Stars older than the Universe ?

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by river, Dec 31, 2017.

  1. river

    Messages:
    9,977
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dr_Toad It's green! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,847
    Sorry, I won't disable my ad blocker for that POS site. Thanks anyway.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    Hi River
    This is not new.
    Clearly a star can not be older than the universe according to the current model.
    We deal with estimates and although a great deal of work goes into the estimates we must remember they are indeed estimates.
    Also the reporting I have read presents somewhat as sensationalising the matter and I guess one can understand why a reporter can be tempted to sensationalise.
    However it is interesting that such old objects exist more to how and why they formed so early and have managed to reach such old age.
    Alex
     
    sculptor likes this.
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    It is what it is , Alex

    there are several sites that have the same info . just put in stars older than the Universe .

    and this star is only 190 light yrs from Earth , interesting .
     
  8. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    I agree.
    Stars in globular clusters tend to be rather old and my speculative view is that globular clusters may be the remains of galaxies consumed in part by, in this case, the Milky Way.
    Alex
     
  9. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    and this has to do with this star because ?
     
  10. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    Do you know where the old stars are found?
    Alex
     
  11. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,677
    It's an interesting article but it's not particularly sensational, other than the title. It can't be older than the universe so the universe is a little older than we thought or the star isn't quite as old as we thought.

    This means that the ways that we judge these things might need to be tweaked (how we age the universe or how we age stars) or the data for this particular star is not what we think it is.

    It's not an earth shattering article but it is interesting (as are most articles on cosmology).
     
  12. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    From space.com

    M22 was a notable find not only for its early discovery, but also for the ages of the stars within it. The stars range between 12 billion and 13 billion years old, which date it close to the formation of the universe 13.8 billion years ago,

    Alex
     
  13. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    disagree , star HD 140283 is Earth shattering news .

    it puts in question BB and/or how stars are formed . And that has profound consequences in our view of the Universe as a whole .
     
  14. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,677
    You are either reading too much into it or being too dramatic. It doesn't do either of those two things.
     
  15. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,047
    It really isn't earth shattering. These anomalies have been known for many years.

    Read about HD-140283 here and you will see it is interesting but not earth shattering.
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2017
  16. Gawdzilla Sama Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    928
    Never reference popular media for science news without a thundering great caveat.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  17. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,677
    "Starts With A Bang" is actually a good astro-physics site now sponsored by Forbes apparently. It's written by a guy with a PhD in theoretical physics and it's written for the layman.

    River has added the drama. The article is factual and lacking in drama.
     
  18. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    The article is factual , no surprise since I have looked it up on several sites .

    This drama is about how it possible for a star that is only 190 lyrs from Earth can be older than the Universe itself .
    It matters to all concepts of cosmology .
     
  19. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    It is very interesting River I agree.
    When I first read about it years ago I thought well that blows the big bang out of the water...but it does not in so far as the estimate of the stars age could be wrong on yhe one hand or the universe is older than the current estimate.
    The implications for cosmology are not that great.
    I think the aspect that is interesting is that such an old object exists and so conveniently close.
    How did it get to be so old?
    Is it a star from a galaxy that the milky way consumed, did it wander in alone or what?
    Now if they found a star that seems to be 50 billion years old that would be something...either the method of determining age could be wrong or the big bang would need further adjustment.
    It may not seem so but you can bet we dont know as much as there is to know.
    The key perhaps is to go with the flow and keep up to date with discovery.

    Alex
     
  20. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    No

    The key is to not go with the flow at all . Since it is been shown to be profoundly wrong .
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    What has been shown profoundly wrong in your opinion.

    A list perhaps.

    They were wrong about ulcers. ..Dr Baker?

    Things change over time.
    If something is wrong it should be exposed at some stage.
    Alex
     
  22. river

    Messages:
    9,977
    Cosmology
     
  23. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,643
    You dont like the current model?
    But it has not been proved wrong as far as I know.
    Alex
     

Share This Page