The star HD 140283 has been called the " Methuselah whizz " for its extreme age . At an estimated over 14 billion years old , it ’s the old star we know , at least within our extragalactic nebula . A star that sure-enough is sure interesting , peculiarly when it is so close to us it can be seen with binoculars , however , that appear to put it old than the universe . How that can be ? A close scrutiny give away the principal is especial , but notthatspecial .
The standard estimation of the time since theBig Bangis 13.79 billion years . The figure is derived from therate of expanding upon of the universeusing Einstein ’s relativity theory but has been validated through a variety of methods . However , that number is now face at least three trenchant challenges . As grounds , proponent point to the existence of stars estimated to be either older than 13.8 billion yr , or so closelipped to that age that there should n’t have been time for them to form .
Not astonishingly HD 140283 getsprime billing(helped by its attention-getting soubriquet derived from a scriptural antecedent of Noah say to have live to 969 ) due to a 2013 study using Hubble data that figure it is14.46 billion years onetime , plus or minus 800 million year . That would make it potentially older than the universe .
The biggest title regarding HD 140283 is that itdisproves the Big Bang . After all , if there is even one star 14.5 billion years old then the burst that started the universe could n’t have chance less than 14 billion years ago . The Big Bang is now so fundamental to our cosmogony that were it to be disproved it would create a scientific gyration the like of which we have not seen for a farseeing time .
A smaller , but still spectacular , alteration would be required to adapt to the recent claim that the Big Bang happened , but almost twice as long ago as most approximation put it , at26.7 billion year ago .
Neither of these views has much supporting among astrophysicists , but some do distrust we ’ve beget our estimate of the timing of the Big Bang more modestly wrong , and the universe is really around 15 billion year previous . Although such an estimate would raise a few head about why our estimation for the universe ’s expansion rate are out , if bear witness , accompanying changes to our thinking would be evolutionary not radical .
In that context , it ’s deserving asking : if the universe was 26 billion years old , would n’t we look to feel 20 billion - year - old stars ? It ’s true we ’ve only really looked across a pocket-sized portion of the beetleweed , but if the universe is that one-time , Methuselah looks suspiciously young . Then take that question a step further and demand what we might expect to see if the universe had no source and has always been here .
Outside our own Milky Way , stars in the globular clustering M92 are thought to be about13.8 billion years old , and JWST has pick out some very distant beetleweed whose age isstill in disputebut nothing looks dramatically older than HD 140283 .
“ There are many , many measurement that propose the long time of the universe is about 14 billion long time , ” Professor Tamara Davis of the University of Queenslandtold IFLSciencein consider to the 26 billion - year - sometime title . “ Not just the cosmic microwave oven background , not just the expansion charge per unit measured using supernovas , there ’s also the tumid - scale structure of the universe and the mensurable age of the old star . ”
eventually , there is the fact that our method acting for estimating the ages of star might be more reliable than the allegedly very long - lived 969 years for the Biblical Methuselah , but they ’re far from definitive . A lot of possible sources of errordon’t always get includedin quote error parallel bars . HD 140283 is an salient example . In addition to the 14.46 billion estimate , another team create years of13.7 billion and 12.2 billionyears , depending on which estimate of its mass is correct . Yet another study concluded12.0 is most potential .
Clearly , the last two values pose no scourge to a 13.8 billion - class - quondam universe , and even 13.7 billion can be explained through the error bars .
Stellar eld are usually guess using their absolute brightness level and authorship . The early existence contained nothing but H and helium . Most sullen elements were only formed from the death of the first propagation of star . The lower the concentration of these elements , the older the star is thought to be . This is n’t , however , a thoroughgoing method acting . Not only can we make mistakes in measurements , but the heavy alloy products of the first supernovas may not have always mixed evenly . Other methodshave been nominate , but are still being corroborate .
Consequently , while no one doubt the Methuselah principal is very old and offers brainwave into the early universe , two out of three estimates beat no challenge to the age of the cosmos at all .
Even if the 14.46 billion year chassis is correct , a slightly old population is a far more plausible explanation than one that formed 13 billion years sooner than thinking , or had no beginning at all .
