As always. Science is a process Anyone who thinks elsewhise is probably religious Even if it's a blind science fanatic who thinks he has all the answers as truths
I have heard 4 times over the last 40 years how the next principle is gonna probe the star is younger but every time the star gets younger so does the universe. At what point do they start looking for other explanations
@@tornicade well, the correct answer science is a process. And just started out within a couple of centuries of properly appreciating cosmology and astronomy and work on it. So yeah it would be hypocritical and illogical to think we would have every explanation on hand within a century. Just have some patience and move along ma guy. We have a lot to learn. One day humanity will have developed enough for science to have all of the end answers
@@observeoutofthebox7806 he came to a conclusion with no scientific evidence. Science doesn't know the answer. Anything. Else is an opinion and dishonest. Why is the methuselah star older than the Universe is not a definitive it is. It is a definitive unknown.
Also, there’s a selection bias here. The apparent contradiction is the reason it’s being discussed. I don’t know how many other population II stars have been measured, but if the measurements have a lot of uncertainty it seems likely that there will be outliers. And it’s precisely because it’s an outlier that this star gets all the attention.
I would think the age of the universe would have very high uncertainty, far more then any star. For me the proof that supports that is we have observed stars in birth and death. It still seems like total guess work on the universe as a whole. What do we really know about how a universe is born or how or if they die, or if there is even more then one. But hey, it all sounds cool and makes for great syfy movies.
Not one person on this earth has the answer or even a clue how old anything is or how it was created, if you did we wouldn't be talking about it still...
@@Kikori_Fanri read an article that they found a triceratops body that carbon dated to 25000 years ago. Also a recently deceased body carbon dates to thousands of years old according to another. Not sure if I trust carbon dating to this regard. Who knows is right!
Sorry, but 14 billion years is not enough to create a galaxy, let alone the whole universe! What if what we are seeing is the universe is actually collapsing. Sort of like when you sit in your car and see a truck moving faster than you.
In 1976 the Scientist's were all excited about the Big Bang. Back then you could actually ask a professor a question. I tended to ask questions professor's don't like. I simply asked if all of the universe's matter started out in one point 3.5 billion years ago (at the time that's the age he quoted) , does it take 3.5 billion years to get matter to an infinite distance? All he got beet red and accused me of being a Christion. I responded: Sir, I don't even know what a Christian is, seems to me it's a fair question". Same thing happened to me in biology class when I asked about DNA code changing and new in computer codes just fail if you take out even a small strain of code or change it randomly. I eventually did find out what a Christian is, and question both Scientific and Christian dogma to this day.
There's also a much simpler explanation. Hubble saw the universe expanding. So, we run that expansion backwards and work out how old the universe is. About 13.8 billion years. But the thing is, since then, there have been experiments to measure "G". The logic was that the universe is expanding, but it contains mass. So there's gravity pulling in the opposite direction. And the purpose of measuring G is to work out by how much gravity is slowing down the expansion over time. Is it enough to actually reverse the expansion - the Big Crunch - or is it exactly equal and the universe eventually stops expanding and just stays like that forever, or is there not enough gravity to ever halt the expansion and the universe keeps expanding forever? Note that, in conducting this experiment, the question was "how much is gravity slowing down the expansion of the universe?". There was no question, from theory, that the expansion was slowing down, it was only a question of by how much. And then the measurements were taken. The expansion of the universe is not slowing down at all, it's speeding up. And this is where we insert "dark energy" to try to explain how the hell the thing that we were so sure would be slowing down is, in fact, doing the total opposite and expanding faster and faster. Anyway, putting the controversies and debates about "dark energy" to one side, there is an implication to this that affects our estimated age of the universe. We see the Hubble expansion, we take that and then "reverse time" to work out the point where everything's on top of each other and, hence, the origin of this expansion. But the problem here is how you're reversing time. If you're just looking at the current speed of the expansion and then LINEARLY running it backwards, you're ignoring the observation that the speed of that expansion seems to be getting faster and faster. Or, running time backwards, the expansion was slower and slower in the past. If you're estimating the age of the universe in a linear fashion - despite us observing that the expansion is, in fact, quickening and is therefore non-linear - then you're going to get the wrong answer. You're going to underestimate the age of the universe. If you're taking the current speed of expansion and then drawing a line back to the Big Bang, you're doing it wrong. Because if that expansion has been picking up pace all along, then it's not a straight line, it's a curve. The expansion now is faster than the expansion a billion years ago, which is faster than the expansion a billion years before that and so on. If, indeed, our more recent "dark energy" expansions observations are correct. Because I did notice that when these observations happened and the news reported that, umm, the experiment to work out by how much the expansion was slowing down had, in fact, found the polar opposite, that it's picking up pace, I saw no corresponding revisions of the estimated age of the universe anywhere. But if the expansion is forever quickening, then it's not linear and that estimated age should have been revised upward. So, the universe is way, way older than the currently accepted 13.8 billion years - once you factor in that the expansion is not linear and is apparently picking up pace (so was slower in the past, and slower and slower and slower, the further back into the past we go) - and, therefore, there's nothing odd that needs explaining about the Methulselah star at all, as that revised age of the universe is likely to be way, way bigger than the generally accepted figure, _IF_ "dark energy" speed up the expansion truly is a thing. (By the way, the "if" there is not me saying I doubt this - I'm agnostic and awaiting more data - but am just correctly specifying the conditional and dependencies here. The one depends on the other. So IF the one is right, then the other WILL need revision upwards.)
Even with precision values does not work: if Universe age is 13.8B years and first stars appeared only 200M after Big Bang, that gives first stars appeared 13.6B years ago. If Methuselah Star appeared 14.45B+-0.8B that gives it appeared at least 13.65B years back, that is before first stars formed 13.6B years ago. Even more gap should be due to short period of Population 3 stars between first stars and Methuselah Star that is Population 2 star. Right? Wrong.
One problem with even taking those 20% and 80% values too seriously is the danger of p-hacking to come to a conclusion you want. Assuming that there are stars whose age is on the order of the age the universe, there should always be a healthy number of stars where the error bars of our measurement of their age fall to the right (larger than) of the age of the universe, especially when the error bars are as wide as they are here. This is why it is easy to consider even a number like 80% to be not hinting at some new discovery, rather just showing the limitations of our measurements.
The only thing an old star says is a big bang doesn't require all the mass of the universe to happen each time it happens. Might be a few survivors who weren't sucked into the void. I would think the star had to be really far away from the big bang , "late to the collection party". I would think the star would make a good focal point for the location of the big bang, if you invert its current direction it's going, by the time its traveled since the birth of the universe, but no, its more complex than that. You have to discern if it once was headed for the origin, reverse engineer math.
If I win the lottery I buy this man to put me to sleep. And I’m not saying he’s boring, I’m saying he’s the best story teller in the world. And I’m not saying he’s telling stories, I’m saying his facts are exquisitely exposed.
"Of course it has to be" should be rephrased "Of course it should be" simply to account for the variable uncertainty. Because we can't narrow it down enough, I do agree that it's unlikely what would be interesting is if it was found to be as old as our current estimate of the universe itself because that throws a curveball into the current predicted model of a mostly Hydrogen and Helium initial make up of the universe....and would also throw out atomic understanding out the window (wouldn't the be FUN *every physicists furiously shakes their head* )
I get the argument and I trust in the big bang. But one thing about the estimate bothers me and why the scientists published its likely age to be around 14.45 when they know it can’t be that high. If it is impossible for Methusela to be older than the universe, why not esitmate the star’s age to be between 13.82 (max age of the universe) and 13.65 (lowest estimate for Methusela)? Why not hard cap the top estimate at the max age of the universe? Why even mention that it could be 14+ billion years old?
That is totally unsatisfying answer. Specially if Stars like this keep poping up. I'm not saying it disproves the big bang, but it surely will disprove the current estimate of the age of the Universe.
For me, much more problematic than the Motuselah star is the recent discovery of a star that's incredibly old (population 2) that has a superbEarth orbiting around it... how in the world did such an extremely ancient star acquire enough iron and silicon to produce a rocky planet? And a big one, then! At most, they should have just gas giants, no more. Unless further analysis reveals this planet was somehow captured and started as a rougue planet somewhere else, this is a deep mystery that adds to the crisis in cosmology
I'm less concerned with the accurate measure of the age of this star than its proximity to us. If it is as old or older than the Universe and is only 200LY away, shouldn't we be near the same age? Expansion happened from the origin of the Universe, which to me, means center, but we are not near the center, that I'm aware of.
The big bang is a theory not a law. When it is taught as a fact or truth it diminishes science as a whole. A bang is a reaction thereby needing an action to cause such a reaction. That requires some form of matter or base elements for such a reaction thereby making the big bang not the beginning but simply an action that took place at a period in time. I have brought this fact to my professors and no one in the scientific community can disprove these facts I present.
I do not believe that big bang happened in just one single point of space time. It may be a chain reaction of miscalculation of entropy on the fabric of space time that ultimately pronounced the super explosion.
Even if a star is 13 billion years old , how would it survive that long without dying out , or is it possible that the big bang started from that point lol
At 6:54 is where your logic failed. You can't add 30% to the estimated range. You must admit it was originally flawed ( too narrow ). Then discover why.
@@masonbush3686 What exactly logic leads to such conclusion? There is variance in the supposed age of the star, and 80% of the probability for its age falls beyond the age of the universe. Is it not so?
Isn't it quite the blunder to say that the big bang describes HOW the universe came into existing? The Big Bang Theory merely describes the time of rapid expansion a certain time after the universe came into being. So the Big Bang Theory = Inflation? Or did I misunderstand that completely?
"Statistically speaking, there's a very good chance the star is younger than the universe." And you can trust him on that - says so right there on his T-shirt.
This always seems to be the hardest part for the anti-science crowd to grasp: science is not the study of absolute truths. Perhaps they are projecting their own beliefs which *do* insist on absolute truths and the like, but science is just the collection of best-guesses, which are gradually refined to more and more confident guesses. Some people just can't accept a worldview like that, and I honestly feel a little sorry them.
Yeah it's the same reason people get so confused why we call things "theories" saying things like "it's just a theory". Science is a collection of uncertainties we try to whittle down out at. As such we can never be 100% certain we have everything correct. Why we stopped using terms like "law".
@@Skylancer727 Different things. A law is essentially the observation that certain quantities are related by certain (usually mathematical) rules. On the other hand, a theory is a field of knowledge that usually contains many laws and tries to explain why they work. The word is used in a similar way as "theoretical physicist". What the general public calls a theory, science calls a hypothesis (or sometimes short, a thesis).
Yeah I was thinking when he said that: "Wow the times really have changed. It used to be 'if a headline is a question, the answer is no." Now it's video titles." Obviously one is aware the times are a changing, but sometimes a certain thing really sort of makes the point that previously hadn't been given much thought.
I think it is potentially possible that MANY young looking stars could potentially be much older , but have absorbed materials that have kept them youthful looking , and with the newer materials. Methuselah potentially could be simply a star that simply by very random chance did not absorb newer materials .
A better question might be, how did a type 3 star live so long? All the others have nova’d and their offspring have nova’d, so how did this star live so long? Perhaps it’s as you say, and it only looks old?
Dr.Lincoln Thank you very much for answering my question. That means a lot. Was waiting for your new video eagerly. I am a 15 year old and that is what we are not taught in our classrooms.
lol when i was that age my science teachers were fed up with me and my questions ... we didn't have u tube in those days, so count yourself fortunate!!
No, he did not answer your question. He just tried to put you to sleep "that everything is ok and there is no cause for concern, even though there is 80% chance the start seems older than the universe!
This isn't hard to follow.. I have a great aunt... And we don't have her birth certificate... And she's like anywhere from 95 to 115 years old... And her daughter is like 77 - 97 years... And while there's a small chance her daughter is older then her.... We don't think it's likely.
0:38 "It's often said that if the title of a video is a question, the answer to that question is no." Me: pauses to check recommended video list _Why does light slow down in water?_ *No.*
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory A new method for detecting the signal of dark matter (axion) as soon as possible And that is through the Squeezing the quantum noise Bigger bandwidth, faster search Our team succeeded in squeezing the noise in the HAYSTAC detector. But how did we use this to speed up the axion search? Quantum squeezing doesn’t reduce the noise uniformly across the axion detector bandwidth. Instead, it has the largest effect at the edges. Imagine you tune your radio to 88.3 megahertz, but the station you want is actually at 88.1. With quantum squeezing, you would be able to hear your favorite song playing one station away. In the world of radio broadcasting this would be a recipe for disaster, because different stations would interfere with one another. But with only one dark matter signal to look for, a wider bandwidth allows physicists to search faster by covering more frequencies at once. In our latest result we used squeezing to double the bandwidth of HAYSTAC, allowing us to search for axions twice as fast as we could before. Quantum squeezing alone isn’t enough to scan through every possible axion frequency in a reasonable time. But doubling the scan rate is a big step in the right direction, and we believe further improvements to our quantum squeezing system may enable us to scan 10 times faster. We ask physicists to use this new method in order to detect the cold dark matter signal Send this aforementioned requirement along with the link to the news to the experimental physicists money.yahoo.com/search-dark-matter-gets-speed-161001183.html
@@willberham I was being a little short yesterday. Thought it funny. But on greater reflection and a good sleep, I'm hoping I'm right in a A55 about t1t sort of way. A remnent of a much older system. That somehow found its way to the observable surface we perceive.
Wouldn't it be easier to assume the obvious? That it's really hard to get an accurate measurement of a star's age/O content from 200 ly away rather than assume that we got the star's age right but screwed up half a dozen different ways to measure the age of the universe that all just happen to agree within statistical error?? Crazy theists.
*Measuring* spectra of stars is one of the easiest things an astronomer can do. *Estimating* the age of the universe, on the other hand... there's always room for mistakes.
They are probably more likely to be off in the age of the universe than the age of this star, in that the universe is probably older than they think it is.
@@rdizzy1 Well, when i was in school in the 1980's the common quote was 12-20B years. Interesting how they can narrow that down to 13.77B give or take 40M in 40 years. Seems they wouldn't be giving that many significant digits if they were still off by billions.
To me, the issue of Methuselah's age is an indicator of a much more interesting question. It's not "does it disprove the Big Bang?" but rather "what mistakes might we be making in estimates of star age?" Clearly we could use some refinement in our measurements and I'm eager to learn why our estimates on it are so wild and what technology we could develop or understanding we could find that will improve our ability to measure star ages.
Well to answer your question buddy currently our best technology is simple. Measuring light. No seriously it's literally measuring the light from the star and analyse it's spectroscopy with the spectral image of the elements we have on Earth for example oxygen hydrogen iron like that. And then we make some calculations as to the ratio of the elements and the spectral line differences through that we can measure alot of stuff. There is barely any radical innovation or change in doing astronomy and cosmology like this because light is the fastest travelling " information " we can analyse. It will never be achieved by any man made space craft. Are there other ways ? Not exactly when it comes to studying stuff that are light years away. For hypothetical speculation let's say we develop a technology where we send some signals to a planet and measure what bounces back.. when we send it and it reaches the solar system our whole civilisation could be dead. So yeah spectroscopy in all wavelengths of light and all kinds of radiation on the EM spectrum is the best tool we got in da house. Hope it helped cheers
Oh yeah one more thing to add. So how do we EXACTLY measure the age of a star does not only depend on spectroscopy but also from another thing called luminosity of the star. Basically how bright that is. If it's pretty bright we can say it's burning more and more fuel thus we can predict from how much mass it got and the composition of the outer atmosphere and the decay of those elements and arrive to an estimate of how old this star could have been to have been burning like that at that specific rate. This is what Makes Methusala a tough cookie to crack. The luminosity flux and the mass tell a story of a star as early as the big bang. But one of my personal I cant say theories but more like evidence less speculation is that.. recently we observed a start called Tabbys star. And there was this weird luminosity flux drop. Which was unexplainable till we figured that it's due to a planet going boom and it's dust going around the star. So just like this, maybe the planets in Methusala system went boom too and has an interplanetary disk which could be causing a diffusion in light before it reaches us. Which could be giving us false spectroscopy results and leading to issues with estimation. And also there is another issue of a strong gravitational field affecting the light from Methusala A celestial body something like a blackhole. Which could be fluctuating the luminosity constantly. Despite what science fiction has you believed you can't see primordial blackholes. And unless you are looking for em you can't notice them easily. So maybe there is a small blackhole on the highway of light travelling from Methusala which could be causing a fluctuation in luminosity of the star ? But hey these are just my speculations
@@observeoutofthebox7806 Yes you measure the light with the light speed as constant. That means that you haven't seen the lecture of Don about the law of Snell. You see the light from the distance of 14 G Ly isn't travels through empty space but through between galaxies space. This space isn't empty you know it now, and you know that the density of the material is different in spot from spot. So, the speed of light isn't the same but changes it is decreases if a layer is most concentrated than air, again when is pass through this layer in another again takes the speed that corresponds to the new n, of the new layer. So, actually you do know nothing. You can tell me where I am wrong.
@@slideglide9418 a coin is never weightless as in 'without mass' and the actual weight is always relative to another mass. (The moon is weightless relative to the earth: just floating around). A tossed coin is weightless until it touches the ground (or table, or hand).
Yeah. For a physicist, he's pretty weak in his application of basic logic. Big Bang skeptics: "The chances that this star is younger than the universe is half that of it being older." This guy: "So you're telling me there's a chance!"
It's because there are out there some people that's scared to put the Universe in an older age. Like they will have to weight in some "interesting" possibilities if you catch my meaning
@@kylekissack4633 Dark matter and dark energy are always included in data that's used to measure any aspect in which their properties are relevant. Unrelated side note- You wrote; "... so much more then just the...". "Then" should be "than". I've noticed more and more people mixing up the two words. I'm sure in some cases (possibly yours, too) it's just a simple typo, but it looks like a lot of people are genuinely confused about when to use the word "than" and when to use the word "then", despite the two words having very different meanings. Than 1: used to introduce the second element in a comparison. "they go out less than they did when they first moved to Paris" 2. used in expressions introducing an exception or contrast. "they observe rather than act" Then 1. at that time; at the time in question. "I was living in Cairo then" 2. after that; next; afterward. Definitions pasted from Google when searched, "Define Than" and "Define Then".
@@Nick-hv8gj Also, dark energy and dark matter are not necessarily "invisible" or "non-reactable" or "immeasurable" in totality. We just don't have the tech currently. 100 years from now they could very well be "seeing" and "measuring" dark energy or dark matter or both.
@@kalicom2937 Though I am aware that Errors and the study of inaccuracy is an area of Physics, the probability part which Dr Don used is clearly an area of Math. I am not criticising or anything (*for I am not qualified to do so) I am just pointing out the inaccuracies "probably".
@@scientisthere Still not sure I follow you. Maths is a pure, theoretical, discipline and it is either right or wrong. Physics is the application of maths to explain observed phenomena (as a general rule, at least). In creating mathematical models of what is observed you have to do certain things: Come up with a hypothesis of what you think may be going on; create a mathemtical model that fits with that hypothesis - which requires you to make some assumptions in order to make the maths "workable"; Test said theory against observations. Rinse and repeat until observations and theory match to a high level of correlation. Result of all of this? You cannot prove a physics theory, you can only amass sufficient evidence that gives the physics community more (or less) confidence a theory (and it mathematical framework) are close to being correct. Good example is General Relativity - lots of evidence that shows this theory is 100% spot on BUT it does not explain dark matter and dark energy, quantum gravity and so on. So, you have to conclude that it is either wrong or incomplete. My bet is incomplete. A maths theorem, on the other hand, can be 100% proved or 100% disproved - not the same thing at all.
@@rog2224OP was: Dr Don : We solved using sound "physics" principles All Math letchurers : Hmmmmm......... Still don't get the mmmm. The implication is that the Physics guys are wrong because mathematics lecturers are "mmmming" at their results. Well yes, the Physics guys ARE wrong because they can NEVER be 100% right even if the maths is 100% correct - unlike mathematicians! They are different disciplines. And mathematicians and physicists know it. So why the humphing?
YECs "There are stars older than the universe! Checkmate!" Everyone else "Uh, wouldn't that also still mean that YEC is still false and that the cosmos is quite old compared to those claims." YECs "..."
No it would just mean there’s an error in scientific measurement of either the age of the universe, age of stars, or both. As of to what degree we would have no idea. What’s YEC?
Last time I took a measurement with my equipment (calipers, micrometers) I get an exact measurement, within error factor of .00001", or a factor of 100 times smaller than the value being measured. How do you KNOW the initial concentration of elements? If 20% being right is good play Russian Roulette with 4 rounds loaded in a five shot revolver.
It's the data we have here and now and can work with or should one do nothing and stop wondering what this is all about. I mean sure would be cool if some alien civilization who know more would tell us,..
@@Medellinish this is no excuse to derrive the wildest ideas just because you humanoids dont have the means to explore. Be humble and say: We dont know and our math constructs limit us to "this", so we cant see "that". At least thats honest ;)
@@charlesborden8111 yeah but dont explore a human woman by demanding access to her punani. "You" dont just walk up to a her and say "I know you have a dark hole downstairs and I can access it because I know about it!"
It sounds like you have a preconceived notion of what the age of the universe is especially when you make statements that it is obvious that the stars have to be younger than 13.6 billion years. With that statement you rejected all possibilities that the universe is older than that.
Yea I got a weird vibe when he said that too, almost like hes trying to push an ideology on me. Not a very scientific way to look at things, especially with something as strange as this situation
The Universe is much older than we think. The ~14 billion year age is based on an unfortunate discovery: The Hubble Constant Hubble's Cosmic Redshift in general is not caused by Galaxies moving away from us due to the "expansion of the Universe". All Photons being made of EM Fields and Waves loose "energy" to the EM Field over time due to Dispersion like any other EM Wave. As the Photons loose energy they expand in size and their wavelength gets larger (red shift). More specifically, Photons (as are all particles) are made of EM Field Kinetic Dipole Particles flowing within the particles quantum superfluid which a Bose-Einstein Condensate of EM Dipole Particles. The Vacuum is full of the "gaseous" state of EM Dipole Particles and the Planck Length is proportional to the RMS distance between EM Field Dipole Particles within the EM Field or "Tesla's Electromagnetic Gas". As the Photon passes through the EM Field of the Vacuum it collides with Vacuum EM Field Dipoles which slowly get kicked out of the Photon over time (billions of years). The individual EM Dipoles get kicked out they carry energy (mass/velocity) away as they reenter the roles of Vacuum's EM Dipoles. It takes ~30-50 billion years to Redshift visible Photons into Microwaves. Photons are unstable in the Microwave range and fall apart (evaporate) creating Microwave ripples in the EM Field (CMB). All Photons Red Shift Naturally due to Dispersion. The Universe is Not Expanding. Galaxies do move away from super voids (pressure)! The length to the Visible Universe is the distance it takes for Photons to Redshift into Oblivion (not an age of the universe thing)! We will NEVER SEE PHOTONS MORE THAN 50 billion simply due to dispersion of EM dipole particles from Photons. The Hubble Constant gauges Photon Dipole Dispersion, not the assumed COSMIC EXPANSION (which is not occurring)! Methuselah Star is actually further away than think! More like double the distance away! Use First Principles and you too will understand that Space and Time Do Not Bend and Do Not Warp! BRAVE
I’ve always felt it to be very unsatisfactory to hear it said “The big bang created the Universe.” To me it seems likely that the big bang was just part of some process that could in theory be studied and understood.
Well, it would be more accurate to say the big bang started the development of the universe. We don't yet know what created the universe in its initial state. Like you say, it's probably part of a process, but we currently have no way of studying what happened before the Big Bang
The big bang is kind of like that murder mystery cold case; in this case a several billion year old cold case. We've got some evidence by not nearly as much as we'd like and no obvious way to get more from before the last scattering. We're left to extrapolate from what we can see.
@@adrianruiz1139 I find it amusing honestly because in my mind it takes far more faith to believe the universe blasted itself into existence from absolutely nothing or an infinitely dense point, than the idea of a cosmic entity beyond our understanding. Not that I claim one is correct over the other, but I do find it oddly hypocritical of "sCiEnCe" over faith. When the vast majority of science is half ass guesses on things we barely have even had the technology to even glimpse at in the past couple hundred years lol.
I probably am not the first person to say this. But it is laughable that you do not consider yourself to have any bias. It's your own bias that confirms you're indeed not biased in any way.
The super religious zealots will use ANY excuse to defend themselves. For an amusing reference please see the weighing of a duck in monty python and the holy grail =p
So a 20% chance that the star is younger than the BB? Sounds reasonable. But then an 80% chance it's older? So the 20% is more important than the 80% because it just confirms our current understanding? I don't doubt the BB but I'm uneasy about cherry-picking statistics either way. I think the problem isn't stats, but our basic understanding of the science (for which there's plenty of precedence in cosmology).
Good explanation, but isn't the Methuselah star a population II star? Those did not form until after the type III stars, right? So it's not as if the Methuselah star could have formed right at the beginning of the universe. Wouldn't that make the odds even more remote that it formed after the Big Bang? I'm assuming you'd have to wait even longer for this population II star to have formed (say .5 - 1 billion years). So, even if Methuselah is on the younger side of the estimate and is "only" 13.5 billion years old, would it have had time to form that quickly after the big bang, since population 3 stars had to exist first, in order to provide the seeds for population II stars?
The actual conundrum is that a star of about the same age as the universe ended up only 200 light years from our solar system. This is an astonishing coincidence. What kind of stellar anomalies will we find on the other side of this unique galaxy
@@markxxx21 despite that, he said 15% chance the star is younger than the estimate of the universe. Therefore, he concludes "no" to the title. XD... 15% > 85% ???
One exception doesnt disprove the hundreds of thousands of observations that confirm it - thats not how statistics and the scientific method works.... but it does show that even though our understanding of the physical world has come a long way in the last 200 years, we've still got a looong looong way to go. Write your local congressperson to ensure NASA and astrophysical studies get the funding they need! Remember, if the US government diverted 1% of defence funding in a year, that'd be enough money for several more launches in a year, or another JWST.
"There are three types of stars: populations 1, 2, and 3. The first stars are population 3 stars." I wanna be a physicist when I grow up so I can number things all willy nilly whenever I feel like it.
And speak shite, and people will believe you. There's one more deduction to be stated, theories on the origins of the universe, distance measurements and star life and formation are incongruent. They know shite, and speak shite, but no one can deny they're good at maths.
“We’d have heard about it from the press.” LOL, I must be living in an alternate universe - current “follow the science reporters” are science-brain-dead!
This is why I find it so funny when people try to claim science is fact when it’s actually consensus. The science community is in a constant state of proving itself and at any given moment has a set of findings that scientist have come to agree on with the given data at that time. When new data is discovered or a better theory cause agreement to shift, the “facts” change. Just remember, you float a theory (a guess on how something works), you test over an over and see if the data is consistent given the variables as you understand them, then you share it with others who test objectively in the same manner, then everyone decides if they agree. When new data comes along....busted and replaced. This is the scientific method.
Sorry, but 14 billion years is not enough to create a galaxy, let alone the whole universe! What if what we are seeing is the universe is actually collapsing. Sort of like when you sit in your car and see a truck moving faster than you.
No offense but you speak with such certainty about something you admit has a 1/5 chance of being older than the universe. Science should be about learning the truth not moving the goalposts
Thank you for the explanation. It is so annoying when scientists state something as fact rather than declare the uncertainty of the measurement. Definitive statements like "the star is" should not be used. I hear declarations of fact constantly in regards to dark matter and dark energy which is preposterous. If the best calculation achieved yields a 70% chance, the word "is" and statements like "very precise" should not be used simply to justify their jobs. It gives people the impression scientists are careless and willing to mislead in order to get their name out there. I have great respect for scientists which is why declaring fact of measurement with such a large margin of error or of an unknown annoys me so much.
If instead of dehumanizing a class of individuals with the tin foil hat image, you instead focused only on scientific argument, you undoubtedly would have won. The dehumanizing of those with an opposing view at 1:12 into your video is where I switched it off. Insulting others isn't scientific debate.
Not sure im satisfied with the answers given, if this star is not older than the Universe then its pretty much just as old but if you look at what they say happened in the early Universe they say first we have the Big Bang then a little time passes and the first massive monster class three starts appear then they go through their life cycles explode then some time passes and the gasses and elements form the class two stars of which Methuselah is, sooooo how long did all that stuff i mentioned take to happen in order for Methuselah to be born ????? if what they say is true and Methuselah is just about as old as the Universe then it sure formed pretty damn fast, and how is it still burning fuel after nearly fourteen billion years when a star like ours that burns longer since its a class one star is pretty much half way through its life cycle in just five billion years???? Something tells me they are WAY off on the age of things in the Universe.
The history of science tells us that believing you have reached a "fundamental understanding" of anything is mostly an exercise in hubris. And I am saying that as a scientist and engineer. What science has really done for us is to understand things well enough to be useful.
@@KevinJDildonik you are not looling at atoms and what you see is not getting older. You are seeing light (absorbtion of photons in your retina) that left that star 13.8 B years ago
@@KevinJDildonik They can tell the age by age of the star by spectrum. Then just add how long it took to get here in light years which they know from local Cephiads and parrallex to get true age. Doesn't depend on location.
