135
What's the biggest plot hole in real life?
(lemmy.ca)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2023
135 points (94.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43811 readers
868 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Probably the stars that are older than the universe.
IIRC, they're too big to have formed in one of the ways we know and then continuously lost matter at the the rate they should have.
So one or more of the assumptions about how they could have formed or how they lost matter over time is wrong, right?
Nope. Older than the universe. Can't weasel your way out of this one science boy
Or we have the age of the universe wrong.
What
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_age_problem
We estimate the age of some stars to be older than the estimated age of the universe. JWST observations have also made it "worse". https://youtu.be/hps-HfpL1vc?si=H9tdTD3DJYLkalvx
Can't watch videos right now, but the wikipedia article says the problem has been solved around y2k by recalculating the age of the universe, and says nothing about JWST making this problem worse.
Some astronomers are looking at JWST data and claiming they are seeing galaxies with red shifts in the range of 11-20, which if accurate, correspond to ages older than we'd expect to see galaxies of such size formed. Other astronomers disagree, and believe that the results aren't so clear. This the "hubble tension" or "crisis in cosmology" maybe still live on.
It is exciting, either we get more data to confirm our current understanding or we need to discover be physics and form new theories that align with the data. Either way is great, imo.