Could the Universe be TWICE as old as we thought?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 มิ.ย. 2024
- 00:00 Could the Universe be TWICE as old as we thought?
01:52 the Lambda-CDM model of the Universe
02:55 Problems with Lambda-CDM
04:58 Gupta's Tired Light hypothesis to explain the "Impossible Early Galaxy" problem
07:07 Tired Light doesn't explain Cosmological Time Dilation
08:39 Tired Light doesn't explain the Cosmic Microwave Background
09:41 Gupta's Covarying Coupling Constants modification
11:33 Stars are too young for the Universe to be 26.7 Gyr old
12:54 Solving the "Impossible Early Galaxy" problem without modifying Lambda-CDM
14:11 Early galaxies are probably not representative of the early Universe
16:21 Outro and Thanks to my Patrons!
🔔 Subscribe for more: th-cam.com/users/christianread...
🖖 Share this video with a fellow space traveler: • Could the Universe be ...
🔴 Watch my most recent upload: goo.gl/QbRcE2
🚀 Help me improve the channel by joining the community on Patreon
/ launchpadastro
🚀 Check out Launch Pad merchandise!
teespring.com/stores/launchpa...
Disclaimer: Some of these links go to one of my websites and some are affiliate links where I'll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you.
🧭 References:
R. Gupta 2023: doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stad2032
Haro et al. 2023: arxiv.org/abs/2303.15431
Labbé et al. 2023: arxiv.org/abs/2207.12446
✅ Let's connect:
For business inquiries - chris AT christianready DOT com
Twitter - @launchpadastro
Instagram - @launchpadastro
Bluesky - @christianready.bluesky.social
Mastodon - @christianready@universeodon.com
Facebook - / launchpadastronomy
Discord - / discord
📭 c/o Christian Ready
P.O. Box 66
Westminster, MD 21158
United States
Earth - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
🔴 The Cosmic Gravitational Wave Background was detected for the first time! th-cam.com/video/oZPtZhMdBJo/w-d-xo.html
of htey had a few really massive bright stars and if we wait a tens a millions more years or whatever that will sort itself this early galaxy issue
and this kinda makes sense cause a lot a first gen stars would have no metal
be very massive and live short
just an idea
@@yyy-875
you need some meds this click bait is getting old on youtube
@@yyy-875
ya too many subs compared to you where my subs are near all monetized at avg of 4K each
yup i had too much of you in fact have a lovely day bot
Thanks for once again giving us a concise breakdown of a complex situation. Another excellent episode.
Thank you, I really appreciate it!
Agreed
What a fantastic channel where all this data is presented so nicely. No BS just straight to the point. Blowing minds!
Yes, not every day I find out that the Universe is twice as old as it was the day before, but there are some days when I find out I am twice as old as I was the day before. It happens that old age doesn't come gradually with the flow of time but, most of the time, in giant leaps.
True that.
Especially after drinking.
So ageing is actually a quantum phenomenon? 🤓
You're not wrong MrFlaviojosefus
You become twice as old overnight. Damn so from 30 to 60, that's nuts.
Tbh, if there's a huge part of the Universe that we can't see, it could be that the Universe is much much bigger than we think it is. So it COULD be that the Universe is even older than 26 billion years, much older.
I like Tired Light more than the Expanding Universe. The evidence speaks against it, but it still has a warm place in my heart.
I had a few questions bouncing around in my head recently, including right at the start of this video. Then, you just happened to go right on and address those very questions. Thanks! Keep it up!
Thank you so much!
Thanks for another great explanation of current topics!
I like the "tired light" concept, and Hiroshi likes the "tired dog" concept!
This is a very good rebuttal, not too mention the “Tired Light” theory is also very interesting
0:09 If you woke up 48 hours after theBig Bang, the universe is twice old then it was yesterday )
Great programme, Christian! Thoroughly enjoyed this one. I found the closing bit about imaging vs spectra to be important and a distinction that I'll keep in mind as stories of "new distance record holder" turn up.
I love this channel. Thank you so much for what you do!
@Eats__tJewTube please be kind.
Great vid!😊
Thanks! 😊
What's crazier than _any_ of that is that it's actually _three_ times as *BIG* as we previously thought!! 🤯
Thanks for being objective about this.
It's unfortunately common in all areas of scientific research to outright dismiss, or refuse to publish material because it doesn't match with pre-conceived ideas, hypotheses, or theories. Maybe it's great, maybe it's garbage... either way, it should be open for discussion.
For me, the whole point about publication is to expose the ideas, the research, the data to the world, and see what happens. All too often, the wider public and the media mistakenly seem to consider that just because something is published, then it must be unassailable and "true".
I love this channel, the way you speak and explain very hard to understand ideas and theories in a way it is easier to grasp. You are very eloquent and enjoyable to listen to.
I also appreciate you take this paper seriously, explain it very well, the problems it tries to address and the problems within them, but also open minded about it, and sees it as something that can improve on our knowledge so far. If it wasn't for these people who try to think beyond and suggest new ideas, we wouldn't know anything today.
Thank you.
Thank you very kindly, I really appreciate it.
Great video Christian
Thanks!
Thank you, for this fascinating video, and details of the intriguing new paper, suggesting that the universe could be almost double the age of 13.8 billion years. I first had a look at this, a few weeks ago, when there were quite a few sensationalist ‘click bait’ videos about this subject. Since then, one of the questions that popped into my head is, well, the universe might not have to be that much older, I don’t want to sound flippant, but what would be wrong with 14.8 billion years? That would at least give some of these very large early galaxies a more appropriate time to form, especially if the rate of galaxy formation was faster in the early universe. I realise, of course, that even that figure would conflict with the measurements of the CMB. I think the best thing to do, is to wait until we get much more data, it seems to me to be too early to be completely revising the age of our universe, particularly by such a huge leap!
Yep, the best fits to the CMB are what’s constraining our age estimates. But we seem to know even less about how the first galaxies formed, which is why I’m guessing the answer may lie down that path.
This is an excellent explanation. Thanks for posting ... I think you've earned a subscription :-)
Thanks for discussing the 'tired light' hypothesis. I heard about it, but didn't know the details.
The change in constants, perhaps, can go differently depending not only on time, but also on some external conditions (for example, the concentration of something 'dark'). Under terrestrial conditions, this change could be greatly slowed down...
Great vid and all.. that shirt though 😍
Thanks for this Christian, as ever you've left a smoking crater of my mind! The universe has been around long enough for the Dead to evolve, thats pretty awesome in itself!
Christian Ready, I am impatiently waiting for the day when James Webb will release its first Overwhelming Deep Field image... Thank you very very much for telling us the Science behind increased exposure time for distant objects.. Would you please answer one humble question from this fan..? Can we reduce the exposure time of images by increasing the size of primary mirror of our next generation infrared telescopes.. ? Do you see any hope for SAFIR telescope? ... When will JWST image Betelgeuse..?
You must have contact with the members of STScI from Baltimore, Maryland. I will be very thankful to you of you reveal when JWST plans to image Betelgeuse.
I could be wrong, but I thought Betelgeuse was too bright for JWST?
The short answer is 'yes' as long as the sensitivity is increased as well (which it it is in JWST's case because it's a continuous mirror). JWST has already produced images that are "deeper" than the Hubble Deep Field thanks to simply being larger and more sensitive than HST in the near-IR. But whereas HST required ~2 weeks to obtain its deepest image, JWST got deeper in its 12-hour observation of its first gravitational lens.
Imaging Betelgeuse is probably not going to happen with JWST because it's too bright, so it would saturate the detectors even during the minimum exposure time.
As for SAFIR, it wasn't included in the ASTRO2020 decadal survey so I doubt we'll see anything with its capability in the next couple of decades. Cheers!
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Thank you so much for this valuable reply...
@@LaunchPadAstronomy When is JWST going to release its first science learned .... If you carefully look at JWST images there are 2 or 3 group of pixels everywhere in the background which are either green, blue or red... Those are not the common red blobs (galaxies), they are only a groups of 2-3 similar colored pixels together.. What are they? Are they the faint galaxies in the background?
@@physicslover1950 It's been releasing science left and right for a little over a year now :) As for the blobs, they are presumably early galaxies that are showing up at shorter wavelengths, hence the blue-green color coding.
Light has a minimal mass. Try it (m=E/c^2) so the light gets stretched in wavelength to redder frequencies over distance due to the gravity pulling on it during it's travels so that at some distance the redshifted light sould be too great for us to easily register and measure.
Great explanation 👍👍👍
Thanks! 😃
A stellar video from someone that is always curious to learn more! For instance, I had never heard about the "Tiered Light" theory before. 😴🔆
You haven't heard of it because it was bypassed nearly 100 years ago, because its incorrect.
Tired light was fringe physics 100 years ago before we know what we know today, it's conspiracy theory stuff now.
Tired light, not tiered light.
@@DanielVerberne Yes, excuse my typo I made 2 months ago. What was I thinking?! 😏
@@Cuplex1Easy mistake to make. I'm just glad you're here watching these cool vids. Cheer!
Wow, thanks!
So we have:
Dark Energy = Mystery
Dark Matter = Mystery
Inflation = Mystery
Now with Tired Light = Mystery.
I think we need a new Copernicus here soon.
Hi Launchpad Astronomy. I have an idea about tired light hypothesis. I’ve always wondered if it’s ever been considered if instead of light losing energy by bumping into particles as it travels through space could it be that light loses energy to the quantum field analogous to the way waves in a fluid lose energy to the medium they are travelling through. I’d love to hear your response regarding this idea
Thank you.
It drives me a little crazy how the headlines spread like wildfire and people take it as fact. I understand how science reports want clicks but I really hope at least the first paragraph says take this with a huge mountain of skepticism.
I don't fully get it but, someday (thanks to videos like this), I might. Thanks for another excellent video.
Glad to hear that!
Which is why, I too, watch. At 79, I still want to learn
I saw 4 videos on this already including yours and from the 100% I learned, 85% were from your video.
You don't try to make another sciencey hype video that waves hands at every possibly complex occasion or when it is about proving that there are issues or upsides, no, you walk through the topic focusing on the most important parts and introduce everyone to the proof (plus actual images of the data in the papers!) that shows the viewers that there is an ever so slightly crooked story to the hype.
Everything that is necessary to have a good idea on the overall situation, without losing objectivity by weighing merits vs downsides
Plus not losing viewers by going to deep into it, if not necessary!
I once did that for a completely different topic, arguing with 3 scientists on twitter and know how much effort it is when people just throw their vague complaints & you go through it step by step. You earned every patreon supporter you have!
Thank you, I really appreciate those kind words. This is a subject that's really easy to delve into the weeds on and I was worried about finding the right balance between depth and discussion. I'm glad I got it somewhat reasonable!
You are a genius! Thank you
0:29 Is it possible to attach to this diagram a graph of the change in the time scale depending on the concentration of the mass? Can gravitational time dilation give a significant addition to the age of the Universe, measured in our usual terrestrial units of time?
Another great video! You need to a do a collab with Dr. Becky or David Kipping!
They’re both too good looking 😆
you are awesome
Thank you; The diagram it's useful
That's a good deal... hence it will be harder to find stars as old as universe age 🙃
Isn't the supposition of the current model that faraway object should be as brighter for surface fraction as closer one wrong too? After all more fraction of the light for faraway objects should be blocked by dust and gasses, because was traveling more.
"All models are wrong, some are useful."
Could it be possible that at one time - there was no time? -Before time. I forget the scientist's name who talked about this. But he actually drew out his theory. You know what. It actually made sense. If there is no matter and no motion, is there time?
could you please make a video on the lambda-CDM model?
If the universe or should I say the distant galaxies are 26.7 billion years old then why did it take an additional 13 billion years for the Milky Way to begin. It's only 13.7 billion years old. 26.7 - 13.7 = 13 billion years. Why are the galaxies different ages if a big bang happened? Wouldn't galaxies all be the same age after a big bang?
I actually know the answer, I just wanted to see if anyone else realized the error in the laws of thermodynamics like I did. I also accurately predicted the old galaxies in the early universe in first book I published 3 months before the JWST was launched and almost a year before they released the first CEERS survey. On page 48 I wrote quote, "James Webb Space Telescope will discover old, fully grown galaxies as far as the telescope can see, further than 13.8 billion light-years away." And that's exactly what the telescope discovered. I knew exactly what the JWST was going to find. There is no tired light.
The only reason why I published the books about this is because I tried to tell NASA employees their theories and laws of physics were wrong and even showed them how to fix them but they were arrogant, assumed they were right and I was wrong. The only way I could prove my equations correct was if the JWST discovered fully grown galaxies further than the time when the big bang happened. Then they would have to agree, their theories of gravity, the big bang, laws of thermodynamics and the evolutionary cosmological model they've held with such high regards are completely wrong. But, it's difficult for a dog to change his spots.
I came up with a much older date to when the universe began after measuring the mass of a few distant smooth galaxies. One galaxy I measured appeared to be more than 300 trillion years old. Our Milky Way galaxy is really young compared to it. That was the first evidence a big bang never happened.
In the first book I published, SECRET UNIVERSE: GRAVITY I explained how gravity is made in large mass and why it doesn't happen in small mass like atoms. I fixed the equations of general relativity and now it agrees with special relativity, quantum mechanics and James Maxwell's field equations. Yes, TOE or theory of everything. The equations of gravity now explain everything, even why some celestial bodies move much faster than what the laws of motion and GR can explain due to their mass, inverse square to other mass, which led to dark matter and dark energy being postulated.
The next book I publish will be titled DARK MATTER IS DEAD: MYSTERY SOLVED. The book is already 367 pages long.
The books I published are at cost of publishing, printing and shipping. I don't make any money off them. I really don't need your money. I have cancer, had 3 heart attacks and just want my theories to get out to the public before I go again. I can't take money with me when I go. Yes, again, I passed in my sleep July 24th 2021 and days later awoke in ICU. My NDE was a wild experience. I was told to go back to Earth and publish everything into books. It's been 2 years, So far, I've published 48 books. I've got so many more to go in such little time.
Did you know the equations of general relativity were wrong? Did you know according to special relativity, quantum mechanics and James Maxwell's equations on EM fields we can't use a telescope to look back in time? That's why the galaxies in the distant universe appear to be similar in mass and brightness as the galaxies in our local neighborhood. That's why I wrote old fully grown galaxies would be found further than 13.8 billion light years away.
There is no such thing as look back time. Believing we can use a telescope to look into the past is as silly as believing we can use a microscope to look into the future. Light information happens in an instant when the telescope or observer is contained inside the EM field they're measuring.
Peace and love to all.
the Exact same thing happened to me. I woke up to find that I was twice as old. aka Really Old.
With time dilation within concentrated space how was the early universe even perceivable in our frame of reference?
Like, what percent of all those years was experienced in the blink of an eye?
I find it very funny how quickly we are to proclaim how old the universe is, when the truth of the matter is that we can barely see past our own nose in reality. What we perceive as being the greatest distance that we could possibly envision (simply because it is the furthest we can observe, what hubris...) is actually barely even scratching the surface. We are so limited by our own lack of capability and we make such grand implications that are almost always proven false. We need to be more reserved about our proclamations of fact because they are merely conjecture when it comes to the vastness of the universe.
It's not proclaimed as immutable fact, it's postulated as the best estimate we can make based on what we currently know. As we know more, the date may change. This is how discovery and exploration works.
I agree. We don't have a clue. We don't even know who our great great great grandparents are, we lose touch with knowledge so quickly.
@@tinetannies4637 Yes, and this is also why everyone beleived in the big bang for so long because it was presented as fact in a "don't you know?" sort of way for sooo long. We need to get away from this attitude. It's a theory, and one that is looking more and more shaky the harder we look.
@@SoulDelSol Not to sound rude but the fact that YOU don't have a clue doesn't mean that people who deeply study these things don't genuinely have a clue. Until you've studied enough to comment on the science because you actually know the science, you're just pushing your own ignorance as fact.
Time and length are not constant. If all the matter and energy was compressed the further back we go to the singularity...how is that quantified?
EDIT: NVM addressed at around the 7 minute mark.
I’m happy Gupta is thinking outside the box.
. .. a very big box
Could red shift be explained by the curvature of space time. Objects may appear to be closer than they actually are as they are further around space time curvature.
How can you calculate, if time is not constant?
Could it be possible we are detecting things outside the old "rim" of our big bang? And there could be matter and space beyond that is much older?
Time slows down near massive objects..So as the light from distant galaxies passes nearer massive objects on its way to us, it gets red shifted. Just an idea..IDK
JWST ultra deep fields are crucial for better understanding the early universe!
I was disregarding this paper out of hand. It was clearly a desperate attempt at attention. The problem that Gupta doesn't realize is that unlike politics, bad attention in the astronomy and physics world will end your career. He really should have included more collaborators in the paper to check and double check his ideas before publishing.
in 20 years we'll think it's 40 plus billion years old. We'll eventually come to a conclusion that the universe is infinitely large.
01:59 -- "...that's been driving and accelerating the expansion ever since the big bang."
I was under the impression that the expansion rate of the universe was decelerating from after inflation through about 9.8 billion years of age, and then reversed and started accelerating.
Which one is it?
1 - Accelerating since the big bang, or;
2 - Big bang, inflation, deceleration until 9.8 billion years, then acceleration
Divergent thinkers are usually wrong....until they revolutionize our understanding of the universe. Even if Gupta's theory doesn't pan out, he's causing people to search for flaws in the model like a good proofreader. There's real value in spurring people to question the validity of their assumptions.
Are we changing things so they match up? Why should a universe or Multiverse have any beginning, or any ending for that matter?
I imagine the background radiation is leftover from the former star that went supernova creating all the heavy element we have on earth now. We may bot be able to detect the universe’s radiation through all the leftover radiation from the original supernova.
I guess I must have missed it when they explained the accelerated expansion of the universe. Is that because they said "dark energy" did it?
Boy there's gonna be some walking back around the conference tables if this is true. Let's face it - learning about the universe is amazing but we still haven't the first clue about it.
I calculate for a few years ago the universe must be much older than 13 billion years old, because I calculate it takes up to 30 to 50 billions years or even up to 200 billion years for the dust to gathering to galaxies. I never heard or read about anyone who can explain how dust can gathering to galaxies in just 300 to 1 billion years. So after "BIG BANG" it was dark "Dark age" for 30 to 50 billion years before stars light up the universe
Instead of 'Tired Light' (or photons getting constantly bumped a little bit), why can't the single temporal dimension simply contract like the three spatial dimensions are expanding over the lifespan of the universe?
As the universe is converting more and more massless energy into matter (which will eventual end up in increasingly growing super massive black holes and active galactic nuclei), doesn't that mass affect the ticking of time in the overall universe in general as well?
Or more simply put: not just space expanding.. but also time..?
@@EVG_Channel no, the opposite, time-units get more seconds as the universe ages so to speak, if that does make any sense...?
My apologies, after reading your comment I was trying to think about what a time contracting universe would like in reverse (i.e back through time), which led to me thinking of time expanding back through time. If the passage of time is not constant, then by definition the speed of light can not be constant?
@@EVG_Channel time contracting universe has the same effect as a space expanding universe, when the speed of light is considered constant: there will be a red-shift in the colour of light increasingly more, the farther the distance of a galaxy will be.
@@willemvandebeekAs you can see, I am no physicist, hopefully someone with more knowledge will be able to have a more meaningful conversation with you.. unfortunately for me, that is not me :)
I’ll just throw this out here. . . “Cosmic Inflation “ strikes me as a cosmological “Charlie Brown Constant”. The laws of physics were different? Then who’s to say they are still not changing? What about those copies of the “Standard Kilogram” that seem to be inconsistent?
It could be infinitely longer than we believe
Mike drop 🎤⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
how about the one when the light has mass when it reacts with large gravitas... discovered ftl l:)? egh?
cosmology cant be held on belief like economics.
In fact its actually 1.7 trillion years old. How do i know.. because it told me.. just have to tune into it...
I think we're going to find that we don't even really know what we're looking at in these images.
how about time is not a strait line but a curve and at the distances James webb sees the curvature is visible - just thought but the distance time is bigger due to the curvature- but i cant explain maybe its stupid
"Doesn't resort to hand-waving" Sure, just changes all kinds of fundamental properties of nature to fit his theory.
Funny you mentioned that. I was planning on another segment discussing the dangers of having too many free parameters, which is never the sign of a good theory.
@@LaunchPadAstronomy Thanks for the reply, especially given the nature of my snarky comment :-)
But, actually being more serious, I wonder if you would entertain doing a video commenting on "inflation" and whether it is 'hand waving' or does it have some science behind it more than 'it makes the model work'?
After seeing many episodes on the universe I start to suspect that we don’t know what the heck we are talking about.
Neat
I suppose it could be 3 or 10 times older than we thought. Pick any number you want. It's just a guess. Nobody knows.
Is this paper not peer reviewed.
Yes it is.
The peers may have just skimmed it
Webb just got started 👀👨🏿⚕️
it wasnt THAT long ago, but certainly AFTER the Hubble had been around for a few years, and also the internet, that I was puzzled that nobody was saying that there appears to be a massive black hole in the center of all (most) of the galaxies. Then I was also perplexed that one of the, ahem, greatest discoveries in astronomy of the 20th century by Edwin Hubble was that everything was moving away from each other, and at a faster speed as the universe expanded. HUH ?? . If that was the case, then how come, I told myself, that Andromeda and our galaxy were gonna collide. Made NO SENSE to me. A different statement that WOULD be more accurate would be that a LOT of things in the universe were moving away from each other, and the further away that we look, the faster the universe was moving apart. Then I looked at the red shift statement, and I thought that the red shift was only useful in accuracy, at a certain distance. The further we looked, I thought, the red shift would be skewed with major inaccuracies. Why ? Because of all the bending of space and gravitational lensing etc etc that we see with our most powerful telescopes. I also looked at the cosmic 'web'. And it really proved to me that everything was NOT moving away from everything else. People need to realize, that our understanding of the universe is in its INFANCY, as we have only been making many many many observations for a few YEARS !! And certain 'facts' in the astronomy community, will change and change and change, as we learn more and more. Well I hope I typed this correctly and hope people understand what I mean. And hope you enjoyed my post.
If a theory isn't complete, it's wrong. Astronomers really need to wake up to that fact.
This questions if dark matter does exist and if the expansion of the universe is merly an optical illusion caused by the red shift which i hope so and that also challagnes the existence of dark matter amount is either significantly less or none at all. Including that tired light is caused by interstellar dust and lossing energy over time is how their wavelengths get stretched, tho i would say well take this with a pintch of salt
We just do not know.
What _do_ we know?
'Giuliani invented the tired light theory. Understood.'
How about the universe has always been and always will be. Something doesn’t just come from nothing and there is no such thing as there was once ‘nothing’.
Yes.
I’m not watching a 17 minute video for such a simple question.
Yes. It could.
Went to church this morning,neh?
@@dewiz9596 The internet is cancer. Never reply to anyone again.
Hi
"a robust model of the universe..." It only has 95% of everything under the ??? Category.
Oh im sorry, ive got a Gupta on my shoe.
Christian Ready
Just wait until they find out the universe is quite a bit older than 26 billion. After all how could that galaxy 10 trillion light years away get that far in only 26 billion years. The universe is much larger than what we can see.
So science was wrong for decades but we called it accurate.
Science is a constant process. There are many things we don't know accurately, and many things we don't know at all. But that's the way it is.
What's the alternative? Religion?
They have to take that JWT down. Its causing too many problems.
A fellow Deadhead astronomer! Yay! ✨🌹💀🥀✨👍
Universe is infinite. Time is man made so we aren’t late for work
The "hubble constant" IS NOT A DOPPLER RED SHIFT!!!!
Tired light thoery perhaps 😊
It’s a once in a billion generations thing...
Amazing that scientists could be so stubborn and dogmatic. Webb told us pretty plainly we miscalculated the age of the universe, yet they won’t budge. No one likes to admit when they’re wrong but damn.
If we got the universe's age wrong who's to say we got the earth's age wrong as well
The guy slept through the last 13 billion years of universal expansion. It happens, nothing to worry about.