New research suggests universe is twice as old as previously thought

[Second Time Around]

https://phys.org/news/2023-07-age-universe-billion-years-previously.html?utm_source=nwletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weekly-nwletter

[vlaiv]

I would not call that a research.

That is simply a paper that will need quite a bit of evidence (research) to back back it up before it gets taken seriously.

[Second Time Around]

Agreed.  Which is precisely why I changed the title of the article and put in the word suggests!

[The60mmKid]

18 minutes ago, vlaiv said:

I would not call that a research.

That is simply a paper that will need quite a bit of evidence (research) to back back it up before it gets taken seriously.

"New theorization theorizes universe is twice as old as previously thought" 😉 Still cool, though 😎

[JeremyS]

I know how it feels 

Edited July 17, 2023 by JeremyS

[saac]

I hope it doesn't retire  

Jim  

[Stephenstargazer]

In the last (mere) 1000 years we have had several woefully inadequate models of the universe. So it seems quite fair to question the most recently accepted version.

Mind you not knowing your d.o.b. can have severe on line and in life consequences, eg NHS, 🤔

[Carbon Brush]

The currently accepted age for the universe may not be correct.

Only 100 years ago the 'wisdom' said our galaxy was everything.
Only 50 something years ago the little green men (AKA pulsars) were discovered
Only 30 something years ago explanets were a theoretical concept not yet seen.
Shortly after it was thought by some scientists evidence for life on Mars had been found on a meteorite.

[vlaiv]

6 minutes ago, Stephenstargazer said:

So it seems quite fair to question the most recently accepted version.

or

 

[SwiMatt]

Thanks for the resources @vlaiv! I thought that this sounded a bit too big a statement to be acceptable face on - and you confirm that my instinct wasn't wrong.

Going through the paper I see in the acknowledgment that only one reviewer is thanked, thus I assume this paper was only read by one reviewer: does anyone know if this is common practice in cosmology? Seems to me that a paper of this magnitude should get published after a bit more than one review only... (I also saw other cosmologists say out flat that this paper proves nothing at all, despite it's media resonance, but I couldn't find many details)

[Rusted]

When I were a lad..  they had a man walk with a red flag in front of new science theories. 😏

Now they just ask a chatbot if it's real.

 

[SwiMatt]

4 minutes ago, Rusted said:

When I were a lad..  they had a man walk with a red flag in front of new science theories. 😏

 

That sounds very needed in the click-thirsty world that we inhabit

[Stephenstargazer]

The source paper was published in the journal Monthly Notices of the RAS. It is out there for others to discuss and respond to, by publication in journals. That is formally how science progresses.

Media commentary on the paper is another matter. That applies to all unreviewed media from any source. 

[Sunshine]

The physicist is from Ottawa Canada, this makes it correct by default 😂 who knows, it may just be right.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Sunshine

[Guest]

Well it would be an explanation of those "impossible early formed galaxies".  All they have done is take the new information and shaped a theory around it.  

[Macavity]

Suddenly put in mind of Dad's generation - Using the term: "Idiot's Lantern" (for TV)! How do they
find TIME for work, between... Joe Rogan interviews & Tweets / Youtube / Podcasts / Film Premiers? 😛

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Macavity

[Sunshine]

36 minutes ago, Macavity said:

Suddenly put in mind of Dad's generation - Using the term: "Idiot's Lantern" (for TV)! How do they
find TIME for work, between... Joe Rogan interviews & Tweets / Youtube / Podcasts / Film Premiers? 😛

 

Brilliant post, thanks!

[SwiMatt]

On 17/07/2023 at 18:15, Stephenstargazer said:

The source paper was published in the journal Monthly Notices of the RAS. It is out there for others to discuss and respond to, by publication in journals. That is formally how science progresses.

Media commentary on the paper is another matter. That applies to all unreviewed media from any source. 

Not really, media (and social media) commentary, especially if done by experts, IS the peer review. The peer review isn't only a step necessary to publishing, it's also the debate that follows: no need for fancy papers to have that debate, in academia we have it all the time - without writing it on the NYT. It's not so rare that papers like this get out in reputable journals and receive so little attention and are so unimportant that the time and effort necessary to write a peer-reviewed rebuttal is simply not worth it. 

When this is a problem, is when the paper hits the news and because "it's published'" it's taken at face value. The job of journalists is not to report these publications like they were true, because a publication alone - even when peer reviewed - has very little weight in the scientific market of ideas, unless it reports extraordinary evidence (and even then...). They should hunt down a professional and get a comment - but virtually nobody did.

Yet now even Google is reporting 26.7 billion when asked the age of the universe. It's a disaster in terms of science communication.

Edited July 19, 2023 by SwiMatt

[SwiMatt]

Oh and in addition, for those who prefer reading to YT videos, here's a good and convincing rebuttal, which demolishes the assumptions behind the paper.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-13-8-or-26-7-billion-years/

Edited July 19, 2023 by SwiMatt

[Second Time Around]

19 minutes ago, SwiMatt said:

Oh and in addition, for those who prefer reading to YT videos, here's a good and convincing rebuttal, which demolishes the assumptions behind the paper.

https://bigthink.com/starts-with-a-bang/universe-13-8-or-26-7-billion-years/

Pretty damning!

[iantaylor2uk]

Just because a paper has been published and been through peer review doesn't mean it's correct. Plenty of papers were written about the "ether" before Einstein pointed out it didn't exist, which in hindsight were all complete rubbish. 

The scientific community will read the paper and decide for themselves whether it has any merit. Let's be clear, the consensus for the age of the universe has not changed just because of this paper. Watch this space as I would imagine serious scientists will react to this work in due course. 

[Macavity]

2 hours ago, iantaylor2uk said:

Watch this space as I would imagine serious scientists will react to this work in due course. 

Some great (FUN!!!) posts above! Before the InterWebs (sic) was "invented" - Ironically to facilitate
communications between Scientists, it was difficult to imagine how troublesome it would become! 😜

Perhaps, it is also difficult for "old school" scientists, to get up to SPEED re. today's devious world?
In the past, an anomalous *experimental* result would be "sat on", while EXPERTS perfomed checks
- sometimes for months, re. the hardware, the software etc. If the results *still* appeared significant,
Top Level scientists might even approach a Rival Group to see if they had seen anything similar!?! 😎

THEN (and only then) would a (public) "Press Release" be issued! One of the true "Joys of Science"
was the way in which large collaborations respected the "sanctity" (and secrecy!) of the process. It
is not (evil!) Elite Scientists depriving a (virtuous) Public of "Freedom of Information and Speech". 🤔

Recently, I have been reading some "learned papers" about the connection between "Freedom
Absolutism" (No comment re. good or bad!) and Scientific Misinformation.  But then, we have:
https://futurism.com/elon-musks-universe-twice-as-old-dark-matter 
I need to perfect Zen-Like use of single words like "Sketch"!
Surely you must mean "Sketch-y", Mr. Musk? 😅

Edited July 19, 2023 by Macavity

[Sunshine]

This video is new, just posted yesterday. Count on Dr.Becky to explain it in a refreshing and easy to follow manner, she’s a gem. 

Edited July 29, 2023 by Sunshine

[Guest]

The age of the universe is what it has always been.  We just can't count correctly LOL 

[Paul M]

Maybe the Universe is getting a sensitive about its age now? Maybe it's been passing itself off as "13b years old" for the last 13b years 🤣

Edited July 29, 2023 by Paul M