Right now we use stuff like the expansion rate of the universe and what we know about how stars develop and as far as I’m aware those are pretty roughly accurate already.
Like, we can see the haze of the CMBR, which was “only” thought to be about half a million years after the big bang, so that’s pretty darn good when we’re talking about a universe that is though to be 13 billion years old. (We already see back like 99.99 percent the age of the universe)
So I’m guessing this wouldn’t be a big deal for how old the universe is unless there is a big new discovery about that early universe that contracts what we know (which to be fair will probably happen).
Could it also help us determine a more accurate age of the universe?
Probably but I’m not sure.
Right now we use stuff like the expansion rate of the universe and what we know about how stars develop and as far as I’m aware those are pretty roughly accurate already.
Like, we can see the haze of the CMBR, which was “only” thought to be about half a million years after the big bang, so that’s pretty darn good when we’re talking about a universe that is though to be 13 billion years old. (We already see back like 99.99 percent the age of the universe)
So I’m guessing this wouldn’t be a big deal for how old the universe is unless there is a big new discovery about that early universe that contracts what we know (which to be fair will probably happen).