I think this is usually a pretty good source, but I was disappointed that they didn’t really dive into the prior plausibility of this hypothesis.
My understanding was we were pretty confident in our estimate for the age of the universe, verified from multiple different sources. What do peer scientists think about this theory of evolving coupling constants?
Is it just one or two cranks that fooled the science journalist or could this theory solve a bunch of our questions about the early universe by doubling our estimate of it’s age?
Maybe they asked them LMAOs
Utterly unscientific and slightly crazy opinion time:
This research is absolutely bonkers and I 100% hope it ends up being somewhat accurate. My gut feeling has always been that a 4.5 billion year old earth (4.6b yo solar system) in a 13.7 billion year old universe didn’t line up, that the universe should have gone through many more cycles of galactic and solar death and rebirth prior to the formation of our solar system. This adjusted universe age also makes the estimated heat death of the universe feel less bleak, because it means the universe will have been lively and active for much longer before its slow, quiet demise.
In other words, I think a 26.7 billion year old universe has a much better aesthetic.
My gut feeling has always been that a 4.5 billion year old earth (4.6b yo solar system) in a 13.7 billion year old universe didn’t line up
The Sun may be 5GY in into its 10GY lifetime, but the giant stars whose supernovas created the heavy elements of Earth (i.e. anything heavier than helium) have much shorter lifetimes - 10MY. The universe is only 2 “Sun” lifetimes old, but there was time enough for hundreds of generations of these heavy stars. This is the necessary knowledge that the gut feeling doesn’t have access to.
I understand that it’s physically possible for the solar system to exist under the current universe age estimation for the reasons that you state, which is why I prefaced my statement with an acknowledgement that it’s an “utterly unscientific” opinion. However in telling the story of the universe (and our place in it), I think an older universe is more “satisfying.” I’m applying humanities logic to a scientific question here, because again, I’m declaring “utterly unscientific and slightly crazy opinion time.”
To each their own I guess. I personally find it more satisfying to think that life on Earth arose as early in the history of the universe as generally possible, as an answer to the Fermi paradox. If anything I worry more that the time is too long! There is a 5 billion year interval between generation 1 and generation 3 stars when heavy elements existed but Earth yet did not. To my gut feeling that is problematic.
