Why the "Methuselah Star" does not disprove the Big Bang (2024)

The vast majority of astronomers accept the Big Bang — the theory that the Universe began about 13.8 billion years ago in a fiery cataclysm. However, this idea is not accepted by everyone. Some Big Bang skeptics claim that the Universe is about 6,000 years old, while others claim that the Universe is eternal. Despite their disagreement with each other, they both agree that the theory of the Big Bang is wrong, and one observation they point to is the existence of stars with an estimated age that is older than the Universe itself. If such a star existed, indeed, it would be a death knell for the Big Bang.

The “Methuselah Star”

HD 140283, more colorfully called the “Methuselah Star,” is most certainly old and is generally accepted to be one of the oldest known stars. A paper published in 2013 estimated its age to be 14.45 billion years old, with an uncertainty of ±0.8 billion years. This is older than the most precise estimate that we have for the age of the Universe, 13.797 ± 0.023 billion years.

While the Methuselah Star is not unique (meaning that there are other stars that are similarly old), it is the oldest star for which the quoted uncertainty is relatively low, and thus it is considered by those individuals who disbelieve the Big Bang as supplying the strongest case against the theory.

A star is born

Astronomers believe that HD 140283 is old because the star has a very low “metallicity.” Metallicity, for astronomers, is a measure of the percentage of the chemical makeup of a star consisting of elements other than hydrogen and helium.

When the cosmos began, the Universe consisted nearly entirely of hydrogen (75%) and helium (25%), with a tiny trace of heavier elements (~0.01%). (Those percentages reflect the mass content; when simply counting atoms, hydrogen was 92% and helium 8%.) This also was the elemental composition of the earliest stars, which formed perhaps as early as 100 million years after the Big Bang. These stars, which astronomers call Population III stars, were much heavier and brighter than the Sun, and in their hearts, stellar fusion cooked the first types of heavier elements. Population III stars lived only a few million years before exploding in supernovae, which blasted their heavier elements across the cosmos.

The heavy elements mixed with hydrogen and helium gas, forming Population II stars, and the process repeated itself again, with these later supernovae adding even heavier elements to the cosmos. The result was Population I stars, which have a relatively high composition of heavier elements. Our Sun is a Population I star.

However, the Methuselah Star is a Population II star: a cosmic relic from the very birth of the Universe. It has far less oxygen and iron than, for example, our Sun. Astronomers use a combination of a measurement of the brightness of the star, the observed percentages of non-hydrogen and non-helium elements, and sophisticated models of stellar evolution to determine the star’s age. And, as mentioned previously, in 2013, astronomers estimated an age older than the Universe. So, is this a real problem? Is HD 140283 a death knell for the Big Bang?

Uncertainty matters

No. For one, other calculations of the star’s age suggest that it is younger. One estimate in 2015 suggests an age of 13.7 ± 0.7 billion years, while an estimate in 2021 suggests an even earlier age of 12 ± 0.5 billion years. The fact that different scientists estimate such a range of ages means that the discrepancy is much ado about nothing.

And even if the seemingly problematic 2013 estimate were 100% reliable, we need to be cautious. Most importantly, we must not just compare the point estimate for the age of the star with that of the Universe (that is, 14.45 vs. 13.797 billion years), but we must also consider the uncertainties. The uncertainty for the estimate of the age of the Methuselah Star is ±0.8 billion years, meaning the actual age of the star is somewhere between 13.65 and 15.25 billion years. (More technically, there is a 70% chance that the actual age of the star is within that range, and a 30% chance that it is outside of it. This further means that there is a 15% chance that the actual age of HD 140283 is less than 13.65 billion years.)

While the 2013 estimate of the Methuselah Star’s age suggests that it could be older than the Universe, the fact that this estimate is also consistent with the star being younger than the Universe is why the scientific community does not find it to be a problem. It is only an issue among those who want to disprove the theory of the Big Bang.

Tags

In this article

Why the "Methuselah Star" does not disprove the Big Bang (2024)

FAQs

Why can't the Big Bang be proven? ›

Existing technology doesn't yet allow astronomers to literally peer back at the universe's birth, much of what we understand about the Big Bang comes from mathematical formulas and models. Astronomers can, however, see the "echo" of the expansion through a phenomenon known as the cosmic microwave background.

What is the oldest known star in the universe how it disproves Big Bang theory? ›

The Universe is thought to be 13.797 billion years old, with an uncertainty of ±0.023 billion years. In 2013, a measurement of the “Methuselah Star” suggested that it is 14.45 billion years old — older than the age of the Universe. Critics of the Big Bang have seized upon this as evidence that the theory is wrong.

Why don't people believe in the Big Bang theory? ›

Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory: It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy. Critics claim that the big bang theory suggests the universe began out of nothing.

Who rejected the Big Bang theory? ›

Hoyle died in 2001 having never accepted the validity of the Big Bang theory. How, in the big-bang cosmology, is the microwave background explained? Despite what supporters of big-bang cosmology claim, it is not explained.

Is The Big Bang Theory 100% Proven? ›

A wide range of empirical evidence strongly favors the Big Bang event, which is now essentially universally accepted. Detailed measurements of the expansion rate of the universe place the Big Bang singularity at an estimated 13.787±0.020 billion years ago, which is considered the age of the universe.

Could the Big Bang theory be false? ›

Yes, at least in the scientific sense. That is to say, it makes testable predictions which, if they turn out to be wrong, would mean that the theory must be discarded. And, some of those predictions have been tested, some to very high precision, and turned out to be correct.

Does the Bible mention the Big Bang? ›

According to Genesis, the universe was created from a ball of energy and light that appeared suddenly from nothingness — exactly the same ball of energy and light described in the Big Bang theory.

What came first, God or the Big Bang? ›

According to the Book of Genesis, God created the universe - and all the heavenly bodies, the sun, the moon, and the stars - in six days. But according to contemporary cosmologists the universe began with a great explosion known as the Big Bang, after which the stars and galaxies slowly formed over billions of years.

What are the weakness of the Big Bang theory? ›

The shortcomings are the evidence for anomalous redshift, the age problem, the low abundances of helium, and the failure to find any feature in the MW background as predicted by the theories of structure formation. A few alternative hypotheses are suggested.

What existed before the Big Bang? ›

The initial singularity is a singularity predicted by some models of the Big Bang theory to have existed before the Big Bang. The instant immediately following the initial singularity is part of the Planck epoch, the earliest period of time in the history of our universe.

Why did Einstein reject the Big Bang? ›

No, Einstein initially rejected Big Bang ideas because he thought they were unphysical (i.e. not the way Nature worked) and he was not aware of any evidence that the universe was expanding (this was later provided by Edwin Hubble and others).

What counters The Big Bang Theory? ›

Along with two other scientists, he developed a counter-theory — the steady state model. The steady state model suggested that the universe had no beginning and had always been expanding.

Did Big Bang Really Happen? Scientist ...Courthouse News Servicehttps://www.courthousenews.com ›

Under the Big Bang scenario, an explosion occurred at the dawn of our universe 13.8 billion years ago that dispersed chemical elements across space which cooled...
2 - the cosmic microwave background radiation coming equally from all parts of the sky pretty much sealed the deal for an initial BB. The BB turned out to answe...
A Universe that expands and cools today, like ours[+][-] does, must have been hotter and denser in the past. Initially, the Big Bang was regarded as the singula...

Why is there no more Big Bang theory? ›

Summary. The Big Bang Theory was not canceled by the network, but rather ended because Jim Parsons decided not to renew his contract. Not all of the cast members wanted the show to end, with Kaley Cuoco being particularly shocked by the news.

Did Einstein reject the Big Bang theory? ›

At first he did not, and he proposed a model of a static universe. But when he saw the evidence from Hubble's measurements of the recession of galaxies, he accepted it, since an expanding universe, implying a Big Bang, was consistent with general relativity.

Could the Big Bang happen again? ›

The Big Crunch theory also leads into another hypothesis known as the Big Bounce, in which after the big crunch destroys the universe, it does a sort of bounce, causing another big bang. This could potentially repeat forever in a phenomenon known as a cyclic universe.

References

Top Articles
Latest Posts
Article information

Author: Nathanial Hackett

Last Updated:

Views: 5841

Rating: 4.1 / 5 (52 voted)

Reviews: 83% of readers found this page helpful

Author information

Name: Nathanial Hackett

Birthday: 1997-10-09

Address: Apt. 935 264 Abshire Canyon, South Nerissachester, NM 01800

Phone: +9752624861224

Job: Forward Technology Assistant

Hobby: Listening to music, Shopping, Vacation, Baton twirling, Flower arranging, Blacksmithing, Do it yourself

Introduction: My name is Nathanial Hackett, I am a lovely, curious, smiling, lively, thoughtful, courageous, lively person who loves writing and wants to share my knowledge and understanding with you.