Subscribe to New Scientist magazine
Cosmology
ARTICLE

Big bang pushed back two billion years

  • 16:26 04 August 2006
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • Zeeya Merali
Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
 
New observations of the Triangulum Galaxy suggest it is 3 million light years away – 15% farther away than previously thought (Image: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope/J-C Cuillandre)
New observations of the Triangulum Galaxy suggest it is 3 million light years away – 15% farther away than previously thought (Image: Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope/J-C Cuillandre)
 

Our universe may be 15% larger and older than we thought, according to new measurements of the distance to a nearby galaxy.

Researchers led by Alceste Bonanos at the Carnegie Institution of Washington, US, used data from telescopes including the 10-metre Keck-II telescope in Hawaii, US, to measure the distance to a pair of stars in the Triangulum Galaxy.

The team used light, velocity, and temperature measurements to calculate the true luminosity of the two stars, which eclipse one another every five days. By comparing this intrinsic luminosity to their observed brightness, the team calculated that the galaxy lies 3.14 million light years away from us. Surprisingly, this is about half a million light years farther than previously thought.

Measuring astronomical distances is not simple. Distant, bright objects, for example, can look the same as closer, dim ones. So astronomers have built a ladder-like system that starts by using several independent methods to accurately determine the distance to nearby objects. They then use these measurements to define a more distant cosmic yardstick, and so on.

“In every step, you accumulate errors,” says team member Krzysztof Stanek at Ohio State University in Columbus, US. “We wanted an independent measure of distance – a single step that will one day help with measuring dark energy and other things.”

Hubble constant

Gauging distances by observing a binary star has cut out those extra steps, says team member Norbert Przybilla at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Germany. "This is the farthest distance that anyone has been able to measure directly," he told New Scientist. "It's the cutting edge of what can be done with these telescopes."

Earlier measurements were based on calculations using the Hubble constant, a measure of the expansion rate and age of the universe. The new observation implies that the value used for the constant is off by 15%, says Przybilla.

That suggests the universe is 15% larger, and 15% older than previously thought. Recent estimates have put the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, and the new research suggests it may actually be 15.8 billion years old.

"Our result hints that there may be something interesting happening with the Hubble constant," says Przybilla. But he cautions that the study reports only one distance measurement. "We need to follow this up with more measurements."

 
Comment subject
Comment
No HTML except lower case italic tags or lower case bold tags, please:
<i> or <b>
Your name
Your email
 

We need your email in case we need to contact you about the comment. We will not use it for any other purpose.

 
 
There are 3 comments on 1 page

Big Bang 2

By V. gautham

Thu Feb 21 07:34:12 GMT 2008

This comment has been found to be in breach of our terms of use and has been removed.

REPORT | REPLY

By Debbie Hartle

Sun May 18 12:47:48 BST 2008

So a cosmolgist as to know that. Wow i can do that easy watch me lots of love debbie thats what i want to do when im older ive always been interised in that could you tell me do i have to go to uni i want to do i have to if i want to be a cosmolgist oh ye im 14 a girl

REPORT | REPLY

13. 7 Billion Years

By John H Williams

Wed Aug 27 02:31:14 BST 2008

You did not calculate the errors of the electronics. I.e. 10%; 5%, and 1% in values.

13.7 Billion year is the wrong date.

REPORT | REPLY

There are 3 comments on 1 page

All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.

If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.

Printable versionEmail to a friendRSS FeedSyndicate
Cover of latest issue of New Scientist magazine
  • For exclusive news and expert analysis every week subscribe to New Scientist Print Edition
  • For what's in New Scientist magazine this week see contents
  • Search all stories
  • Contact us about this story
  • Sign up for our free newsletter
 
PASSWORD LOGIN
username:
password:
 help
SUBSCRIPTIONS
Subscribe to New Scientist magazine