I want to point out to an other problem of the supposed big bang model. According to the newest measurements of the famous microwave background radiation it is suggested that the age of the universe is about 13.7 billion years. On the other hand it is assumed that the oldest stars are quite older namely they are about 16-19 billion years old. This is a very obvious contradiction in the model frame of the alleged big bang. But there are structures and formations in the universe that are assumed to take even more time to be developed (for instance the so called “great wall”). This problem is called the “age-paradox”. I regret that I can’t give any references, but I’m sure that you’ll find some when you’ll search for on the internet. What do you think of this? Have you heard yet that there’s a solution to this apparent contradiction? Greetings Christian
This contradiction implies that either 1) our measurement of the Hubble constant is incorrect, 2) the Big Bang theory is incorrect or 3) that we need a form of matter like a cosmological constant that implies an older age for a given observed expansion rate. However, the expansion age measured by WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) is larger than the oldest globular clusters, so the Big Bang theory has passed an important test.
Hello Q, Thank you for your information. This is new for me. Do you have any references? Greetings Christian
And the asnwer is 13.7 Billion years as Christian says. But according to An ESA web page the oldest stars are 14 plus or minus 2 Billion years. So WMAP does not contradict known measurements.
This is true. Several years ago there was this age conflict. But if you go to a journal like Astrophysical Journal and Astronomical Journal you'll find papers that lately have brought the age of the oldest stars down in agreement with other observations. Determining the age of stars is a very difficult process and is forever in a state of flux, you might say.
