Well, you're both right (in a way). And the explanation is...we have not sufficiently quantified the absolute size of the Universe at this point. So, we "assume" we understand where the boundary of the Universe is, and then do time calculations backwards from there. If the Universe is far larger than the assumed threshold, then you can explain galaxies like this new find.
I personally think there is a 'horizon' of sorts in our Universe which we cannot "see" beyond ('see' being a relative term). This would fit with Einstein's theory that the Universe is actually curved (in 3 dimensions, which is hard to wrap your head around until you research multi-dimensional geometry (i.e. more than 3)).
I also firmly believe that one day we will discover that our Universe is just a subset of something larger. Much like an atom is a subset of a molecule, and a molecule is a subset of a cell, and a cell is a subset of an organism, etc. Our Universe is just an atom in this example, and what we are seeing with deep space exploration is other 'atoms'...of a much larger cell, and ultimately organism.
And...Just a brain-bender to contemplate. ...
People talk about the Big Bang, but conceptually in order for the Big Bang to have occurred something had to exist (i.e. a piece of dust, or an electron, or whatever). What, exactly, this 'something' was is not the point here. The point is (and this is the brain-bender part), in order for that 'particle' / 'thing' to exist it had to exist inside of a space, a nominally three dimensional space. We know this because the Universe, post Big Bang had to have something to expand "into". Much of the science around the Big Bang says this 'space' could not exist, but it had to. Even in a perfect vacuum there is still a void, else there is nothing to contract into a vacuum. There's a hundred ways to describe this, but the bottom line is...we're missing something.
When I was in college (in Physics) I had many discussions around this concept, and I've debated with countless professors who have initially tried to explain this away as some primordial stew of electrical energy. Ultimately, after going along with but continually questioning the science behind these explanations, they would acquiesce and acknowledge that we just don't know, AND (at present anyway) we don't have any way to find out.
So, your brain-bender for today is...what existed BEFORE the Big Bang? And no, there is no 'easy answer' to this question.
BTW...in order to adequately describe the boundaries or "edge" of the Universe, and therefore calculate times forward or backward from there, we have to be able to adequately describe the events which led up to the Big Bang. Until we can do this, discretely, we cannot fully describe the size of the Universe.
edit - I honestly hope I live long enough to learn even some of these answers.
I personally think there is a 'horizon' of sorts in our Universe which we cannot "see" beyond ('see' being a relative term). This would fit with Einstein's theory that the Universe is actually curved (in 3 dimensions, which is hard to wrap your head around until you research multi-dimensional geometry (i.e. more than 3)).
I also firmly believe that one day we will discover that our Universe is just a subset of something larger. Much like an atom is a subset of a molecule, and a molecule is a subset of a cell, and a cell is a subset of an organism, etc. Our Universe is just an atom in this example, and what we are seeing with deep space exploration is other 'atoms'...of a much larger cell, and ultimately organism.
And...Just a brain-bender to contemplate. ...
People talk about the Big Bang, but conceptually in order for the Big Bang to have occurred something had to exist (i.e. a piece of dust, or an electron, or whatever). What, exactly, this 'something' was is not the point here. The point is (and this is the brain-bender part), in order for that 'particle' / 'thing' to exist it had to exist inside of a space, a nominally three dimensional space. We know this because the Universe, post Big Bang had to have something to expand "into". Much of the science around the Big Bang says this 'space' could not exist, but it had to. Even in a perfect vacuum there is still a void, else there is nothing to contract into a vacuum. There's a hundred ways to describe this, but the bottom line is...we're missing something.
When I was in college (in Physics) I had many discussions around this concept, and I've debated with countless professors who have initially tried to explain this away as some primordial stew of electrical energy. Ultimately, after going along with but continually questioning the science behind these explanations, they would acquiesce and acknowledge that we just don't know, AND (at present anyway) we don't have any way to find out.
So, your brain-bender for today is...what existed BEFORE the Big Bang? And no, there is no 'easy answer' to this question.
BTW...in order to adequately describe the boundaries or "edge" of the Universe, and therefore calculate times forward or backward from there, we have to be able to adequately describe the events which led up to the Big Bang. Until we can do this, discretely, we cannot fully describe the size of the Universe.
edit - I honestly hope I live long enough to learn even some of these answers.