[glennonymous]

Not a scientist. But if this is true, would it imply that A) the universe is younger than we thought, or B) there was a much longer time between the Big Bang and the formation of the first stars? Seems to have very major cosmological implications.

[glennonymous]

Upon five more minutes’ consideration, I thought of several reasons why this would probably not imply either of the things I suggested it might imply. But my larger question is: What, if any, would be the larger cosmological implications of this discovery?

[tuatoru]

Yes, according to this StackExchange answer[1] star formation was thought to take around 10 million years (for low-mass stars - less for big stars).

That would be a rounding error on a reasonably precise and accurate estimate of the age of the universe (which I don't think we have yet.)

As for cosmological/other physical implications, it's a "well, now we know more" result.

1. https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/156/how-long-d...

[omegalulw]

> the universe is younger than we thought,

Not really. Don't we estimate the age of the universe by estimating how redshifted the CMB is compared to what we would expect given initial conditions?