3 ms·
They have just dropped the qualifier "known" from the title, as in it should be read "Three of the oldest known stars found in our galaxy". We obviously don't
by SiempreViernes 2y ago
They have just dropped the qualifier "known" from the title, as in it should be read "Three of the oldest known stars found in our galaxy".
We obviously don't know the age of each and every star in the entire universe, calm down dude.
- munk-a 2y agoI feel like it's quite reasonable to criticize them for that though. "Known" isn't something we can automatically assume - there could be theoretical boundaries on star life and these objects were detected as being extremely close to that boundary.
- dotnet00 2y agoKnown kind of by definition implies that it's based on our current knowledge.
- munk-a 2y agoI'd clarify - there's a distinction between "oldest observed" and "oldest we think are possible" and the known in this context (for me at least) leans strongly into the "oldest observed" camp for me - though, as with all things english, technically it could mean anything.
- verzali 2y agoThere are limits on how old stars can be. They obviously can't be older than the universe itself. It also took time for star formation to be possible. The paper itself argues these are among the oldest stars that can exist in the galaxy, although it doesn't say they are actually the "oldest", just members of the group.