Monday, July 29, 2019

Universe, Brimley both younger than you thought

The universe just pulled a Wilfred Brimley on us.

You read that right.

According to a recent NBC news article, several recent studies were conducted in an attempt to confirm that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, an estimate made after astronomers analyzed the European Planck space telescope's measurements of cosmic radiation.

The studies didn't confirm the age. Instead, many found that the universe is only about 12.5 billion years old.

It's younger than expected! That's (hoping his math is correct) a 1.3-billion-year difference. By percentages, it's the difference between being 45 and 50.

Those are important, because 50 is how old Brimley was when he starred in "Cocoon." Yes, 50. For context, Tom Cruise is now seven years older than Brimley was when he appeared in that film.

Like the universe, Wilfred Brimley was younger than we thought.

The universe age discrepancy led to the biggest space-time argument since the famous 1968 "Kirk vs. Spock" brawl that shut down the National Association of Astronomers meeting in Denver because, as you'll see below, not everyone agrees.

This dispute comes from how scientists interpret the data – with a side argument on the necessity of the "c" in "Planck" in the name of the telescope (most of us believe the c isn't needed).

This dispute goes back to 1929, when astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered the universe was expanding. That meant universe had a definite age – its birth was the time it began expanding.

Hubble's discovery led to the theory of the Big Bang, which led to the idea that we could figure out the age of the universe by figuring out when the Big Bang happened, which presumably led to the name of the 1984 Hall and Oates album "Big Bam Boom," which included "Out of Touch" and "Method of Modern Love."

Back on track: astronomers believe the universe has an age that we can discover. Decades after Hubble, the Planck space telescope came into play and made the age calculation possible by figuring out how fast the universe is expanding.

Astronomers concluded the age was 13.8 billion years. Until recent studies reveal the universe is growing at a faster rate than Planck predicted, which means the universe is younger than expected.

The NBC news article on the issue included this line: "given the stakes, everyone involved is checking and rechecking their results," which seems weird. I mean, the stakes don't seem that big, right? Does it really matter whether the universe is 12.5 billion years old or 13.8 billion years old? Both were before I was born.

Apparently it matters. The NBC story was headlined, "The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought. Scientists are scrambling to figure out why" and three weeks later, an article on Forbes' website was  headlined "No, The Universe Cannot Be A Billion Years Younger Than We Think."

Reading both made me feel like I was caught in an argument between an old married couple, but it's ultimately a science argument. This is what decided it for me: The Forbes article contained too many mathematical formulas and capitalized the word "universe" on every reference. I side with the NBC people.

But let's review what we know: The universe is only 12.5 billion years old.  Wilfred Brimley was 50 when he filmed "Cocoon." Bim Bam Boom was a solid album. Planck doesn't need the "c."

Who says science can't be fun?

Reach Brad Stanhope at bradstanhope@hotmail.com.

No comments:

Post a Comment