IANAP but I'm skeptical at any theory that revises the age of the Universe by a factor of 2. It could be the case but the bar is pretty high for such a massive revision.
One thing about a lot of this from the Big Bang to black holes is that a lot of it makes sense as mathematical concepts but doesn't necessarily translate to something intuitive.
Example: the Big Bang is often described as the Universe starting from a single point. That's an attempt an intuitive explanation but here's another based on the maths. In maths you have the concept of a space that has certain properties. A metric space is a type of space that has, well, a metric. What is a metric? It's a function that defines the distance between two points. So at the start of the Universe, it's more accurate to say the metric between all points was 0. Does that mean it started from a single point? No one really knows. But the metaphor arguably confuses the issue.
One issue is the question of whether or not the Universe is infinite. This is an open question in cosomology. Many suspect it is based on spacetime being incredibly flat based on all our observations. But if you assume the Universe is infinite, how do you reconcile that with the Universe starting from a single point? How does something intuititvely finite become infinite? It sort of breaks down. Simply saying the metric was 0 is less problematic (but also less satisfying, in a way).
There's an awful lot of evidence for the current age estimate. Expanding that by another 13B years should yield a bunch more stellar objects in the expanded age range. There is AFAIK only one such object we've detected, which the article mentions, the so-called Methusalah star [1], which was originally dated at ~16B years [2].
What's more likely: one object is incorrectly dated or the Universe is twice as old as all observations to this point have suggested? I know where my money is.
One thing about a lot of this from the Big Bang to black holes is that a lot of it makes sense as mathematical concepts but doesn't necessarily translate to something intuitive.
Example: the Big Bang is often described as the Universe starting from a single point. That's an attempt an intuitive explanation but here's another based on the maths. In maths you have the concept of a space that has certain properties. A metric space is a type of space that has, well, a metric. What is a metric? It's a function that defines the distance between two points. So at the start of the Universe, it's more accurate to say the metric between all points was 0. Does that mean it started from a single point? No one really knows. But the metaphor arguably confuses the issue.
One issue is the question of whether or not the Universe is infinite. This is an open question in cosomology. Many suspect it is based on spacetime being incredibly flat based on all our observations. But if you assume the Universe is infinite, how do you reconcile that with the Universe starting from a single point? How does something intuititvely finite become infinite? It sort of breaks down. Simply saying the metric was 0 is less problematic (but also less satisfying, in a way).
There's an awful lot of evidence for the current age estimate. Expanding that by another 13B years should yield a bunch more stellar objects in the expanded age range. There is AFAIK only one such object we've detected, which the article mentions, the so-called Methusalah star [1], which was originally dated at ~16B years [2].
What's more likely: one object is incorrectly dated or the Universe is twice as old as all observations to this point have suggested? I know where my money is.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_140283
[2]: https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be-older-than-the-unive...