Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as previously believed

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by RcouF1uZ4gsC on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:14PM (#36714563)

I would almost be willing to bet that in 5 years, the consensus will be much closer to the tradition 13.7 billion years, rather than than 26.7 Billion years.

I am not a physicist, but my understanding was that multiple different ways of calculating age converge toward the traditional number. For his new estimate seems to be using theories that are still at the fringes of mainstream physics. Based on this, my bet would be on the traditional number.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by incogitor on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:40PM (#36714896)

The convergence is only valid if the distance ladder is accurate. There are a variety of deductive bottlenecks in the distance ladder which could implicate the whole current distance model. Standard candles and redshift measurements are calibrated together, for example. If either is off then the whole current ladder could be invalid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by olddustytrail on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:56PM (#36715101)

If absorption lines could magically match that shift, you mean?

[ Parent | on HN ]