11–14 of 14 posts
It’s possible space and time continue beyond that extrapolation point. No one knows.
It’s pretty misleading label for the estimate. It’s the age you get when you reverse extrapolate current physics to the point where current bodies converge in space and time. It’s possible space and time continue beyond that extrapolation point. No one knows.
Somewhat shame on Science Daily for this title. The actual article title is "JWST early Universe observations and ΛCDM cosmology," which is quite a bit more accurate. This isn't a research result. It's a proposed model that was created specifically to fit data that isn't adequately explained by current models. It has made no other novel predictions or been corroborated in any way. The current ΛCDM model took years of…
I guess this is why it's also dubbed "Concordance Model".
Even at double the previous estimate the thing that always floors me about the age of the universe is that it's a number that's approachable by human minds at all. it could have been anything, trillions upon trillions of years, or subject to some nonlinear behavior that made it impossible to estimate at all in terms of current parameterizations of time. And yet here it is a number we can almost see to the end of,conc…
I don't really buy this. That is like 819900000000000000 seconds. Squaring this number gets you 672236010000000000000000000000000000 seconds. I feel like my mind doesn't really appreciate either of these numbers or the difference between them. I feel like we just use units that we are comfortable with to make the number readable but there is not easy intuition here.
This should fit in a modern 64bit CPU register right? I find it amazing that our CPUs can model the estimated age of the universe in such a simple way.