The universe might be younger than we think, galaxies' motion suggests

Interesting report and reference cited. Perhaps instead of 13.8E+9 age universe it could be 12.6E+9 years old :) Using cosmology calculators varying H0 67 km/s/Mpc to 73 km/s/Mpc or higher, gets a much younger universe age too. We could now enjoy reports on stars older than the universe or globular clusters older than the universe. This problem of dating the age of the universe and dating the oldest objects in it goes way back in science when reviewing past reports. In the past H0 indicated a universe about 1-2E+9 years while rocks were dated 3E+9 years old.
 
Jan 28, 2023
125
15
585
Visit site
The problem begins with the big bang hypothesis, which suggests that the universe has an age. If we get rid of this hypothesis, in favor of the one that the universe is and, has not ceased to be a "black hole", which, due to its size, has a not very high density in most of its volume, and so in fact in these parts , there is matter and conditions that we define as normal. Of course, since in the outer regions the gravity from the center is less and less effective, they expand at an increasingly high rate.
 
Interesting report and reference cited. Perhaps instead of 13.8E+9 age universe it could be 12.6E+9 years old :) Using cosmology calculators varying H0 67 km/s/Mpc to 73 km/s/Mpc or higher, gets a much younger universe age too. We could now enjoy reports on stars older than the universe or globular clusters older than the universe. This problem of dating the age of the universe and dating the oldest objects in it goes way back in science when reviewing past reports. In the past H0 indicated a universe about 1-2E+9 years while rocks were dated 3E+9 years old.
Yes, in the early 1930’s the age of older stars showed them to be older than the estimated age of the universe. :). So they knew something was wrong and likely not with their star ages, perhaps due to additional evidence found in the age of old rocks, for instance, as you mention.

It was later discovered that Cepheid‘s, used to determine distances, don’t just come in one flavor. Hubble was not aware of this and his estimated expansion rate, using the distance to Andromeda, of 500 Kps/Mpc (IIRC) was way off. [He also never accepted, or rejected, that the universe is expanding. He said that was for the theorists.]

The article‘s video with Adam Riess was a treat. I had never heard him speak. He was the first scientist (Harvard team) to announce that the universe’s expansion is accelerating, which gave us the mysterious DE.

Since Hubble launched, the improvements to its instruments giving us 10x greater precision was also interesting to learn from the video.

What puzzles me is why we shouldn’t have two different expansion rates — one at 380,00 yrs. after creation and now? Isn’t that how acceleration works? What good is acceleration if you don’t go faster? ;)
 
Last edited:
The problem begins with the big bang hypothesis, which suggests that the universe has an age. If we get rid of this hypothesis, in favor of the one that the universe is and, has not ceased to be a "black hole", which, due to its size, has a not very high density in most of its volume, and so in fact in these parts , there is matter and conditions that we define as normal. Of course, since in the outer regions the gravity from the center is less and less effective, they expand at an increasingly high rate.
Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory, and the only credible one, that has made predictions that have been confirmed. The CMBR being the most profound.

Any new theory will need to explain the known observations.

Big Bang Bullets presents most of the objective-based evidence that show how robust BBT is. Tweaks for such a giant theory, of course, are to be expected.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
Jan 28, 2023
125
15
585
Visit site
Big Bang theory is the leading scientific theory, and the only credible one, that has made predictions that have been confirmed. The CMBR being the most profound.

Any new theory will need to explain the known observations.

Big Bang Bullets presents most of the objective-based evidence that show how robust BBT is. Tweaks for such a giant theory, of course, are to be expected.
Since we can't yet measure the distance to even relatively close stars with complete accuracy, isn't it possible for errors to accumulate in the sensing when the parameters are initially inaccurate? The difference may not be large in percentage terms, but enough to cause erroneous conclusions.
 
Since we can't yet measure the distance to even relatively close stars with complete accuracy, isn't it possible for errors to accumulate in the sensing when the parameters are initially inaccurate? The difference may not be large in percentage terms, but enough to cause erroneous conclusions.
That's a reasonable question. The accuracy of distances can improve with more and more different lines of evidence. A nearby Cepheid, of the known type, will give an "accurate" value. The reason Cepheid's are known to be useful for distances is due originally to Henrietta Swan Leavitt who studied thousands of variable stars. By using the ones from a fixed, but initially unknown, distance found in the Small Magellanic Cloud, she discovered that certain ones (Cepheids) gave a fixed luminosity for a known period in their varying brightness.

With modern space telescopes, parallax measurements have greatly improved the "distance ladder" to the closer stars. These improvement measurements, in turn, tweak the Cepheid accuracies as well.

For distant galaxies, there are several methods used to help produce a confluence in the same, or close, results. Certain galaxies of a certain size have about the same brightness. But they know this could be fooling them, so when you have millions of galaxies cataloged, better use of them are possible for distances.

The Type Ia supernova are considered reliable for the very distant galaxies, which, of course, helps confirm, or improve, the accuracy of the other galactic methods. And vice versa, no doubt. But how accurate is still a question, IMO. There are debates on just how accurate they are, or whether or not they are all the same type of explosion. The more they get studied the better the accuracy. This may have something to do with the "paradox" mentioned in the Hubble tension.

So, it's fair to say, IMO, that a grain of salt is needed when we claim one distance or not. But these grains are far smaller than they used to be. You will find astronomers are careful in determining their margin of error, based on a standard deviation analyses.

What makes any scientific hypothesis or theory appear solid is how well it holds up to scrutiny. No theory is proveable, but they must, by requirement, be falsifiable, else they're just suppositions. Subjective opinions can be helpful, but objective evidence is required for the basis of the theory itself, and objective evidence must be what is later found from the predictions of the theory.

When the priest, Georges Lemaitre, introduced what we now call the BBT he based it on Einstein's theory, which he learned from Edington and MIT in getting his doctorate in physics, but also it was based on objective observations from two astronomers.: Vesto Slipher, who discovered the first nebulae (galaxies) redshift values; and Hubble, who had the earliest galaxy distance measureents (using the wrong Cepheids for some). Lematire and Einstein knew each other, at conferences at least, and Einstein called his theory fine for the math, but "abominable" for its physics. To him, and mainstream science, the universe was static.

My point is that BBT had to prove itself as it was not desired by the scientific community initially. Fortunately, Eddington and deSitter and others soon realized how important it was. Subsequent observations have helped it greatly, but it didn't rule on top until the predicted cosmic microwave background was discovered. That sealed the deal.
 
I don't know if Space.com did an article on this, though I did a quick look for one, but I think it's quite interesting and it applies to this subject.

S&T, March 2024, issue has a page on the "Largest-ever Computer Simulations of the Universe". This latest model produces a simulation of the early formation of the large scale cosmos. They use 300 billion "particles", representing the small galaxies in the early period. Each particle has a baryonic mass of 130 million solar masses. All this was within a 9.1 billion lyr on each side of a cube.

To produce an accurate result, it had a run-time for 50 million hours! On a single processor, this would equate to something over 5000 years! But they used 30,000 processors, cutting the time to 69.5 days, if simple division works for this estimation.

The program considers DM and neutrinos, etc. But is it perfect? Nope. As we learn more, and computers get faster, better simulations will produce better results. Their work seems to have helped explain why the universe appears to be clumpier than what the simulations suggest, but their work only reduced the problem. Thus, this more advanced simulation is both helpful to this issue but also brings more attention to it since it didn't resolve it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
Jan 28, 2023
125
15
585
Visit site
Yes, this looks like it was set up on purpose. Nothing else works, well it's relic radiation, which may be of a different origin than the big bang-friendly interpretation.
 
So you have the overcurrent observed and well drawn. Me, I also believe in and work with the always equal but opposed undercurrent unobserved (unobservable) and most usually dismissed by the 1-dimensional-only among us. The universe is always relentlessly, inexorably, attempting to return to its frontier youth . . . and succeeding!

Complexity builds and collapses. Always in building, thus always building to collapse. Thus always a collapse basing the build. The past is the future and the future is the past.

Arthur C. Clark sort of drew up an illustration in the beginning and ending of his '2001: A Space Odyssey'. Not to get religious but the Christian Bible, as old as it is, does exactly the same in the wrap around of its 'Genesis' and 'Apocalypse'/'Revelations' (new beginnings (endless beginnings)). Will Durant, the chronicler of Western Civilization, does the same thing in saying history always repeats in large even if never, or rarely if ever, repeating in small detail.

Stephen Hawking lamented the tearing separation in "physics"(particularly cosmological physics) that occurred in the 19th through 20th centuries between "theoretical Physics and Cosmology" and the wider rest of the knowledge base evolved and built up over thousand of years (knowledge of the currents of the world and universe, and, thus, applicable natural laws).

The 'Horizon Universe' is NOT a one-way street!
 
Yes, this looks like it was set up on purpose. Nothing else works, well it's relic radiation, which may be of a different origin than the big bang-friendly interpretation.
An alternative explanation for the most isotropic radiation that exhibits all the characteristics matching the Big Bang's prediction might produce a Noble prize for such a discovery, in addition to the ones given to those scientists at Bell labs that discovered the CMBR.

Supposing and wishing for alternatives are not all that bad a thing since it could find a crack or, perhaps, a new window to something greater. Scrutiny, after all, goes to the heart of science, which makes it different than other realms.

The CMBR, it's worth noting came as a result of the forming of the first atoms, and everywhere at essentially the same time in the universe. The earliest time science can address using relatively strong objective arguments is the first trillionth of a second. The earlier moments consisted of "pure energy", as Spock called it. At t=0, where the energy of the entire universe was squeezed to perhaps smaller than a proton, supernatural explanations aren't all that bad, IMO.
 
Jan 28, 2023
125
15
585
Visit site
The differences in background power are not a particularly large number, but the granule sizes are too large and are themselves not the same apparent size. I do not think that the fluctuations that are assumed provide a sufficient explanation for these facts.
 
Have too big anisotropy and seen universe in microwaves is granulated in last maps.
The clumpiness (anisotropy), as I mentioned earlier, seems to be a bit more than computer simulations suggest. This means there is more to the story. This last 50 million hour computer time run was the most advanced since it took more variables into account, which slows the processing time. Would a 500 million processing time program with additional variables correct the clumpiness question?? Science, would prefer to hope it wouldn't since the "Well, that's funny!" is superior to "Eureka!". :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Torbjorn Larsson
I'm always remembering my 'Cicero' and 'Durant'.... "A country of too many laws is lawless" (a system of too many rules, too much "order," too great "complexity," is rule-less "disorder" . . . malignant closed systemic (inbreeding) savagery rather than benign open systemic (frontier) civilization).
 
There is a lot we do not have good equations for in such a simulation. There are things we do not have high enough energies to replicate, matter under extreme pressures above what we can recreate, heat transfer inside large hydrogen molecular clouds which no longer exist. We don't know the mass of the neutrinos.
And i agree that at t=0, a supernatural explanation is as good as any.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
The article tries to cook soup on a nail, no doubt to pull readers rather than deepen the analysis. The recent largest supernova statistics ever (1,000+ supernovas) Dark Energy Survey Collaboration result prefers the flat LCDM model or it too would yield too young a universe. With a Planck/globular cluster age limit it picks a Hubble rate in between earlier supernova results and large data methods.

As for the new results here, discrepancies between large cosmological simulations and observations are legio, the paper itself propose that as their alternative [and more likely] hypothesis. Since they can't quantify their hypothesis of younger age this is just another discrepancy that may resolve itself. Cosmic web filament infall is a dynamical process that yields many surprises, we all remember how galaxy mergers break the perpendicular galaxy rotation preference along the filament to a parallel. And the universe can't be that much younger due to the observed ages of globular clusters.

Notably near observations of Milky Way and Andromeda satellites have long been known to be even worse on the co-rotation correlation likely due to recent infall. The paper is biased to sample only nearby clusters so agree with earlier finds.
 
Last edited:
The problem begins with the big bang hypothesis,
Too bad then that it is a century old observation. Other comments describes how it isn't just a cosmological redshift trend that agree with the age of universe contents but a massively tested theory.

What puzzles me is why we shouldn’t have two different expansion rates
FWIW, the rates are different (but you likely know that). The inflation immense expansion ended before the hot big bang, the radiation dominated expansion, after 10 kyrs, the matter dominate expansion after ~ 6 Gyrs, and the current Hubble parameter (the H(t) in a = C*e^H(t)t) is slowly trending downwards still.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

An alternative explanation for the most isotropic radiation that exhibits all the characteristics matching the Big Bang's prediction might produce a Noble prize for such a discovery, in addition to the ones given to those scientists at Bell labs that discovered the CMBR.
FWIW, Penzias now rests in the radiation field (and as Earth matter):
Arno Allan Penzias (/ˈpɛnziəs/; April 26, 1933 – January 22, 2024) was an American physicist and radio astronomer. Along with Robert Woodrow Wilson, he discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation, for which he shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1978.

The earliest time science can address using relatively strong objective arguments is the first trillionth of a second.
And i agree that at t=0, a supernatural explanation is as good as any.

I can't quantify "relatively strong", but there are two independent results that agree on a multiverse. First, and that has become well tested, is Weinberg's prediction of the Goldilocks dark energy density. Then it is the recent SM mass observations on the Goldilocks quasistability of the Higgs vacuum that leads to "a landscape of vacua" (a multiverse).
https://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/Higgs+field

And of course we have the Planck/BICEP/Keck observations of the time before the hot big bang, well into the indefinite inflation era that spawned this multitude of universes.

With no big bang "t=0" - but a hot big bang start at the end of inflation - there remains without reasonable doubt an entirely natural process of space expansion that generates our universe (and possibly others). It has now rejected magic hypotheses twice, or in general at reasonable times of statistical weight, so I can't imagine why what we now know is wrong can still be considered an "explanation", even less "as good as any". If you go that route it is not empirical but cultural only, and shouldn't look for nature to prop up your use of magic.

Maybe I should end on a joke to make it culturally acceptable: "Those who do voodoo are bound to woo doo."
 
Last edited:
FWIW, Penzias now rests in the radiation field (and as Earth matter):
Thanks for noting this. Their, Penzias' and Wilson's, discovery of the CMBR is a remarkable story that, as Hawking once remarked (IIRC), was the greatest of humankind. It is a story of serendipity, puzzlement and pigeon poop, which gave a big push to BBT into mainstream science. [Is there a movie of this?]


And of course we have the Planck/BICEP/Keck observations of the time before the hot big bang, well into the indefinite inflation era that spawned this multitude of universes.
What observations do we have for the inflation period, which was, as you note, before hot big bang? Inflation was presented to patch a couple of problems. In doing so, it has favorability, unless something better comes along. Of course, there are many versions of Inflation theory, not that I would understand any of them.

With no big bang "t=0" - but a hot big bang start at the end of inflation - there remains without reasonable doubt an entirely natural process of space expansion that generates our universe (and possibly others). It has now rejected magic hypotheses twice, or in general at reasonable times of statistical weight, so I can't imagine why what we now know is wrong can still be considered an "explanation", even less "as good as any". If you go that route it is not empirical but cultural only, and shouldn't look for nature to prop up your use of magic.
CERN seems capable of addressing the physics (e.g. temp.) of the universe approximately one trillionth of a second after t=0, the beginning. Pushing time closer to t=0, especially before the inflation period, causes the "wheels to come off" the physics' equations, where results shoot off to infinity. I doubt there is any consensus for any one inflation model, but I could be wrong. If any one of these is a scientific theory, then its predictions should be testable.

So, there is a great deal of room for supposition as to what may or may not have taken place. I recall the comedian, Steve Martin, explaining how to make a million dollars -- "First, you start with a million dollars, then....". The supernatural viewpoint for a t=0 event comes from many who are convinced they actually have a million dollars. They aren't starting from nothing, in their opinion. Do they have any good reason to make such a claim? That's worth exploring, but, of course, not here.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts