Return to Question

So there has been talk in the news of a star named Methuselah that is "older than the universe". Moreover, this star happens to belong to our very own Milky Way.

The article mentions that Methuselah is consistent with universe age estimates if we consider the margin of error, but this would nevertheless mean that (statistically-speaking) this method of age estimation is biased towards overestimation. The article also mentions that other studies have put Methuselah's birth at pre-Big-Bang. This seems to indicate that many methods are overestimating the it's age. To me this seems to indicate a fundamental theoretical misunderstanding or some consistent problem in the measurement phase of the estimation.

I must admit that I only have a modicum of familiarity with stellar evolution, and so these incredible headlines have left me strapped with questions:

1. How reliable is this research?
2. What method do they use to measure the age of such a star as Methuselah?
3. Which is more likely to be wrong, the age of Methuselah or the current estimate of the age of the universe?
4. Could relativistic effects account for some of the age?

So there has been talk in the news of a star named Methuselah that is "older than the universe". Moreover, this star happens to belong to our very own Milky Way.

The article mentions that Methuselah is consistent with universe age estimates if we consider the margin of error, but this would seem to imply (statistically-speaking) that this method of age estimation is biased towards overestimation. The article also mentions that other studies have put Methuselah's birth at pre-Big-Bang. This seems to indicate that many methods are overestimating its age. To me this seems to indicate a fundamental theoretical misunderstanding or some consistent problem in the measurement phase of the estimation.

I must admit that I only have a modicum of familiarity with stellar evolution, and so these incredible headlines have left me strapped with questions:

1. How reliable is this research?
2. What method do they use to measure the age of such a star as Methuselah?
3. Which is more likely to be wrong, the age of Methuselah or the current estimate of the age of the universe?
4. Could relativistic effects account for some of the age?

So there has been talk in the news of a star named Methuselah that is "older than the universe". Moreover, this star happens to belong to our very own Milky Way.

I must admit that I only have a modicum of familiarity with stellar evolution, and so these incredible headlines have left me strapped with questions:

1. How reliable is this research?
2. What method do they use to measure the age of such a star as Methuselah?
3. Which is more likely to be wrong, the age of Methuselah or the current estimate of the age of the universe?
4. Could relativistic effects account for some of the age?

So there has been talk in the news of a star named Methuselah that is "older than the universe". Moreover, this star happens to belong to our very own Milky Way.

The article mentions that Methuselah is consistent with universe age estimates if we consider the margin of error, but this would nevertheless mean that (statistically-speaking) this method of age estimation is biased towards overestimation. The article also mentions that other studies have put Methuselah's birth at pre-Big-Bang. This seems to indicate that many methods are overestimating the it's age. To me this seems to indicate a fundamental theoretical misunderstanding or some consistent problem in the measurement phase of the estimation.

I must admit that I only have a modicum of familiarity with stellar evolution, and so these incredible headlines have left me strapped with questions:

1. How reliable is this research?
2. What method do they use to measure the age of such a star as Methuselah?
3. Which is more likely to be wrong, the age of Methuselah or the current estimate of the age of the universe?
4. Could relativistic effects account for some of the age?