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."

New research puts age of universe at 26.7 billion years, nearly twice as old as previously believed::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.”

    • ashe@lemmy.starless.oneEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2032

      I wasn’t able to read the actual paper since it’s behind a paywall, but it’s not exclusively a TL model. They say this in the abstract:

      Deep space observations of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have revealed that the structure and masses of very early Universe galaxies at high redshifts (⁠z∼15), existing at ∼0.3 Gyr after the BigBang, may be as evolved as the galaxies in existence for ∼10 Gyr. The JWST findings are thus in strong tension with the ΛCDM cosmological model.

      While tired light (TL) models have been shown to comply with the JWST angular galaxy size data, they cannot satisfactorily explain isotropy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) observations or fit the supernovae distance modulus vs. redshift data well.

      We present a model with covarying coupling constants (CCC), starting from the modified FLRW metric and resulting Einstein and Friedmann equations, and a CCC + TL hybrid model. They fit the Pantheon + data admirably, and the CCC + TL model is compliant with the JWST observations. […] One could infer the CCC model as an extension of the ΛCDM model with a dynamic cosmological constant.

    • kescusay@lemmy.worldEnglish
      8·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, I’m not convinced, either. It seems like every couple of years, someone puts out an announcement that Lambda CDM is dead, other scientists take a look, and a much quieter announcement correcting their work gets put out.

      • 1bluepixel@lemmy.mlEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        I mean, it’s a bold idea, but I don’t find it so shocking.

        It’s well possible that what we call a “fundamental” constant is a variable that depends on other deeper variables. For instance, an earth-bound observer might consider acceleration in freefall to be a constant, but knowledge of universal gravitation tells us it’s a variable that depends on the masses of the objects involved and distance between them.

        It makes sense that other ostensible “fundamental constants” are also dependent on the structure of the universe at any given point in space and time, but the limited window of our observations makes them appear as constants.