Is the universe twice as old as we thought? New theory stuns astronomers

Recently, deep-sky images from the James Webb Space Telescope revealed a group of extraordinarily mature galaxies that appeared to defy cosmic timelines. They bore a striking resemblance to galaxies that would be expected billions of years after the Big Bang, rather than right after. A cosmic fault line was created by that visual discrepancy. The mirror and the math did not match.

Rajendra Gupta entered that gap. He proposed a theory that aims to almost double the age of everything, including stars, galaxies, and time itself. He is a physics professor at the University of Ottawa. In fact, the universe might be 26.7 billion years old, according to Gupta. That figure wasn’t chosen at random. After reevaluating long-disregarded theories and accounting for irregularities that astronomers haven’t been able to resolve, it was derived.

This expanded-age model is based in part on a daring return to the idea of “tired light,” which dates back to the 1930s. It suggests that light loses energy over long distances due to some subtle interaction or intrinsic fatigue rather than an expanding universe. Gupta isn’t just reusing that outdated concept. He combines it with another idea: that physical constants, such as the gravitational constant or the speed of light, might have changed gradually over time. Despite being unorthodox, this hybrid explanation aims to integrate multiple cosmic observations into a single story.

Key Facts: Universe Age Controversy

Combining these ideas, Gupta develops a theory that explains the formation of early galaxies without depending on theoretical processes like dark matter or inflation. Like a redirected river, his reasoning is unexpected but not wholly unrealistic. By doing this, he offers a framework that could account for cosmic background radiation, redshifts, and structural evolution over eons.

Many cosmologists are still skeptical, but not in a contemptuous way. One researcher said that Gupta’s model was “particularly innovative, but dangerously complicated” during a roundtable I recently attended at an astronomy seminar in Geneva. Its reliance on numerous assumptions, each of which must be independently verified before the model can acquire wider traction, is the source of this complexity.

Nevertheless, the theory has a recognizable historical cadence. In science, innovative concepts frequently begin on the periphery, where they are carefully examined and opposed. The concept of space and time was altered when Einstein first proposed relativity. Even when they are incorrect, the best ideas highlight flaws in the conventional wisdom. Not all audacious concepts turn out to be right.

Gupta’s model is especially intriguing because it raises issues that we stopped considering decades ago. A large portion of our cosmic distance ladder may need to be adjusted if light can actually lose energy regardless of redshift. That alters our perception of the speed, age, and shape of what we see, not just a few decimal places.

This way of thinking might seem like intellectual heresy to scientists who are firmly rooted in the Lambda-CDM model. The microwave background, structure formation, and even gravitational lensing are all remarkably well explained by that standard model. However, according to Gupta’s theory, there may be other explanations for the observations that do not call for an expanding universe that is traveling faster than physics should permit.

“This idea isn’t going to overthrow cosmology, but it might force it to stretch,” said a Cambridge theoretical physicist I interviewed via video call. She made a very clear point: in cosmology, new concepts don’t always take the place of the old. They occasionally polish them, removing sharp edges or providing an explanation for exceptions that didn’t have a voice before.

There is some justification for the skepticism regarding Gupta’s proposal. The absence of concrete evidence for either evolving constants or tired light is a significant worry. These behaviors have never been verified by a trustworthy laboratory experiment, and observational instruments are currently insufficiently sensitive to detect such gradual drifts over eons. His model is still theoretical until those measurements are obtained; it is creative, but it has not been validated.

Nevertheless, this theory is especially convincing because it explains anomalies that conventional cosmology is currently unable to account for. The unexpectedly mature galaxies observed by JWST were not anticipated. Considering how little time traditional models allow, they are remarkably large, structurally intricate, and appear remarkably ancient. Gupta has room to develop thanks to their extended timeline.

It also brings up more complex philosophical issues. What if time has always been a local approximation in our minds? What if the constants we consider to be fixed were, in reality, always moving targets? The ramifications are not limited to astronomy. They have an impact on our comprehension of motion, causality, and even memory.

The way that this dispute reflects the curiosity that characterizes science has a certain beauty. It’s not just about pursuing new models or defending outdated ones. It’s about following the evidence, even when it goes against our preferred course, and remaining receptive to difficult questions.

As of right now, the majority of astronomers continue to support the 13.8-billion-year estimate, which is supported by decades of solid data and proven predictions. However, the topic of discussion has changed. And it works incredibly well on its own. It indicates that, like the universe we’re attempting to measure, our knowledge of the cosmos is still growing and is far from comprehensive.

The universe may or may not be older than we previously believed, which could be the last lesson learned. But there has been a noticeable improvement in our ability to imagine what is possible.