The Webb Telescope Further Deepens the Biggest Controversy in Cosmology
The James Webb Space Telescope's observations have intensified the Hubble tension debate, with conflicting measurements from two research teams suggesting possible systematic errors in distance measurement methods. Further investigation is needed.
Read original article
The James Webb Space Telescope's recent observations have intensified the ongoing debate over the Hubble tension, a discrepancy in the measured rate of cosmic expansion. Two research teams have been at the forefront of this investigation. One, led by Adam Riess, consistently reports a higher Hubble constant (H0) value, approximately 8% above theoretical predictions, suggesting a potential missing element in our understanding of the universe. In contrast, Wendy Freedman's team has advocated for caution, arguing that their measurements align more closely with theoretical expectations, indicating that the Hubble tension may not be a genuine phenomenon. Freedman's latest analysis, which has not yet undergone peer review, shows that two types of stars yield H0 estimates consistent with theoretical predictions, while a third type aligns with Riess's higher value. This divergence suggests possible systematic errors in distance measurement methods rather than fundamental physics issues. The debate continues as both teams utilize the Webb telescope's capabilities to refine their measurements, with Freedman exploring alternative distance indicators like tip-of-the-red-giant-branch stars and carbon-rich giant stars. The findings highlight the complexity of measuring cosmic distances and the need for further investigation to resolve the Hubble tension.
- The James Webb Space Telescope has provided new data on the Hubble tension.
- Two research teams report conflicting measurements of the cosmic expansion rate.
- Freedman's analysis suggests systematic errors may explain the discrepancies.
- The debate over the Hubble constant continues, with implications for cosmological models.
- Alternative distance measurement methods are being explored to clarify the situation.
Related
NASA releases Hubble image taken in new pointing mode
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope resumes operations with one gyro, capturing galaxy NGC 1546. Joint program with other telescopes enhances star formation study. Dr. Wiseman optimistic about future discoveries in cosmic phenomena.
The surprising behavior of black holes in an expanding universe
Physicist Nikodem Popławski's study reveals black hole behavior in an expanding universe. Einstein's equations suggest a constant expansion rate at black hole event horizons, challenging previous assumptions and shedding light on the Hubble tension. Popławski's work hints at a link between black holes, wormholes, and dark energy.
Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists
Scientists are baffled by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope discovery of ancient, massive galaxies with old stars and supermassive black holes, challenging existing cosmological theories. Further research aims to unveil their mysteries.
Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists
Scientists are baffled by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope discovery of ancient, massive objects in the early universe, challenging existing theories. Researchers aim to unravel mysteries through further observations.
Cosmological Constant Problem
The cosmological constant problem highlights a major discrepancy between observed and theoretical vacuum energy densities, with proposed solutions including modifying gravity and anthropic arguments, remaining a significant unsolved issue in physics.
- Many commenters express curiosity about the complexities and potential errors in measuring cosmic distances and the implications for the Hubble constant.
- There is a discussion about the limitations of observational cosmology compared to experimental sciences, highlighting the challenges in applying the scientific method.
- Some users question the assumptions underlying the expansion of the universe and propose alternative explanations for redshift and cosmic observations.
- Several comments emphasize the excitement and controversy surrounding the Hubble tension, with some expressing frustration over the framing of scientific discussions as controversies.
- There are calls for more clarity on measurement errors and theoretical calculations, as well as a critique of the scientific funding model and its impact on research quality.
23 commentsThe slides are delightfully visual and comprehensive yet terse, walking you up the rungs of the cosmic ladder from the Earth through the moon, sun, and beyond. I can almost guarantee you’ll learn something new and fascinating.
The more I read about this, the more it feels like phlogiston theory[1]. Works great for describing observations at first, but as more observations are made, some contradict the theory, so exceptions are made for these cases (phlogiston must have negative mass sometimes/there must be extra matter or energy for galaxies to spin as fast as they do), and then finally someone discovers something (oxygen/???) that explains all observations much simpler and requires no weird exceptions.
I'm likely misinterpreting the article, but it seems to frame things in a way that first assumes expansion should be constant and it's a question of what the right constant value is between the measured/theoretical discrepancies.
(*yeesh, editing all those spelling errors from typing on my phone)
It seems like if there were some error in the luminosity measurement for cepheids, it would propagate to the measurements with supernovas...
I would expect that stacking measurement techniques (as is common with cosmology, where distances are vast and certainty is rare) would also stack error, like summing the variance in gaussians...
The assumption that these observations indicated an expanding universe was delivered to us by LeMaitre; if you believe in an expanding universe with a finite age, then give credit where it is due...
I think people forget that, due to the longer wavelengths to which it's sensitive, Webb actually has a poorer angular resolution than Hubble.
"c" / "age of Universe" = Hubble constant (i.e. "c"/13.7 billions ly / 3.26 ly per pc = 71.3 km/s per mpc.)
I'm no mathematician or physicist, but this stuff just fascinates me. I interpret it something like:
The further one looks, the faster objects in the universe are expanding. However, when one looks out at the universe, they are looking backwards in time, to a time when the universe was expanding at a more rapid pace. Right? Close to the big bang? Because there was a period of rapid expansion after the big bang, so the universe had to have moved faster in the earlier universe? So the only part of space that actually appears to be static would be around our local space, the stars we can see?
Often the universe is depicted as a giant bubble, expanding outwards in all directions. It is how the human mind is built to think, a classic blunder dating back to the days of Ptolemy, where Earth was the center of everything.
At the edge of our observable universe is the beginning of it all. We can fast forward then through time to see the most modern picture of our universe, the reference frame that is our own galaxy. We are not at rest in a static galaxy, so why should the laws of relativity and dilation not apply to massive objects
Everywhere else we look is in the past, and the cosmic background is visible from every direction. So once expanded in 3D space, and accounting for time, all of space would appear to be accelerating towards the cosmic background and point of the big bang?
“[...]But in 1929 astronomer Edwin Hubble measured the speed of many galaxies and found, to his surprise, that all were moving away from us-- in fact, the further away the galaxy, the faster it was going. His measurements showed that space is expanding everywhere, and no matter where you look, it will seem as if all galaxies are receding because the distance between everything is constantly growing. Faced with this news, Einstein decided to remove the cosmological constant from his equations.” -some scientific American article
It’s not moving away from us, it’s moving towards the beginning of time at a faster and faster rate, but only because we’re looking backwards through time. In reality, due to our reference frame, and other subsequent frames of observed bodies, we are the only point in the observable universe that is in the “present”. To that effect, when everything appears to be moving away from us at a faster and faster rate, it is moving away from the origin (big bang) at a slower and slower rate.
Galaxies are not moving away, they are showing an accelerating speed due to the time difference, and the slightly higher cosmological constant several hundred million years in the past, a constant that scales with time and its relation to distance according to metric expansion and the speed of light. It is the higher constant with relation to distance that gives the illusion of a universe whose expansion is accelerating.
It can be assumed then, that as you move between vast points in space, the universe will update; showing that astronomical objects aren’t accelerating away, but are not in fact moving at all. If not moving towards each other and closer together.
So no matter where you travel, it is likely that the bubble of the observable universe travels with you, you do not accelerate away faster the closer you get to the galaxies that appear from Earth or other reference points from Earth to be expanding faster away.
If you look at the night sky from a planet in one of these far away galaxies, the overall structure of the universe would be very similar if not the same to the structure as it appears from Earth. With all galaxies appearing to be accelerating away from each other at a faster and faster rate.
Sorry im high on shrooms
So the pressure around our bubble is not uniform, there are more bubbles on one side than another, other bubbles are much larger and some are very tiny causing tiny "lumps" of pressure in various places on our bubble.
Decades ago I really liked the "big collapse" theory that has now been abandoned, it was so "simple" in comparison to a universe that keeps expanding and not uniformly at that.
I can't measure my own weight with an uncertainty that's less than 1%. I wonder what these peeps are on...
One of the proximate causes around our failure to progress in this and other areas is the funding model of publish or perish. Many researchers are trying to carve out a career, but not necessarily to contribute to progress or advancement. An examination of the funding structure and incentives for universities and researchers appears to be in order.
One suggestion would be to limit grants for private universities and colleges. Another would be to cap compensation for university and college staff. Yet another would be to add funding or tax breaks for technology scale up and application development in the private sector. And another would be cutting funding to masters', PhD and post-doc levels, and increasing funding for 1-, 2- and 4- year career oriented and skill development programs. Yet another suggestion would be limiting loan eligibility to 1-, 2- and 4- year degree or lower programs. Another would be tying university and college funding to the success of attached technology scale up and application development programs. Another would be requiring undergraduate and lower grants and tuition revenue to be spent directly on those programs and facilities, and research funds to be kept and spent separately.
I would like to know some examples of how recent, publicly funded PhD, masters degree and postdoc work or research has materially advanced or will advance our world's knowledge and progress and has resulted in material benefits to society, and not just unreproducible studies on paper and unviable technologies and products.
Related
NASA releases Hubble image taken in new pointing mode
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope resumes operations with one gyro, capturing galaxy NGC 1546. Joint program with other telescopes enhances star formation study. Dr. Wiseman optimistic about future discoveries in cosmic phenomena.
The surprising behavior of black holes in an expanding universe
Physicist Nikodem Popławski's study reveals black hole behavior in an expanding universe. Einstein's equations suggest a constant expansion rate at black hole event horizons, challenging previous assumptions and shedding light on the Hubble tension. Popławski's work hints at a link between black holes, wormholes, and dark energy.
Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists
Scientists are baffled by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope discovery of ancient, massive galaxies with old stars and supermassive black holes, challenging existing cosmological theories. Further research aims to unveil their mysteries.
Tiny bright objects discovered at dawn of universe baffle scientists
Scientists are baffled by NASA's James Webb Space Telescope discovery of ancient, massive objects in the early universe, challenging existing theories. Researchers aim to unravel mysteries through further observations.
Cosmological Constant Problem
The cosmological constant problem highlights a major discrepancy between observed and theoretical vacuum energy densities, with proposed solutions including modifying gravity and anthropic arguments, remaining a significant unsolved issue in physics.