to acknowledge the constant growth of knowledge humans have engaged in as we have developed better and better ways to record data and thoughts, share them with their contemporary society and hand them down to future generations.
We always have learned by trial and error and revision. There’s nothing to deprecate about that. And nowadays, vast discoveries emerge as our technologies bring breakthroughs. It’s a great time to live in if you have a mind that wants to participate fully in the human adventure.
Its not moving the goal posts. This is literally how science works, and why it is so successful. Are you anti science? If so why? It has given you so much.
Let the free thinkers like R Gupta and science as a whole thrive, let them out of the carcan of moral correctness, and truth will emerge. Why not apply Darwin’s principles to cosmology ? Why not assume or accept that physical constants are what they are just because, out of an infinite amount of possible values, only the ones we know were sustainable in their environment ? If the environment is different than the one we know today, different physical values may emerge. A lot is explained also by application of the mathematical laws of infinity, as we learned them in school. In an infinite nothing (∞ * 0) the result is undefined, but certainly not 0. Et voilà, our creation.
Various scientists: The universe is (random number) billions of years old!
Also various scientists: Why do current events keep happening at such a rapid pace?!
Bwaahaahaaa! …Just as WE predicted….As soon as the JWST started to show that the Big Bang Theory as it stands was untenable (indeed, as per a mountain of previous observational evidence), and at the first sign of any attempt by astrophysicists to figure out what’s really going on, the science deniers come out of the woodwork and spin a conspiracy about the scientists just making up nonsense in order to seem like they’re not wrong.
Listen, champ. Science doesn’t know what’s going on, and it’s happy to admit it. It has a best-guess going on in accord with current evidence, and that’s it. So when the pattern of evidence changes, so does the prevailing scientific hypothesis on the subject. And when it does, the inconsistencies in the old hypotheses that have sat in the background come to the fore in the formulation of any new hypothesis. It’s NOT shifting the goalposts, at all; it’s recognising that the current body of evidence, which they’ve been postulating over the inconsistencies of for some time, may now (thanks to new evidence from the JWST) be interpretable in a way that presents a very different picture.
The Big Bang Theory has, in its purest form, been held in question by astrophysicists for a long time, and for a simple reason: the closer one gets to the mathematic zero-point of the equation, the less certain and predictable that maths becomes. Which means that the closer to the Big Bang itself we get, the less certain we can be that it actually was a Big Bang as we understand such an idea. With the discoveries (not theories, but discoveries) of dark matter and spatial expansion, the old interpretation has been ever-increasingly stressed. Because these discoveries demonstrate that most of the things we think of as constants today might not have always been constants. The rules of the early universe may have been very different as a result, making aging it with any accuracy even more challenging than we expected.
Science changing its views in accord with new evidence… is science being science. The fact that you have a problem with that demonstrates only that you neither understand nor value actual science, but instead wish only to believe in your own ideas on the subject. Unfortunately for your feels, that’s not how truth works.
Gravitationalists are sliding away from the big bang fiction.
You say the age is double now, I said and will always say the universe the age is indeterminate, and possibly infinite.
I am aware that theologians among you gravitationalists will not be happy about the idea of an infinite age because it goes against the book of Genesis.
Ever wonder what the universe exists in? What shape is that container?
Hummmmm/π
[…] The Universe is older than you think. And its not just you! It’s older than cosmologists thought it was. […]
[…] fields are common throughout the universe but incredibly incredibly challenging to study. They don’t directly emit or reflect light, and light from all along the electromagnetic […]