Current Events > The Methuselah Star might be older than the universe.

(+) Yeah! (+)

If the universe is 13.8 billion years old, how can a star be more than 14 billion years old?

---

The Meth Star is a myth, worshipped only by Florida Man.

---

is that where reapers live by?

---

Its very likely not, and something not fully comprehended by out current science is misleading its age.

---

Prismsblade posted...

Its very likely not, and something not fully comprehended by out current science is misleading its age.

Science has changed both the age of the star and the universe multiple times, but it has always been older than the universe.

---

Foppe posted...

Science has changed both the age of the star and the universe multiple times, but it has always been older than the universe.

Based on that very same science such scenario is completely impossible though.

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddvW3_hiJjg

---

That's just a misconception of the data. The age estimate of the Methuselah star is + or - 800 million years. You basically need to either discard all of that margin that makes it older than the universe (which is just not possible)

So within that range, it actually puts it at forming in the first million years of the universe

Here's a more in depth read on the subject

https://www.reddit.com/r/askastronomy/comments/cns08z/comment/ewdcci7
---

As more data is gathered the information needs to be recalculated and updated with evidence that doesn't fit being discarded. It doesn't mean science is fake just that it's not perfect. That is why the peer review process exists, why scientists work to correct or disprove others work and why they keep looking for answers.

Not knowing everything is not a bad thing. The drive to learn more is a good thing.

---

MarqueeSeries posted...

That's just a misconception of the data. The age estimate of the Methuselah star is + or - 800 million years. You basically need to either discard all of that margin that makes it older than the universe (which is just not possible)

So within that range, it actually puts it at forming in the first million years of the universe

Here's a more in depth read on the subject

https://www.reddit.com/r/askastronomy/comments/cns08z/comment/ewdcci7

its likely the universe has expanded at different rates due to dark energy which we dont understand. A side effect of this is that 10 minutes in our local spacetime might have been vastly different than what 10 minutes was in the past. Time is relative

---

Time passes differently in the universe relative to the effects of gravity. There are places in the universe where more time has passed than the age of the universe due to a faster velocity.

A star close to a black hole could have been born 5 billion years ago, but have the age of a few million years because of the slow down from the extreme gravity.

Fall into a black hole, and as you fall further, the entirely of the universe's remaining life can pass you outside the effects of the black hole.

---

If that star formed shortly after the start of the universe, and it's only 200 lightyears away from us, wouldn't that mean we're relatively close to the location of the big bang?
---

lilORANG posted...

If that star formed shortly after the start of the universe, and it's only 200 lightyears away from us, wouldn't that mean we're relatively close to the location of the big bang?

No.

A. It was born during the second generation of stars. Most just didn't survive, but there's probably billions and trillions and quadrillions and quintillions of stars like that around the universe given the scale of the universe.

B. The rate of time passing in the Milky Way, or just that area, might have simply been faster than the average rate of time passing universally at some point in the past, thus accelerating its age.

C. It simply doesn't work like that. The Big Bang was space expanding itself. Everything was together and it happened everywhere.

---

Is that the star that let Cooler cheat death?

---

lilORANG posted...

If that star formed shortly after the start of the universe, and it's only 200 lightyears away from us, wouldn't that mean we're relatively close to the location of the big bang?

It is moving towards us at a speed of ~0.1% the speed of light.
We dont know what directions, speeds and when it started to move, but it was most likely much much further away when it was created.
Now that said, we have discovered 10 other stars in the Milky Way that are over 13 billion years old that got a range of 770-36,000 lightyears away, and only 3 of them are over 10,000 lightyears away.


---

lilORANG posted...

If that star formed shortly after the start of the universe, and it's only 200 lightyears away from us, wouldn't that mean we're relatively close to the location of the big bang?

Our galaxy has eaten multiple galaxies in its history. Its likely to have been captured in that manner. Andromeda will eventually eat the milky way.

---

Irony posted...

Is that the star that let Cooler cheat death?

That's the Big Gete Star.

---

solosnake posted...

Our galaxy has eaten multiple galaxies in its history. Its likely to have been captured in that manner. Andromeda will eventually eat the milky way.

There's no evidence of any nearby galactic merges this close to us. I mean, yes, possibly in the very early universe when it was born, but then it doesn't discount that it was probably just from this galaxy.

---

Not only have the Milky Way and Andromeda started to crash into each other, they have created new stars as well.

---

Foppe posted...

Not only have the Milky Way and Andromeda started to crash into each other, they have created new stars as well.

What? There's still an empty near 2.5 million light year void between both. It's gonna take a few more billions years for that.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

What? There's still an empty near 2.5 million light year void between both. It's gonna take a few more billions years for that.

Things have changed.
https://youtu.be/tg3jpzm_-PA

---

Foppe posted...

Things have changed.
https://youtu.be/tg3jpzm_-PA

I'm not sure what that video is about, so it would be great if you can summarize, but if it's about the recent discovery of the Milky Way being 200k light years instead of the old 100k light years estimate, then it doesn't change anything I said.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

I'm not sure what that video is about, so it would be great if you can summarize, but if it's about the recent discovery of the Milky Way being 200k light years instead of the old 100k light years estimate, then it doesn't change anything I said.

The Milky Way Halo is half the distance to Andromeda.

---

Foppe posted...

The Milky Way Halo is half the distance to Andromeda.

Can you link me to some articles about this instead of a YouTube star?

The Halo reaches to the extent of the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, which are about 200K light years. I've never seen an estimate of 1.25 million light years.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

Can you link me to some articles about this instead of a YouTube star?

The Halo reaches to the extent of the Small and Large Magellanic Clouds, which are about 200K light years. I've never seen an estimate of 1.25 million light years.

That Youtube star linked to the study written by people from places like...
Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Max-Planck-Institut fr Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany
Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Physics and Astronomy,University of Victoria, PO Box 3055 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, Canada

But since you wont trust him enough to actually watch his video, why would you trust the paper or me linking to it?

---

Foppe posted...

That Youtube star linked to the study written by people from places like...
Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Max-Planck-Institut fr Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany
Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Physics and Astronomy,University of Victoria, PO Box 3055 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, Canada

But since you wont trust him enough to actually watch his video, why would you trust the paper or me linking to it?

Because YouTube stars have agendas due to being primarily motivated by money and not simply passing along information?

Like I'm 100% open to more information on this. I'm not acting like an expert on this. I'm always learning.

Articles are easier to read and digest and I'm pretty busy right now to watch a video. But it's moreso because I tried looking for articles myself and I don't really see shit on this.

---

InfinityMonster posted...

Foppe posted...

That Youtube star linked to the study written by people from places like...
Institute for Computational Cosmology, Department of Physics, University of Durham, South Road, Durham DH1 3LE, UK
Max-Planck-Institut fr Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Str. 1, D-85748, Garching, Germany
Enrico Fermi Institute, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637, USA
Department of Physics and Astronomy,University of Victoria, PO Box 3055 STN CSC, Victoria, BC, V8W 3P6, Canada

But since you wont trust him enough to actually watch his video, why would you trust the paper or me linking to it?

Because YouTube stars have agendas due to being primarily motivated by money and not simply passing along information?

Like I'm 100% open to more information on this. I'm not acting like an expert on this. I'm always learning.

Articles are easier to read and digest and I'm pretty busy right now to watch a video. But it's moreso because I tried looking for articles myself and I don't really see shit on this.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.09497v1
---

your mom is older than the universe

13.8 billion is just the age of what we've observed of based off "maybe" accurate estimations of the age of stars, blips of twinkles in the sky, CMB, etc.
There's something in the universe older than that; then the universe is just older than we thought.

---

SunCider posted...

There's something in the universe older than that; then the universe is just older than we thought.

There's no reason to believe the hyper-singularity that farted out the big bang is at all unique.

HD 140283 has an estimated age of 14.46 0.8 billion years.

The universe has an estimated age of 13.799 0.021 billion years.

In other words, it's probably on the very young edge of the estimation, thereby making it one of the earliest stars still made after the Big Bang, or it's a simple matter of not fully understanding the stellar evolution of it yet.

---

A lot of the math depends on g being constant, but there's scuttlebutt that it's not.