• TauZero@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    My gut feeling has always been that a 4.5 billion year old earth (4.6b yo solar system) in a 13.7 billion year old universe didn’t line up

    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.

    • fireweed@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.”

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.