I am impressed with the precision of this belief. It is not "between
15 - 20 billion years old" or "of the order of 18 million years ago" -
but a specific figure is stated. Maybe I'm over-reacting to comment
on this - but I am of the opinion that there is far too much
confidence about the chronology of origins (witness my earlier post
on isochrons).
Most estimates of the age of the universe relate to determinations of
the Hubble "constant" - which takes on different values according to
the method used. Some values of the Hubble Constant are a problem -
as they suggest the universe is younger than objects in it.
A recent example of this problem was published in _Nature_, 13 June
1996, 581-584. "A 3.5-Gyr-old galaxy at redshift 1.55" by James
Dunlop et al. An informative commentary appeared in the same issue
by Robert Kennicutt (pages 555-6). In summary:
"A mature galaxy has been discovered in an early phase of the
Universe apparently too young to contain it. Is this the end of the
theorists' favourite cosmology, the Einstein-de Sitter model?"
The general point is: estimates of dates are presupposition-
dependent and should always be qualified - as a matter of principle.
Anomalies (such as the one noted here) may be an indication that the
presuppositions are wrong - and that it is time for a scientific
revolution (in the Kuhnian sense).
Best wishes,
*** From David J. Tyler, CDT Department, Hollings Faculty,
Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Telephone: 0161-247-2636 ***