Big News! The James Webb Space Telescope Has Just Discovered a Star That Is Older than the Universe! 

So the celestial matter I’m made up of is twice as old? That would explain my recent lethargy.

We are looking at 26 Billion Years old light. Can you even understand how far that light has to be? Can you understand how big our universe is?

The more James Webb discovers the more confused we all are 😂😂😂

This is what i love about science. It continues to investigate, learn and has no problem correcting itself with new evidence

50 years from now, after launching the next generation space telescope, you'll observe stars that are 40-50 billion light years away. The Universe is infinite.

We have yet to look in a billion different directions at such a distance. We are going to find so much more as time goes on.

So glad it was worth the wait, the effort and the price. A great test for the human intellect ❤

The more we learn. The more we knew nothing.

I LOVE IT! Science keeps challenging us. Way to go JW team!

I find it hilarious we think we can see the edge of the universe lolol

When will the Universities start repaying all of the Student Loans that were wasted on a completely incorrect education?

This supports my theory that the universe is much much older than we thought. Such as the universe has just always existed.

What an excellent video and explanation of the latest observations. Thank you

It may be old to us but time may not exist to the universe.

i bet if you're floating in space, everything would look like its been distorted like looking through a glass bottle, and each galaxy looked like a glass ball, warping another galaxy behind it. very pretty and sparkly.

The amazing JWST sees the astonishing images, and says, ‘here they are, now deal with it’, lol!😂 It’s going to be a whole new event horizon (pardon the pun!) in our understanding of the universe. Great video, thank you.

This brings up the question, what makes us believe we know this? What makes us believe we know the age of the universe? What makes us believe we know how far back we are looking?

any stars you see that look older than the big bang would be stars on the other side of the center of the big bang. being that the bang expanded in all directions that would mean you would have to see stars on the other side of the central point.

Awesome keep it coming!

I'm betting on the new age of the universe as 33 billion years...and counting

James Webb is a success! It's overturning the established view and opening up science fields to innovation.

It's almost like we don't know wtf is really happening.

Pretty good video. Thank you.

The Doppler shift model of galaxy redshift is finally being questioned with this data. The Doppler model has had an ignored, major problem for a long time with Arp's suggestions and the unexplained observation of periodic redshift.

Just because a star is far away, doesn't make it old. The light is old, due to the distance traveled. When light we see now was emitted, the star must have been young. Now, it has been gone for millions of years.

What if the star is not from our universe but one adjacent to ours?

Universe has been everlasting. There have been many "big bangs".... Some create stars and solar systems... Some create galaxies... Some create galaxy clusters...

Since gravitational lensing is a real thing, so also must be gravitational refraction and reflection. Those distant galaxy observations might be spectral-skewed or simply objects much closer than they appear. It is also naïve to assume that time-space relativity is constant outside of our local gravity well. The universe flies by much faster when you are close to a black hole.

i've often wondered.... why do they believe there was only one big bang? what if the conditions to create a big bang exist and happen numerous times in different locations across the universe?

The influence of Sagittarius A on how we measure time cannot be discounted. With the current model I feel it is logical that a field preceeded what is now considered the big bang. The field was like an exiton tracing every possible path light will travel. Then the bang the field eventually cooled into the cosmic web. CMB is proof that this could be possible. I have always said the universe is 14.2 billion years old but welcome being disproven.

Very good explanation. Thanks 🙏🙏🙏

It's not confusing at all. The Universe doesn't have an age. It has always existed. It creates itself out of itself. It creates us out of itself, as we create out of ourselves.

Read Faster than the Speed of Light by Joao Magueijo published in 2003. This also has a theory which looks at light changing speed over time. I need to read it again to see how this observation fits that physicist's theory.

I don't think we'll ever know the exact age of the universe. Time was created back then as well and I don't think early time can be measured by today's time standards.

After big bang many stars moved away more than speed of light and that's why they are presently at 26 billion lighg years.

Maybe the problem is that everyone keeps treating time as a constant, or some similar issue.

That means that our Universe is as old as the discovered star. Nice video, thanks for sharing & Godspeed!

It is hard to believe that this Webb scope has not run into something or has been hit by some things during its journey through space.

Remember, this is LOOKBACK time. This is not exactly the same as "age."

I said it before and I'll say it again the Big bang just never added up!

If red shift really is miscalculated, isn’t there ways to prove this out on closer stars within our own galaxy to stars in say the closest galaxy to us? You could compare the error with more precise distance estimates.

What if prior to the Big Bang, there were lots of galaxies that collapsed into the singularity that became the Big Bang - except there were some galaxies that didn't become part of the singularity and had been formed from the previous incarnation of the universe?

The 13.8 billion light-years is only our technical limitation. Scholars think they know everything, but the more we know, the more we DON'T know. And believe me, as technology develops, you will see that the existence of our universe will also become older. We are still in our infancy as far as development is concerned, we don't know more than we do.

Hillarious! Destroying paradigms one picture at a time... gotta love that settled science!

The redshift is from light that originates in much more massive galaxies that is redshifted as it leaves the massive galaxy and it's only slightly blue shifted as the light enters our much smaller galaxy where we are.

If the big bang happened around 14b years ago and a 26b yo star was discovered; do any of you guys think the expansion of the universe could account for the star being at such a far distance? Since time and distance are relative, it would mean that the galaxies expansion moved the star far enough, it could be a population 1 (1st generation) star born maybe 18 billion years old. It takes light so long to travel across those distances in additon to the expansion of our universe. I still found the video fascinating and if these new theories are correct, it would be amazing.

Ah i dont know where it was but another RU-vid Video discussed the probability that time was moving much faster in the early universe in the early expansion phase. Thus explaining why the Universe (or at least the center galaxies) from our perspective can be even oder than the 26 Billion Years.

We cannot get our heads around infinity or forever,i think the universe has no age and is just is and was and will always be.

The universe is far far far older than 13.5 billion years old I just want to say one little telescope can't look through the entire universe.

Is the Big Bang created the entire universe, as we see it, won't it have been bright enough for us to still see it today? Who decided which direction to look in?

where is the sculpture pictured at 5:16 found, and what is it called?

We will never be able to find out how old the universe is, only how far away other galaxies and star systems are from us. And that in our way of measuring. Is a meter really a meter? just because we say here that this is a meter does not mean that for residents of another system it is. We make it simple, an identical solar system as ours, but with the difference that everything is 50% smaller. So for them a meter is a meter, but for us it would only be half a meter. The same applies to time. We have put numbers on what counts as time for us. Mathematics is not universal just because we want it to be.

One thing these scientists are not taking into consideration is some parts of space may actually be denser in time, which would also stretch the waves of light and make things seem older than they are.

It could be that the universe has always existed and what we call the “big bang” was really one of many mediocre sized bangs in random parts of the universe.

“I only have one question, have you ever been to Uranus? “

Is time the problem ? As well as our assumptions and simplifications. Including red shift. We take into account only speed but we measured photon interaction with electron leads to a small red shift

I still think the "universe" as we define it started with the big bang. My idea is that the "universe" started as a sigularity and that these "older than they should be galaxies" are remnants of other "universes" that expanded into their "cold death" and wandering the "multiversal sea of dark matter". They were attracted before "the big bang" expansion by the original singularity's nearly infinite gravity. They eventually were pulled to where we see them now since they were already on course before the destablization of the sigularity and it's expansion. That's just my hypothesis, though. But I think that "spacetime" is much older than we expect (likely even infinite) and that our "universe" is still fairly young.

Yes, Paul Dirac is who I read about in the 1970s and whose theory on light I began to follow. However, I recall the theory suggesting that light aged not merely lost energy. And as it aged while coursing through the universe, it also slowed. I always thought that would be easy to prove or disprove by using the same method to calculate the speed of light at 186,283 miles (~300,000 km) per second to calculate the light coming from different sources in the universe such as the sun, alpha centauri, the Andromeda Galaxy. If the speed of light from those disparate sources were different, that would be enough to prove that light ages or at least changes over time which would throw the whole redshift idea out of favor with astronomers. I have always been very against the Big bang theory because it relies on a god to initiate it. Also, it strains the imagination that all the matter in the universe came from a singularity, a single point, that exploded and created everything. That theory had God written all over it. And my universe didn't have room for a god. So I gravitated toward the steady-state universe theory while everyone around me stayed with the unrealistic theory of the Big Bang. The idea of matter not being created or destroyed made more sense to me than all matter in the universe being created in an instant at the beginning of time. Of course, that meant the universe was infinite not only in size but in age. But for me, that was easier to believe than dispersion of all matter in the universe from a big bang.

Fascinating news!!

What exactly exploded during the Big Bang, and where did the material that exploded come from? Where did the empty space come from, also?

I'd have to say that the scientists seem to be basing their calculations off the universe expanding linearly rather than radially... If the universe is expanding from an epicenter, then looking at anything beyond that epicenter would mean that those objects are moving away from you like 2 cars passing each other in opposite directions rather than moving in the same direction having originated at the same point like 1 car passing another in the fast lane...

Once there was a star a great star greater than any man can imagine and it was spinning and creating micro novas and super novas Spewing it’s matter into a vacuum it was being pulled from beyond the edge of the universe and I believe that’s how the cosmos was created

i think there will always going to be things we don't know about universe and humans. i always believed that all this is a circle, we die,our universe dies, and new is born everytime, its endless. there have been life before us and before them. i think its just circulates forever. we will never truly know everything about the secrets of universe.

A very good news........❤👍👍

I love how people refer to the "Big Bang" as if it's true lol. Guarantee it is completely false. Literally EVERYTHING we think we know about the universe has proven to be wrong. Truth is we don't know anything.

The universe has no beginning nor ending just like numbers.

If you using the redshift for distance measurement. You have to take into account the universe's expansion. Much Faster now

Yes I can imagine such a star especially when astronomers are swearing that stars are moving further and further apart because the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light which is a tale straight out of the minds of science fiction authors.

Genesis 1 is still the only truth that has stood the test of time.

Could it be stars from another universe the one that possibly collided with ours causing the great void?

I kinda wondered about this for a long time. What if there are interactions that can also lower photon energies minuscule amounts, but in the aggregate over billions of years travel start to add up; also causing a red shift, but not due to Doppler. Plus the younger universe was denser, and hotter than it is now, so it makes sense that the amount of interactions would be different and have changed. At work I could clearly see the impact of Compton Scattering, Pair Production and the Photoelectric Effect lowering the energy of photons. Well, space isn't really a complete void, there are lots and lots of things running around out there to interact with. Neutrinos, other photons, dust, gas. For Pair Production to occur, as an example, a gamma doesn't have to hit a nucleus, but only approach close to one (and have the minimum 1.022MeV energy of course), forming the electron/positron pair, so direct hits on something may not even be necessary to impact photon energies.

I can hardly wait to see how it all ends.

Is it bad my only thought throughout all this is "How far away are those galaxies, lets visit and say hi"

They think redshift is related to distance and time, but it could also be effected by light moving through different regions of the universe that have different physical properties than our local region of the universe, much as light is defracted/refracted from moving through different medium interfaces (air/water, etc.)...

It's either older than the current estimate or there is possible error from the current star. I guess it needs more stars to be found that show this age. The more stars showing this age the more confident of the basis of age measurement. There maybe phenomena that corrupts the age measurement basis out there. However the big bang might turn out to be the big loop. Concider this ...what about if we started discovering identical stars in different parts of the universe. Mirrors unlikely .. time is against us.

Lysergic-level awesome!

Gupta knows it all, like my father in law. My thinking on the other hand is that fitting models to data is very often flawed and seldom reveals the true nature of generative systems. Long live Gupta! Great mustache as well.

Instead of smaller, they may be closer than a constant redshift suggests.

Do not doubt, do not question!!

science is always changing😮

Every time someone thinks that they've got a rock solid theory and knows how the universe works, the universe laughs and slaps them in the face with new data.

Also, these mere 6 "impossible galaxies" are from a single very small point in the sky from a deep field exposure. There are likely many trillions of these "impossible" objects but we just never had the ability to see that far

I read this title in the professor's voice from Futurama.

With the ever increasing expansion of our universe, isn't it possible that the said star originated closer and has since been shifted by the expansion? If so, that may not change the age of the universe.

Gives NASA a chance to ask funding for another telescope.😂

I don't see any reference links.

By my estimation and understanding of general relativity, when the universe was younger, it was denser and time moved slower.

Everything we see cosmically and even on earth geologically is everything cycles, with transformative phases. Big bang cuz just be an event in a universe birthed from another universe

It seems more than likely that there is actually no bottom limit for the size of matter (with better technology we will be able to probe "field" for example) and it is actually quite logical in itself because you simply cannot have "one" which is made of nothing. At the same time, there is no reason for universe to have upper limit in size or stwrting point too. And that is quite logical too because again you simply cannot have "none" and then "one". You cant have an edge of the universe, or begining (both beginning and an end require "more" in order to be beginning and an end, since beginning and an end fall into domain of concepts which depend on their surroundings). You can only have multiple ways in which matter/galaxies/clusters arrange themselves, so you can end up with trully uniform and endless universe or trully endless but different in parts universe. But there is only one. What we have observed/measured so far in terms of distance is probably less than millionth of milionth of 1%.

The F`ing paradox just got more paradoxical...

Nice animated videos

Plasmas and dust shift light .. something that is not concidered here.

So taķe the previous value, times two. Such a scientific method.

Them: This is the most amazing thing ever Me: I see a red dot

Could it be a false redshift that may make it tool older than it really is?

Seems someone forgot about the Methuselah Star? We have known about that one for a long time, and it is also "older than the universe."

I have a theory that lines up with what we know. Let me explain. Think of being underwater. If you were a deep diver, your lungs would be compressed significantly by the increase in pressure from the water. The more shallow you are the more your lungs can expand. In the early universe when it was much more compressed, it would have been much more difficult for objects with mass to curve the much denser spacetime, meaning less time dilation. As the universe expands/accelerates the galaxies nearer to the edge are in much thinner spacetime allowing significant time dilation relative to our position. This would explain how they can be further along than we expect. They have experienced more time relative to us.

The one thing that confuses me the most, is we are measuring everything from us being at the centre, and or the telescope being at the centre.

Could it be the James Webb telescope is glitching? Have you tried turning it off and back on again?

I am gobsmacked !