Just How Old Is The Universe, Anyway?

September 27, 1999: Dr. Eyal Maoz of NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, and astrophysicists from a variety of U.S. and Canadian institutions have found evidence suggesting that the universe may be younger than scientists had previously thought, and that it is expanding faster than expected. Their findings are reported in the September 23 issue of Nature magazine.

Many current estimates put the age of the universe at about 15 billion years. Maoz' research indicates the universe may be as young as 12 billion years, nearly
the same age as its oldest stars. This implied relatively low age of the universe could revive an old paradox in the field of astro-physics that the universe seems to be younger than some of the stars in it.

Left: This optical image shows the core region of galaxy NGC 4258. By measuring the motions of microwave lasers in a disk orbiting a central supermassive black hole, astronomers can estimate the distance to this galaxy very accurately. By comparing maser distance measurements with Cepheid distance estimates of NGC 4258, Maoz et al realized that the widely used Cepheid distance scale overestimates galaxy distances. That means the Universe may be younger than previously thought.

Maoz and his team used the Hubble Space Telescope to observe the pulsing of giant stars called "Cepheid variables" in the galaxy NGC4258.

Researchers used a standard "Cepheid measurement" technique that allowed them to measure the distance from Earth to the galaxy. However, this measurement was different from another independent, highly accurate distance determination to that galaxy made using masers (the microwave equivalent of lasers), which are located at the galaxy center and orbiting a super-massive black hole. This means that the Cepheid distance scale may need tweaking.

A revision of the standard Cepheid measurement method would mean that estimates for the age of the Universe would have to be revised downwards by 10-15%, experts say.

Measuring galactic distances using Cepheid variables has been a standard since 1929. They are useful because their rate of pulsation is closely linked to their brightness. This means that a galaxy's apparent brightness can be used to gauge its distance from Earth.

Maoz and his colleagues used the Cepheid method to estimate the distance from Earth to the benchmark NGC4258 galaxy as 8.1 megaparsecs (Mpc), significantly farther than the geometric estimates derived by recent estimates. (One Mpc is equivalent to approximately three million light years.)

"We discovered a considerable discrepancy between the maser-based and Cepheid-based distance," Maoz said. "The bottom line is that it seems that galaxy distances may have been consistently overestimated by about 12%. This would imply that the universe is expanding faster than expected, and the age of the universe is lower by a similar factor."

    "Until recently, the great physicists have been scrupulous about honoring the terms of their contract. They have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is
known and what is not. Even quantum electrodynamics, the most successful theory ever
devised, was described honestly by its founder, Richard Feynman, as resting on a number
of unwholesome mathematical tricks.
    This scrupulousness has lately been compromised. The result has been the calculated or
careless erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry from speculative
metaphysics. Contemporary cosmologists feel free to say anything that pops into their
heads. Unhappy examples are everywhere: absurd schemes to model time on the basis of
the complex numbers, as in Stephen Hawking's A Brief History of Time; bizarre and ugly
contraptions for cosmic inflation; universes multiplying beyond the reach of observation;
white holes, black holes, worm holes, and naked singularities; theories of every stripe and
variety, all of them uncorrected by any criticism beyond the trivial.
    The physicists carry on endlessly because they can. Just recently, for example, Lee
Smolin, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, has offered a Darwinian
interpretation of cosmology, a theory of "cosmological natural selection." On Smolin's
view, the Big Bang happened within a black hole; new universes are bubbling up all the
time, each emerging from its own black hole and each provided with its own set of physical
laws, so that the very concept of a law of nature is shown to be a part of the mutability of
things. There is, needless to say, no evidence whatsoever in favor of this preposterous theory.
    The universes that are bubbling up are unobservable. So, too, are the universes that have bubbled up and those that will bubble up in the future. Smolin's theories cannot be
confirmed by experience. Or by anything else. What law of nature could reveal that the
laws of nature are contingent? Yet the fact that when Smolin's theory is self-applied it
self-destructs has not prevented physicists like Alan Guth, Roger Penrose, and Martin
Rees from circumspectly applauding the effort nonetheless."

Today, more than a half-century since the Big-Bang found its introduction, a greater number of questions concerning its viability exist than ever before, and there is a greater body of astronomers who are beginning to doubt it as the best cosmological fit, and who are seriously seeking a more modern alternative.  But, what could that be?

It might be agreed, that in the annals of scientific discovery and human enlightenment, four major climaxes occurred:  two in physics and two in cosmology.  In physics, the first climax occurred with the advent of classical or Newtonian physics, which subsequently became superseded by relativistic physics, as the second and present climax state.  In cosmology, the geocentric or Ptolemaic view of the universe was the first climax, followed by the present evolutionary universe or Big-Bang hypothesis.

In between, as well as before, numerous other cosmological models seemed not to endure nor attract proponents, inclusive too of the modern steady state model, which, though somewhat in vogue, never gained any greater, nor longer term acceptance, than the horrendously wrong cosmological models of primitive society.

Each of these climaxes represent a conditioning in reasoning, starting with simple curiosity and ending with a consensus view almost analogous to canonical authority.  In between lay conjecture, hypothesis, postulation, theory and principle, each in their own, a delight in reasoning, and together forming scientific order.  This of course is our conditioning:  to start with simple curiosity, moderate conjecture, abstract hypothesizing, more formal postulation, and more formal theory for presentation to our peers, and then final acceptance into law as scientific principle.  But despite this behaved and orderly process, scientific laws are made to be broken;  which is what simple curiosity does, by questioning the obvious.  This can, and occasionally does, uproot tradition.

It is said that Max Planck, in the development of quantum theory, ultimately giving impetus to Einstein's development of the theory of relativity, strode lightly upon classical law (since the work of Isaac Newton was so highly regarded), so much so, that even the unit of energy (h) in quantum theory was discrete, Planck suggested that it still displayed intrinsically classical behavior.  The rest is well known, curiosity did uproot tradition, ushering in relativity, despite centuries of allegiance to classical physics.

For a time, Ptolemy was a bit more lucky.  His geocentric universe, with the earth at the center, was warmly accepted by powerful religious diocese, thus providing sacred and canonical protection to his views.  Besides this, Ptolemy's expertise in several areas including mathematics and especially trigonometry, proved him to be a difficult authority to overthrow.  His explanation for the retrograde of the inner planets, what he called the syntaxes, was well worked out (just like the Big-Bang) and difficult to refute.  Eventually, with further scientific advance, the geocentric view was forgotten, dislodged by time and progress, but never displaced by some newer and formal cosmological model.  Indeed, though astronomers like Copernicus contradicted the geocentric model, they never presented a formal model of their own, replacing it.  Even from the onset of the Steady-State hypothesis much later, problems like old matter and Olber's paradox plagued its acceptance.  So centuries after the Ptolemaic geocentric model, rather than accepting the Steady-State hypothesis, we have adopted an even newer cosmological model, the expanding universe hypothesis, what Sir Fred Hoyle acrimoniously dubbed "The Big-Bang".

After the famous Shapley-Curtis debates, arguing the reality of island universe--universes other than our own--and V.M. Slipher's and Hubble's accounting of receding galaxies, the Big-Bang hypothesis sort of slid upon the scene, without the slightest ripple, and hardly a big bang.  We as astronomers and scientists have just sort of accepted it, almost without hesitation;  perhaps impressed by how scientific explanation can pack the all of everything into one cosmic kernel.  But, just like the Steady-State hypothesis, it has its own bag of riddles.

For example, there is presently no consensus as to the thermo-nuclear processes necessary to get us from cosmic kernel to here, nor agreement as to whether it is actually possible within allowed time frames.  Along with Hubble law, background radiation seems to serve as an impressive credential to its viability, unless one considers other interpretations of the same.

During the advent of this new model, criticism was minimal, which is not true today.  If you go to Dr. Van Flandern's MetaResearch - outside link web site, he lists its ten major problems, which I have conveniently copied for you below.
 
 
 

Recalling criticism leveled prematurely at Hoyle's Steady-State model, revised measurements concerning the Hubble constant as recently as 1999, now place the Big-Bang on the same direct line of fire.  Just like Hoyle's Steady-State Universe which seemed not able to explain old matter, these revised figures, correcting the theoretical "age" of the Big-Bang model, now make it younger than some of the older stars which dwell within it!   Of course, it will be a long time before those who are institutionally entrenched, begin to realize the Big Picture. Until then, the rest of us, will just have to move ahead into the infinite and uncharted depths of our Cosmos.