Stars older than the Universe.

Request for links

The Age problem of Stars has been a recurring topic in this forum in a number of threads and perhaps someone could provide some links to the actual papers. I have posted this originally as part of a discussion of my Uniform Expansion Theory, but I think a separate post would be helpful.

I had mentioned that there were professional astrophysicists asserting that there is an age problem with some stars apparently older than the universe.

The following link and post number 21 summarized the abstracts written on the topic in the last decade or so,
Stars Older than Universe

Perhaps someone here could provide a link to some of the papers for review by other members interested in this topic.

I have only spent a few hours in comparing the papers but it is my opinion that the individuals and groups that are asserting there is an age problem are conducting the best analysis.

Also, I should point out that ALL the stars studied are older than the universe if the expansion of the universe was “flat”, (meaning that there is no dark energy). Age of universe, if it were “Flat”, is 2/3 1/Ho = 10 billion years.

For my theoretical model, such an age problem should be occurring. The effect of gravity is a function of time in my model and an increased effect of gravity in the past would accelerate the evolution of a star much faster than is presently assumed.

For critics of the limited expansion model, (a Big Bang model that stops the expansion of spacetime at the boundary of galaxies), these papers are noteworthy.

Thank you

Snowflake

Letters to Nature

Nature 409, 691-692 (8 February 2001) |
Measurement of stellar age from uranium decay
R. Cayrel et al.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../409691a0.html

(15.6 +/- 4.6 Gyr)

Fortunately for the BBT, stars older than 13.7 byr are all but invisible.

Age of Oldest Globular clusters --(From post number 21)
The following list includes the oldest ages of low metal Globular Clusters. The ages are organized chronologically by date of publication. It only includes those dates I could extract from every abstract available from - http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abstract_service.html

Date, .age x 10^9, first named on paper
1982=17 x +- 2 …Sandage Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 252, Jan. 15, 1982, p. 553-581
1982=16+ ………Nissen P.E
1983=16………….Carney B.W.not less than 10 to 12, Longer if rotation considered
1985 ….Vandenberg D.A Publishes article that ages of clusters can be reduced if C N O are involved with core reactions. The decreasing age of the universe indicated by expansion is forcing the necessity ……………….for looking explainatons allowing the reduction in the age of Globular Clusters. IN: ESO Workshop on ………………Production and Distribution of C, N, O Elements,
1986=16.3……….Buonanno. R
1986=13 +- 3……Quarta M.L.
1987=15 or less...Sil’chenko O.K
1988 =13 – 14……Vandenberg D.A.
1988=16 +- 3…….Giannone, P
1989 …………..Guzik, Joyce A proposes that mass loss may reduce turn off age from 18 to 12 billion years.
1989 =19 +-3……Buonanno,R
1990 …………….Dearborn, David proposes that “dark matter” may be responsible for the age problem with Globular clusters and also from the period fluctuations of RR Lyrae Stars

1992=20 +- 3 to 14 +- 2 Bruce. W depending on oxygen/Iron ratios at lower figures model inconcistent,Carney,
1992=17 +-2 …….Chaboyer, Brian
1993=14………….Sandage, Allen. By increasing observed brightness .25 mag via the “Oosterhoff period effect a reduction in age can be achieved. Sandage uses an age based upon 2/3 1/Ho and Ho 45 km/s per mpc (Still hoping for closure with accordance with General Relativity)
1993=15 to 18…..Bolte M.
1994=11 +- 1…… Shi Xiangdong By altering the initial helium abundance and mass loss rate at the formation of a Galactic cluster it is possible to reduce the age of a globular cluster 3 billion years.
1995 11- 21……. Chaboyer, Brian max variation in age of oldest clusters.
1995=16 ………… Folgheraiter, E.L. which can be reduced to by 2 with possible oxegen effects.
1995=14 +- 1.5…… Shi, Xiangdong
can be reduced to 11 +-1 after adjustment to helium concentrations and mass loss.
1995=14 …………. Mazzitelli, Iafter making 3 adjustments to evolution theory
1995=14.6 +- 1.7…Chaboyer, Brian
1996=15 –3 +5…… Vandenberg, Don A max variation
1996=……….. …….Grundahl, Frank It is becoming evident that when a globular cluster forms changes it’s apparent rate of aging a number of publications at this time
1996=16.4 +-.2…..Jimenez, Raul
1996=15.5…………Renzini, Alvio
1996=14 –18 reduced by Time-variation of Newton’s gravitational constant and the age of globular clusters
by deg’Innocenti,S: FiorentiniG: Raffelt,GG; Ricci,B; Weiss.A Astronmy and Astrophysics, v 312 p 345-352 A
1996=13.5 +- 2…….Jimenez, Raul potential reduction to 9.7
1996=13…………….Reid, N
1997=11.8 (+2.1, -2.5)..Gratton, R.G. Improved distance measures, plus all the assumptions necessary to reduce age.
1997=14 +/- 1.2……Pont.F
1997=12.6 Lowest 10.4.. Feast, M.W.
1997=12…………… D’Antona,F
1997=12. 2………….D’Antona. (Uses the “latest Equations of State” to reduce age
1997=16 +- 1……….Based upon clusters around other galaxies
1997=14 +- 3……….Bergbusch, Peter A
1997=11.8^{+2.1}_{-2.5}
1997=10……………Pont. F (was formally 13 –14) more accurate readings, plus a new theoretical model allows reduction. Hipparcos.
1997=14 +- 3……..Sagar, Ram
1998=11.5 +- 1.3…Chaboyer, Brian With the increase accuracy of distance measures due to Hipparcos, and a new theoretical model that reduces the evolutionary development of stars that diverge from the main sequence Chaboyer, Brian
1999=12.5 +- 1……Jimenez, Raul
2000=11 – 14………Pont,F
2000=12.9 +- 2.9…..Carretta, Eugenio
2000=15 to 18.3…..VandenBerg, Don A. Uses Hipparcos, improves model for metalicity, resolves some conflicts appearing in models with age less than 13
2000=14.6 to 16…..Grundahl, F
2000=14.5 +-3…….Beasley, M.A (variation due to exta galactic globular nebula)
2001=11.3…………McNamara D.H
2001=12.9 to 18.5 Thompson, I.B extra galactic cluster
2001=13 +- 2.5……Zoccali, M extra galactic
2001=15.9 16.4……Rengel Miriam
2001=16……………Kravtsov, Valery V
2001=13 +-1.5……..Demarque, Pierre
2002=12.7 +- .7……De Marchi, Guido
2003………………..de Marchi, Guido publishes another article after peer review of his previous work. determines topic of dating gc a completely wide open in relation to age conflict. questions an earlier date of 12
2003=15.9 16.3……Rengel, Miriam
2003=11.2…………Youngest possible age Krauss, Lawrence M
2003=more than 10..Cohen, Judith G


number less than or equal to 13 = 27
number greater than or equal to 14= 35
number greater than or equal to 15= 32
number greater than or equal to 16= =22

The data from Hipparcos reduced the age of Globular Clusters a bit after 1997. Modelers have adjusted the age up and down by considering other influences. Most changes were adopted in an effort to find a mechanism that reduce the age of Globular Clusters to avoid conflict with the age of the Universe.

After two days of reading only the abstracts, I tend to believe in the work of those advocating the oldest age of Globular Clusters to be in the 14 to 16 billion year old range. The reports tend to be more though and an understanding of the complexities involved seem to be more considered. This is probably in part due to the amount of criticism they know they will receive. My impression was that those who derived younger maximum ages tried to “force” the equations to reduce age. After a young age (less than 13), is published, there is another paper soon published using the same but generally more detailed considerations arguing for a much older age. The advocates who date GC to be 14 billion years old or older also tend to point out problems when such a young age is assumed. When these theoretical modelers meet there must be some clashes.

Note that even in 2003 there are still some advocating GC to be 15.9 to 16.3 billion years old. This is older than the popularly stated age of the universe.

Snowflake.

All that could mean is that the universe is that much older...

Keep in mind, that is the *observable* universe. The rest of it may be much older. We can only "see" about 13.7 bly.

__________________
"4th Law of Modern Thermodynamics: Where Mihoshi is, Chaos Reigns." ~W. Hakubi
"Gun control is hitting your target; Recycling is reloading your brass." ~ Lex of Dirty Work.

SnowFlakeUniverse, much of what you say would seem to be made up; and your data show that most of the more current estimates fall very close to the edge of where they should be. The "age problem" has been with us since Hubble. The complete story of its long history could make a nice-sized, probably lucrative science book. Learn how they determined the "age of the universe" and the age of globular clusters through the years, then let us know whether there's really any controversy.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Hi Cougar

If the universe were “flat”, do you know the, cosmological red shift – distance – age of universe relationship?

If you do not, would you like me to show it to you?

Snowflake

Moved from the ATM section, to the Q&A section ... the OP is a request for links to (published) papers, and so not an ATM topic at all.

Two of the Miriam Rengel papers are, apparently, (essentially) the same:

2003=15.9 16.3……Rengel, Miriam and 2001=15.9 16.4……Rengel Miriam

2001=16……………Kravtsov, Valery V - a proposed (new) method.

2000=14.6 to 16…..Grundahl, F - from the abstract: "The main disadvantage of this approach is that it relies heavily on the accuracy of the Teff and color scales of isochrones. As these aspects of the models continue to be uncertain, absolute ages cannot be derived in this way to within a few gigayears."

2000=15 to 18.3…..VandenBerg, Don A.

The links I've given are to the abstracts, per ADS. In all cases you can get the full paper by clicking on the appropriate link at the top of the ADS page (in some cases you may have to be satisfied with the e-print, as access to the published paper requires a subscription).

Tim Thompson has written on this topic.

http://www.tim-thompson.com/oldstars.html

He includes papers and other sites of interest.

__________________
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein

Hi Nereid,
Thanks for the links.

Snowflake.

Hi Tinaa

Thank you for the link to Tim Thompson’s work. It gives a good overall summary with respect to Ho and the Age of the Universe.

The paper suggested by Tim Thompson as indicating there is no “age problem” with regards to the age of some stars in globular clusters, is only one of many written before and after the paper referenced, as indicated by my summary of all the abstracts I could find.


Some of papers written result in an age problem and some that do not describe an age problem, assuming a 13.7 billion year old universe. Tim chose on that does not have too much of an age problem.

Note that they ALL have a problem if the Universe was “Flat”. Age of universe is 2/3 1/Ho = 10 billion years.

(My cosmological model is “flat” and resolves the age problem by allowing the effect of gravity to be greater in the past, thereby accelerating the evolutionary process of stars).

Snowflake

This may be so, but it is irrelevant, since none of currently favoured cosmological models* has an age of the universe as low as ~10 billion years (and the concordance models come with a ± number, in addition to a ~13.7 billion number).Please note that this thread was moved from the ATM section, to the Q&A section, in order to get the widest possible range of answers to the question in the OP.

Please do not use this thread to promote your own, ATM ideas (there are already several threads that do that, in the ATM section).

In terms of a study of estimates of the age of stars (or clusters), surely a more fruitful tack would be to look at the various approaches that have been used to make estimates, from observations and theory? By sorting them into different categories, you could get a handle on the common assumptions, the common sets of observations, the known strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches, etc. Then you might be in a position to start to assess the likely robustness of various approaches, as well as the extent to which they are dependent upon various inputs (so, for example, if a certain nuclear reaction cross-section were updated by, say, 20%, you could get an OOM estimate of how much this might change age estimates).

*Other than those used for teaching purposes, or examining "what if" scenarios. Of course, historically, cosmology theories yielded a wide range of estimates of the age of the universe ...

Martin et al were looking for dwarf galaxies around M-31. The paper is actually a study with CDM implications - but in the process they found a globular cluster which based upon their data and the standard age dating models has an age of 17.8 billion years.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

Do whichever estimates of the age of the universe one could choose consider the uncertainities over time of the variability of the "Hubble Constant"? Isn't there a concensus that the rate of the expansion started increasing 5 billion years ago?

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Ideally, you want an age estimate that is independent of the Hubble parameter - so that the age estimate is a test of your cosmology. The globular cluster age estimates are of that nature.

__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."

~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982

The age problem in which there are stars older than the universe is a hotly debated topic. I reviewed the literature a few years ago and as you can see from this summary of all the abstracts I could find, this is still an unresolved issue for professionals in the field.

Stars Older than Universe, link request

Snowflakeuniverse

Your questions (OP) were answered 6 months ago. Why are you asking again?

Your second post ignores the fact that expansion only occurs where objects are not bound. Expansion does not occur in galactic clusters, galaxies, or planetary systems (gravitationally bound). Nor does it occur in solid matter (electromagnetically and electrostatically bound). Our clocks and rulers are not expanding.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

The second post Kaptain K refers to has been moved to the ATM thread specifically devoted to snowflakeuniverse's ATM idea.