Universe is older than the big bang

The current age of the "universe since the big bang" is around
13 700 million years.

An italian researcher has discovered that some nuclear reactions inside
stars
are twice as slow as previously assumed, making the universe 1 000 million
years older, i.e. 14 700 million years.

Conclusion: the universe is older than the big bang?
:-)

Of course not. Big bang "theory" will adapt itself to the new
data, some parameters will be tweaked and we will continue
as before as nothing has ever happened.

Big bang theory is indestructible as it seems.

Here is a citation of the announcemnt (appeared in sci.space.news)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
Rome, Italy

Contact:
Carlo Broggini, , 349 157 44 14

2004 May 13

The Universe, seen under the Gran Sasso mountain, seems to be older than
expected

Some nuclear fusion reactions inside stars occur more slowly than we thought
and, as a consequence, stars themselves, as well as galaxies and the entire
universe are a bit older than expected. This is what comes out from the last
results of Luna experiment (Laboratory for Underground Nuclear
astrophysics),
settled by National Laboratories of Gran Sasso and realized in cooperation
by
Infn and Ruhr University in Bochum (Germany). The study, that will be
published
on the review Physics Letters B next June 17, has been published today on
the
website of the review. A second article has been accepted by the review
Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Luna's aim is the production of some reactions that occur inside stars, in
particular in the Sun, and the measure of their velocity. In Luna, protons
(which means hydrogen nuclei) are made collide against nitrogen nuclei: a
reaction that leads to the formation of an oxygen nucleus with the
contemporary
emission of energy. "The great part of the energy emitted by our star
derives
from fusion reactions of four hydrogen nuclei that lead directly to the
formation of a helium nucleus. But there is another process in consequence
of
that helium nuclei are produced and this process passes through the
so-called
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle. Cycle velocity is determined by the slowest of
the
reactions that form it, the one that leads to an oxygen nucleus as a result
of
the fusion between an azote nucleus and a proton. That is to say the
reaction
studied by Luna," explains Carlo Broggini, Luna coordinator.

Producing fusion between the nitrogen nucleus and a proton is not difficult
itself, but a difficulty lies in obtaining it at the same energy it occurs
in
stars: a relatively low energy, thanks to which the phenomena is quite slow,
corresponding to a very few reactions a day (a lucky case for our planet,
because if these phenomena occurred rapidly, the Sun would have burned up
its
'fuel' in a few time and this would have made life -- as we know it --
impossible). "In an ordinary laboratory settled on surface, the effects of
the
reaction studied by Luna would be totally hidden by similar, but much more
abundant effects due to reactions caused by the cosmic rays rain that
crashes
into our planet without interruption. The Gran Sasso Laboratories are on the
contrary located under 1,400 meters of rocks, which constitute an
impenetrable
barrier for almost all the particles coming from Space. Thanks to these
particular conditions we could carry out our experiment," says Carlo
Broggini.

The result has been surprising: the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle occurs two
times more slowly than expected. "The most fascinating aspect of this study
is
that another estimate of Universe age flows from it. Actually, the age of
the
most ancient stars, those that form the so-called globular star clusters, is
calculated on the base of the light spectra they emit, supposing we know the
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle's velocity. As this last one seems to be slower
than previewed, the age of the globular star clusters' has also been newly
calculated and grown-up of about one billion years. As a consequence, in the
light of Luna's new data, the age of our Universe passes from the previous
estimate of about 13 billions years to that of about 14 billions years,"
explains Eugenio Coccia, director of Gran Sasso National Laboratories.

Luna's results offer also another information: neutrinos provided with high
energy produced by carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle are the half part of what
expected, because this last one is responsible of only the 0.8% of the
energy
emitted by the Sun (and not the 1.6%, as believed). This data is of great
interest for astroparticles physicists engaged in experiments that are
specifically focused on neutrinos of relatively high energy, as it is for
example the experiment Borexino, which is in preparation at Gran Sasso
National
Laboratories, or the Japanese Kamland.

[NOTE: An image supporting this release is available at
http://www.infn.it/comunicati/img/big/331-1.jpg (354KB) .
© Copyright Matthias Junker LNGS-INFN]

In article , "jacob navia"
wrote:

The current age of the "universe since the big bang" is around
13 700 million years.

An italian researcher has discovered that some nuclear reactions inside
stars
are twice as slow as previously assumed, making the universe 1 000 million
years older, i.e. 14 700 million years.

Conclusion: the universe is older than the big bang?
:-)

Of course not. Big bang "theory" will adapt itself to the new
data, some parameters will be tweaked and we will continue
as before as nothing has ever happened.

Big bang theory is indestructible as it seems.

Actually, the process is similar to that when one realized that the sun
could not be supported by chemical reactions, and the nuclear process
where discovered as an explanation, giving a lifespan of a few billion
years. Indirect evidence of this was found because of geological and
paleontological evidence on the planet earth itself.

I have suggested here, before, that similar things may happen with the Big
Bang theory as more detailed information about the universe and what is in
it is found. One will then successively adjust the age of the universe
upwards, as this new evidence is found.

The quoted article, if correct, would correspond in the historical example
above to indirect, paleontological evidence on the earth, giving hints
that the sun must be much older.

Hans Aberg

"jacob navia" wrote in message ...
The current age of the "universe since the big bang" is around
13 700 million years.

An italian researcher has discovered that some nuclear reactions inside
stars are twice as slow as previously assumed, making the universe 1 000
million years older, i.e. 14 700 million years.

The 13,700 million year number comes from the first year WMAP results
and was never even close to their +/- 200 million year "error". The
correct age for the universe is 15,556 million years (+/- 24 million)
based on the most accurate CMB temperature measurement.

This new result from radioactive decay implies that the universe is at
least 14,700 million years. So the 15,556 million year result looks
pretty compelling at this point.

There are other lines of evidence that point in the
same direction of a much older universe: quasars containing
iron at 13 billion light years, and (for me) the shape of the
galaxy.

Assuming a more or less spherical initial rotating
gas cloud, this flat shape needs more than 100
revolutions to get so flat.

Just a "gut feeling" of course.

[Mod. note: on s.a.r. we prefer actual calculations to `gut feelings'.
`gut feelings' not based on physics are likely to fall foul of the
speculativeness criterion -- mjh]

jacob navia wrote:

The current age of the "universe since the big bang" is around
13 700 million years.

An italian researcher has discovered that some nuclear reactions inside
stars
are twice as slow as previously assumed, making the universe 1 000 million
years older, i.e. 14 700 million years.


No, this is not what the article is saying. It says that the oldest
starts should
be one billion years older than previously thought, but I have my
reservations
about this, as I state below.

Conclusion: the universe is older than the big bang?
:-)

Of course not. Big bang "theory" will adapt itself to the new
data, some parameters will be tweaked and we will continue
as before as nothing has ever happened.

Big bang theory is indestructible as it seems.

Here is a citation of the announcemnt (appeared in sci.space.news)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare
Rome, Italy

Contact:
Carlo Broggini, , 349 157 44 14

2004 May 13

The Universe, seen under the Gran Sasso mountain, seems to be older than
expected

Some nuclear fusion reactions inside stars occur more slowly than we thought
and, as a consequence, stars themselves, as well as galaxies and the entire
universe are a bit older than expected. This is what comes out from the last
results of Luna experiment (Laboratory for Underground Nuclear
astrophysics),
settled by National Laboratories of Gran Sasso and realized in cooperation
by
Infn and Ruhr University in Bochum (Germany). The study, that will be
published
on the review Physics Letters B next June 17, has been published today on
the
website of the review. A second article has been accepted by the review
Astronomy and Astrophysics.

Luna's aim is the production of some reactions that occur inside stars, in
particular in the Sun, and the measure of their velocity. In Luna, protons
(which means hydrogen nuclei) are made collide against nitrogen nuclei: a
reaction that leads to the formation of an oxygen nucleus with the
contemporary
emission of energy. "The great part of the energy emitted by our star
derives
from fusion reactions of four hydrogen nuclei that lead directly to the
formation of a helium nucleus. But there is another process in consequence
of
that helium nuclei are produced and this process passes through the
so-called
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle. Cycle velocity is determined by the slowest of
the
reactions that form it, the one that leads to an oxygen nucleus as a result
of
the fusion between an azote nucleus and a proton. That is to say the
reaction
studied by Luna," explains Carlo Broggini, Luna coordinator.

Producing fusion between the nitrogen nucleus and a proton is not difficult
itself, but a difficulty lies in obtaining it at the same energy it occurs
in
stars: a relatively low energy, thanks to which the phenomena is quite slow,
corresponding to a very few reactions a day (a lucky case for our planet,
because if these phenomena occurred rapidly, the Sun would have burned up
its
'fuel' in a few time and this would have made life -- as we know it --
impossible). "In an ordinary laboratory settled on surface, the effects of
the
reaction studied by Luna would be totally hidden by similar, but much more
abundant effects due to reactions caused by the cosmic rays rain that
crashes
into our planet without interruption. The Gran Sasso Laboratories are on the
contrary located under 1,400 meters of rocks, which constitute an
impenetrable
barrier for almost all the particles coming from Space. Thanks to these
particular conditions we could carry out our experiment," says Carlo
Broggini.

The result has been surprising: the carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle occurs two
times more slowly than expected. "The most fascinating aspect of this study
is
that another estimate of Universe age flows from it. Actually, the age of
the
most ancient stars, those that form the so-called globular star clusters, is
calculated on the base of the light spectra they emit, supposing we know the
carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle's velocity. As this last one seems to be slower
than previewed, the age of the globular star clusters' has also been newly
calculated and grown-up of about one billion years. As a consequence, in the
light of Luna's new data, the age of our Universe passes from the previous
estimate of about 13 billions years to that of about 14 billions years,"
explains Eugenio Coccia, director of Gran Sasso National Laboratories.


A star that lives to get as old as 13 billion years, will not be any
heavier than
the Sun, and for that reason most of its energy will be produced by the
proton-proton-chain. Therefore I cannot see that a change in the cross
sections
for the CNO-cycle would have a major influence on their age. By the way,
are the current age estimates for the oldest globular clusters stars
really as
high as 13 billion years?

Luna's results offer also another information: neutrinos provided with high
energy produced by carbon-nitrogen-oxygen cycle are the half part of what
expected, because this last one is responsible of only the 0.8% of the
energy
emitted by the Sun (and not the 1.6%, as believed). This data is of great
interest for astroparticles physicists engaged in experiments that are
specifically focused on neutrinos of relatively high energy, as it is for
example the experiment Borexino, which is in preparation at Gran Sasso
National
Laboratories, or the Japanese Kamland.



This is definitely not right. The solar neutrinos that are observed
are produced
in some side branches of the p-p-chain, and since the neutrino
oscillations were
discovered there is good agreement between the observed and the calculated
neutrino fluxes from the Sun.

Ulf Torkelsson

Hans Aberg wrote:

[text snipped]


I have suggested here, before, that similar things may happen with the Big
Bang theory as more detailed information about the universe and what is in
it is found. One will then successively adjust the age of the universe
upwards, as this new evidence is found.



Historically, this is not what has happened in the last few decades. Ten
years ago there were two schools that concluded that the universe was
10 billion years old, and 18 to 20 billion years old. Since then the
measurements of the expansion rate of the universe has improved, and the
current best estimate is that it is 13.7 billion years old give or take
a few
hundred million years. Actually what has happened is that the error bars
have been shrinking drastically, and people are converging to one set of
cosmological parameters.

Ulf Torkelsson