How old is the Universe? There was a “breaking” news story last week which announced that a new study “suggests” it is 26.7 billion years, and not the 13.8-billion-year dating scientists have been using for many decades now. This new dating addresses a conundrum that has puzzled astrophysicists over the years that has only intensified with the many new images the Webb Telescope is producing: Numerous galaxies appear early but surprisingly grown up. The new dating would build in enough time to account for this phenomenon.
The study is authored by—the apparently “controversial”—physicist Rajendra Gupta. Another puzzle his new dating of the universe addresses is something called “tired light”—theoretically, as light travels through space, it should inherently “radiate”, losing energy and, thereby, becoming “tired” before it reaches the observer. Light shouldn’t therefore be presumed to be constant, as is done in the traditional calculation of 3.8 billion years. Rather, it is variable. As it travels through space, it decelerates, slows down. And this factor, according to Gupta’s estimate, adds roughly 6 billion more years to the age of the Universe.
Gupta also argues that the fundamental constants used in the traditional dating of the Universe shouldn’t all be presumed to be constant, but, as in the case of light, variable. He claims that these “covarying fundamental constants” also add to the age of the Universe. This is where he gets the other 6 plus billion years in his new estimate.
Of course, this new proposal hasn’t been peer reviewed by other scientists to see if it has any validity—a vetting process which might take years before any change in scientific consensus on the age of the Universe might take place. But the way it was presented in the breaking new story I saw was as if it is the new scientific consensus! No mention that it has to be peer reviewed first. No mention that the study merely “suggests” a new dating is in order. No mention that Gupta apparently has a reputation in the scientific community of being “controversial” and, while controversial scientists frequently do turn out to be right, given that he does not represent the mainstream consensus of science, should be treated with a certain measure of skepticism.
In fact, as I tried to learn more about this new study, I could only find one article that even attempted to engage Gupta’s proposal—everything else I found simply parroted the news story I saw. And with the same misleading implication that this is the new scientific consensus. But the one article that did critique this new study was quite enlightening. While it welcomed and even celebrated Gupta’s proposal for the way it could potentially resolve the puzzle of galaxies that appear early but also surprisingly grown up, it pointed to four, clearly established observations astrophysicists have made over the years that makes Gupta’s proposal completely untenable. Right off the bat. A total non-starter.
For Gupta to be correct, he has to presume two things: “Tired Light” and “covarying fundamental constants”. But the consistent observations of science, which have only been affirmed by the new images coming from the Webb Telescope, show that neither occur. In other words, empirical observations show that the assumptions in the traditional dating were accurate. Thus, without the necessary variants in the calculations his dating requires, Gupta’s proposal completely falls apart. It lacks scientific verification.
For example, here’s one of the four ways his requirements immediately falter: The idea of “tired light” was first proposed by a physicist named Fritz Zwicky in 1929. But right away, even Zwicky, its proponent, admitted, that while it makes sense theoretically, “tired light” is not viable. The reason? If light got “tired”, the Universe would get “blurrier” the further away we look. It doesn’t. Including in the latest images we have. We simply don’t observe what we should if “tired light” was a true phenomenon. So, from empirical observation, the perspective of good science, it’s an easy call. No matter how much “tired light” makes sense theoretically, it doesn’t hold true in the real, observable world. The theory lacks empirical verification, which is what science is all about, after all.
As the article went on to cite three other empirical observations that contradict what Gupta’s proposal would require to be true, it concluded that, from the perspective of good science—the way, as a discipline, the essence of science is to test out speculative ideas, intuitions, proposals, and theories, and either verify or refute them through observation—we can “overwhelmingly conclude” that Gupta’s new dating doesn’t correspond to actual reality, that the 13.8 billion year dating still holds as the best scientific calculation for the age of the Universe. (Big Think, “Is the Universe 13.8 or 26.7 billion years old?” Starts with a Bang—July 18, 2023, https//bigthink.com)
I’m not raising all of this to argue for any specific dating of the Universe. You may believe Gupta is right and that the Universe is much older than presently thought, some 26.7 billion years old. And who knows, further observations and/or new discoveries might prove him right. You may accept the traditional dating of the Universe as 13.8 billion years old as accurate. You may have found good reason to think the Universe is much younger. Regardless, the article is a great example of how good science works. It is empirical, not speculative. Someone proposes a theory. Science tests it to see if it is verified in real world observations. If it is, it is accepted. If it isn’t, it is tabled.
I raise all of this because the mountain of empirical data modern astrophysics has provided us with leads us to “overwhelmingly conclude” that the odds of a life-supporting planet like ours are so astronomically unlikely as to be impossible—without, that is, some kind of Intelligent Creator responsible for it. This is what good science tells us, plain and simple.
Even those scientists who don’t think there is an Intelligent Creator behind the Universe acknowledge this. That’s why many modern physicists are now arguing for the idea of an infinite number of universes—while there are many variations to such theorizing, it is usually simplified and subsumed under the catch phrase of the “multiverse”. If some kind of multiverse does exist, then, theoretically, there are enough conceivable combinations to make a life-supporting planet like ours possible.
But, the multiverse theory is entirely speculative. If some kind of multiverse does exist, it is presently beyond our powers of observation. And most physicists believe it will always remain that way—because it is beyond our space-time continuum, we have no realistic expectation that we could ever find a way to observe it.
As I understand it, the multiverse concept is based largely on String Theory. But String Theory is also speculative. And it, too, may prove beyond our ability to observe or verify. The way I’ve heard it explained, the reality of the multiverse depends on whether String Theory can prove out that there are ten or, alternatively, eleven dimensions to reality. If eleven, the multiverse may be implied. It’s in. If ten, then not. It’s out. But all this is very abstract and still probably won’t ever allow for empirical verification.
As esteemed physicist Leonard Susskind, one of those scientists who believes in a multiverse, has admitted, if String Theory doesn’t pan out, it puts “us”—i.e., those scientists like him who believe in some kind of multiverse—“in a very awkward position”, because they’d be hard-pressed to explain actual reality any other way. Good science, what we can empirically observe, would demand that they acknowledge some kind of Intelligent Creator.
But, at least at present, and probably indefinitely into the future, the multiverse is entirely speculative. Not good science. At least not yet. And, being beyond our powers of observation, it is likely that it never will be good science.
So, at present, the best science, what we do empirically observe, leads us to “overwhelmingly conclude” that a Rational Creator exists. What we do observe in actual reality clearly points to the existence of God.
So what do you think the age of the Universe is? Did you hear anything about this new dating? What do you think about it? Do you think good science points to God? You can share your comments with me on the “Contact E. J.” page of the Raising Jesus website. I look forward to hearing them!
