Quote:
Originally Posted by T@T
|
The age of the universe has been calculated independently to pretty precise values.
It's entirely possible that some new information may come along to prove that the universe is older than what we currently think it is, but the James Webb isn't the kind of instrument that is likely to do it. It would take a ton of data about something we've never previously seen to change what we think of the age of the universe, and that's not likely to be provided by another (granted vastly improved) optical telescope. It may find some strange annomolies that warrant further study, but what you posted there isn't really what anyone would consider good evidence that the universe is older than we think it is, just a strange problem that needs to be re-looked at. Heck the article that you posted, lays out exactly how using hubble (a more advanced telescope than they have previously used to observe the star) was used to bring the age estimate of that star into a range of error that works with the current age of the universe. It's entirely likely that James Webb will be used in this way, to explain anomalies, and fix the problems, rather than find more of them.
If we are going to vastly change our estimate of the age of the universe, it'll be because someone comes up with a workable theory that does away with dark matter, or dark energy, or figures out the mechanism by which those two things work, something James Webb isn't likely to do.
I'd be willing to give you some pretty heavy odds against James Webb vastly altering our estimate of the age of the universe, and I'm pretty sure most people who actually do that kind of thing for a living would too.