Short answer: it's only older than the universe if you ignore the error bars of the estimate.
How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
11–20 of 231 posts
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#12Why can't the star be older because of relativity? I imagine that, particularly in the early universe while everything was nearer to everything else, relative background gravity was higher (and thus relative time) is different than now. Would the star not age at a different rate if it's a remnant from violent beginnings of the universe?
I think, if I understand your question correctly, that a star couldn't age more, only less, from our perspective. EDIT: I could be wrong though, and additionally I believe the star being referenced by the article is actually in a similar reference frame so relativity likely isn't the answer anyways.
No, but we (our planet, stuff in our vicinity) could age less.
What we'd need is most stuff (that gave rise to most stars and most of our measures of the age of the universe) to be in a higher-gravity region compared to the star in question. It seems unlikely, but I suppose it's possible...
[Edit: I thought you were talking about GR time dilation due to gravity. A re-read shows that I may have been in error.
Also, for a star 190 ly away, any relativistic explanation, either special or general, is probably wrong.]
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#13Short answer: it's only older than the universe if you ignore the error bars of the estimate.
And it's only older than the universe if you assume the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which there's really no evidence to suggest. Pretty much everything else in the universe all seems to suggest that it all originated from a similar point in time and space and that it rapidly expanded outward. Okay. But what was going on in this particular space back then is completely unknown, so... could there have been some stars forming already from matter that wasn't part of the Big Bang? Why not?
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think, if I understand your question correctly, that a star couldn't age more, only less, from our perspective. EDIT: I could be wrong though, and additionally I believe the star being referenced by the article is actually in a similar reference frame so relativity likely isn't the answer anyways.
No, but we (our planet, stuff in our vicinity) could age less. What we'd need is most stuff (that gave rise to most stars and most of our measures of the age of the universe) to be in a higher-gravity region compared to the star in question. It seems unlikely, but I suppose it's possible... [Edit: I thought you were talking about GR time dilation due to gravity. A re-read shows that I may have been in error. Also, fo…
I don't think there's such a concept as "higher-gravity region" in modern physics, unless you're thinking about "in the vicinity of a giant star, black hole, or something equally massive."
However, if most of the known universe is sitting next to a gigantic mega-blackhole (or enough of them to cover the whole sky), then surely we would have noticed by now...
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#15A question - how common are such old stars? Because it is right in our backyard. 190 light years away are nothing. And if those stars are rare - that makes our neighborhood unusual - we have life and some of the oldest object in the universe in almost the same spot.
Almost everything of interest essentially happens in our backyard because that's the place we can see with the most detail. It's a little like looking out at the Universe and coming to the conclusion that we're in the middle of it because the "edges" are all around us.
Even if this was rare and there happened to be tonnes of very old stars only close to us, this could again be coincidental, especially if intelligent life is more common than we currently know.
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#16A question - how common are such old stars? Because it is right in our backyard. 190 light years away are nothing. And if those stars are rare - that makes our neighborhood unusual - we have life and some of the oldest object in the universe in almost the same spot.
Almost everything of interest essentially happens in our backyard because that's the place we can see with the most detail. It's a little like looking out at the Universe and coming to the conclusion that we're in the middle of it because the "edges" are all around us. Even if this was rare and there happened to be tonnes of very old stars only close to us, this could again be coincidental, especially if intelligent…
This is precisely true, only very small stars last very long, and small stars are very dim. All the old stars that we see must be very close. The bright stars that we see that are far away only live for a few million years.
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#17Short answer: it's only older than the universe if you ignore the error bars of the estimate.
And it's only older than the universe if you assume the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which there's really no evidence to suggest. Pretty much everything else in the universe all seems to suggest that it all originated from a similar point in time and space and that it rapidly expanded outward. Okay. But what was going on in this particular space back then is completely unknown, so... could there have b…
Even ignoring complicated questions about gravity and space metrics and their evolution over time, if a big bang occurred in an occupied region of space, we'd see the results of these two things crashing together. We see similar, but much smaller, such things all over the place in space. We do not see any collisions best explained this way.
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#18Short answer: it's only older than the universe if you ignore the error bars of the estimate.
And it's only older than the universe if you assume the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which there's really no evidence to suggest. Pretty much everything else in the universe all seems to suggest that it all originated from a similar point in time and space and that it rapidly expanded outward. Okay. But what was going on in this particular space back then is completely unknown, so... could there have b…
(That) Space was also created by the big bang.
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, but we (our planet, stuff in our vicinity) could age less. What we'd need is most stuff (that gave rise to most stars and most of our measures of the age of the universe) to be in a higher-gravity region compared to the star in question. It seems unlikely, but I suppose it's possible... [Edit: I thought you were talking about GR time dilation due to gravity. A re-read shows that I may have been in error. Also, fo…
I don't think there's such a concept as "higher-gravity region" in modern physics, unless you're thinking about "in the vicinity of a giant star, black hole, or something equally massive." However, if most of the known universe is sitting next to a gigantic mega-blackhole (or enough of them to cover the whole sky), then surely we would have noticed by now...
> I don't think there's such a concept as "higher-gravity region" in modern physics, unless you're thinking about "in the vicinity of a giant star, black hole, or something equally massive."
I think at the beginning of the universe, there might be a lot of regional discrepancies. They might even just be "temporary" regional discrepancies from gravitational waves due to the inherent nature of the universe growing and everything still crashing together.
Re: How Can a Star Be Older Than the Universe?
#20Short answer: it's only older than the universe if you ignore the error bars of the estimate.
And it's only older than the universe if you assume the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe, which there's really no evidence to suggest. Pretty much everything else in the universe all seems to suggest that it all originated from a similar point in time and space and that it rapidly expanded outward. Okay. But what was going on in this particular space back then is completely unknown, so... could there have b…
But why would that matter? If, like you said "...all originated from a similar point in time and space and that it rapidly expanded outward", any star forming next to it would be pushed out of the observable edge.
Hence, no one would ever know if a star was there in the first place.