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 kevinventullo on Thursday July 13, 2023 @03:54PM (#36715078)

As a fellow mathematician, I think maybe the right way to think about physics is that the claims are never even supposed to be “true” in some absolute mathematical sense. It’s more like true to some first approximation.

So maybe we can interpret this claim as saying that 25 billion years ago, the universe was kinda similar to what we have now, but 27 billion years ago everything was ultra compressed and gravity didn’t have a significant effect on anything. Or maybe time is like a left-open interval. Finite, but didn’t have a start. I dunno, I’m making stuff up.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by Certhas on Thursday July 13, 2023 @04:08PM (#36715246)

Left open interval is the right way to view it. There is no contradiction or paradox here. Merely unfamiliarity. But maybe you should not expect the rules of the early universe to be very familiar...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Age of universe at 26.7B years, nearly twice as old as pr... by User23 on Thursday July 13, 2023 @07:27PM (#36717469)

Physics is only true modulo theory. It’s intense intellectual arrogance to say “because this model predicts some phenomena the world must conform to this model.” Newton, who I think it’s fair to say was not known for his humility, refused to feign hypotheses and satisfied himself with describing his observations.

However in today’s day and age that way lie no fat grants, adulating television specials, or NYT bestsellers.

[ Parent | on HN ]