Our universe could be twice as old as current estimates, according to a new study that challenges the dominant cosmological model and sheds new light on the so-called “impossible early galaxy problem.”
Ok, so I got the paper from its original author after emailing him about it (who even thanked me for the interest in his work, I freaking love scientists). And while there’s a lot of math, half of which I’m not even remotely qualified to understand, here’s what I got from it:
First, the paper is quite broad and compares 6 different models, plain LCDM (vacuum has energy that’s constant throughout the universe, it drives the expansion, cosmological constant is constant), CCC (“covarying coupling constants”: cosmological constant isn’t constant and may change over time and space, and dark energy might be more of a field than a property of space), their hybrids with Tired Light, and Tired Light alone. There’s some more discussion about these models below, in case you’re interested.
Btw, Tired Light hypothesis suggests that there’s no expansion, light just loses energy as it travels though space and that’s what gets interpreted as red shift. It’s not widely accepted and is not really considered viable, as far as I know.
Here’s an important to this whole discussion part: proposed age increase comes only from hybrid models (since there wouldn’t be any change in LCDM, and in TL age of the universe kinda makes no sense — no expansion and all that).
So what the author has found is that the best model to explain those weird redshift observations from JWST is the hybrid CCC+TL model, which assumes both “cosmological constant isn’t constant” and “tired light is a thing”. And that combination seems highly unlikely.
So the universe probably isn’t 26+ bn years. It’s a stepping stone towards finding a better model.
To what are you referring when you say “those weird JWST red shift observations”? I’d be curious to read more about that specifically.
