this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2023
40 points (100.0% liked)
Astronomy
3873 readers
313 users here now
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The Sun may be 5GY in into its 10GY lifetime, but the giant stars whose supernovas created the heavy elements of Earth (i.e. anything heavier than helium) have much shorter lifetimes - 10MY. The universe is only 2 "Sun" lifetimes old, but there was time enough for hundreds of generations of these heavy stars. This is the necessary knowledge that the gut feeling doesn't have access to.
I understand that it's physically possible for the solar system to exist under the current universe age estimation for the reasons that you state, which is why I prefaced my statement with an acknowledgement that it's an "utterly unscientific" opinion. However in telling the story of the universe (and our place in it), I think an older universe is more "satisfying." I'm applying humanities logic to a scientific question here, because again, I'm declaring "utterly unscientific and slightly crazy opinion time."
To each their own I guess. I personally find it more satisfying to think that life on Earth arose as early in the history of the universe as generally possible, as an answer to the Fermi paradox. If anything I worry more that the time is too long! There is a 5 billion year interval between generation 1 and generation 3 stars when heavy elements existed but Earth yet did not. To my gut feeling that is problematic.