8 ms·

Mystery of the Universe’s Expansion Rate Widens with New Hubble Data

80 points by daegloe 7y ago

v_lisivka 7y ago
The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. For me, it's clear that Universe has no bounds, so objects after Visible Universe is invisible because of geometry - we just cannot see objects which are sending less than 1 photon per hour per square meter, so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale, it's just aging of light, so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects.
- u-get-downvotes 7y ago
  Enjoy your downvotes, you worthless piece of shit. And remember: it’s just that the software produces a “noisy signal” at first.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  I have some followers^W folhaters here. :-)
- magicalhippo 7y ago
  > The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. > so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale What is this supposed to mean? > it's just aging of light You mean red-shifting or something else here? > so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? [1]: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.html http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.htm... [2]: http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf (slide 23 and onwards)
  - andrekandre 7y ago
    >> it's just aging of light >You mean red-shifting or something else here? I think they are probably talking about tired light[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light [edit] spacing
    - v_lisivka 7y ago
      Not exactly. In tired light theory, red shift of light is result of scattering, which is very unlikely, because scattering changes course of photon, so these photons will not be associated with original object after some very short distance. My own idea is that photon itself has no mass, because it just wave of energy, but vacuum of volume of photon has some non-zero mass. As analogy, water wave has no mass, but water has, so water, which forms wave, can be affected by external forces, e.g. gravitation of Moon and Sun, thus form of water wave can be disturbed by these forces. LIGO demonstrated that light can be affected by gravitational waves, so these gravitational waves, in form of constant noise, can disturb shape of photon, so photon will lost small fraction of energy to gravitational field. Moreover, as EM force, photon should be affected by fluctuations of quantum foam, which are happened nearby. In this case, photon will lose small fraction of energy to these virtual particles.
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    > Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. It's temporary. With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. >> so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale > What is this supposed to mean? Lifetime of larger objects usually is much larger than lifetime of smaller objects, so, as we increase scale of x,y,z, t axis should be increased proportionally. > You mean red-shifting or something else here? Modern version of tired light. A kind of resistance for light, which causes loss of energy proportional to light frequency. See below. > How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/
    - 7y ago
danielbigham 7y ago
I wonder if spacetime, in addition to being curvable by mass, is also inherently curved at the scale of the universe.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Maybe it's not inherently curved. Maybe it's just curved by a mass that is further from us than tens of billions of light-years. We can't know if whole universe looks as smooth as observable universe.
  - ben_w 7y ago
    I sometimes ask a similar question about matter/antimatter symmetry, if the “tiny asymmetry” that gets used as an explanation for why any baryonic matter exist at all, could be explained by the antiparticles we should’ve annihilated with being on the other side of our cosmic event horizon.
    - ianai 7y ago
      Seems like a not bad idea. Especially if the antiparticles accelerated away before they could interact. But the two types of particles should be mutually attracted. They’d also have to appear in an organized way to avoid collisions with other particles. Maybe there wasn’t a Big Bang, but instead a “large shearing”. Ie two “sheets” (like higher dimensional objects) started in contact with one another and moved apart/were pulled apart from one another. Before the shearing, lots of energy existed with little or no opportunity for massive objects to form. During the shearing the particles adhered to one sheet (for whatever reason) and the antiparticles the other. (End of my out there positing)
    - akira2501 7y ago
      A question I'm too amateur to resolve on my own is what if the Big Bang simply created two universes? One made primarily of "matter" and the other made of "anti-matter?" What if the big bang was simply a Casimir event? The particles should have collided and annihilated, but didn't? The result being two new universes pulled into existence by the sudden inversion of entropy?
ccvannorman 7y ago
We are an ant on a leaf in a bathtub with a fancy tiny telescope. These observations aren't going to make sense until we get far outside of our mono perspective from Earth (eg travel to Andromeda and take more data). Yes, I realize this requires FTL. :-]
ncmncm 7y ago
So there are three numbers: the expected expansion based on Planck measurements of a historical value based on cosmic microwave background, red shift of distant supernovas calibrated to nearby Cepheids, and an independent value obtained from LIGO based purely on gravitational waves, which still has uncertainty that encompasses both of the others, but will sharpen in coming years. The LIGO measurement is not subject to vagaries of electromagnetic effects that could be introducing anomalous redshift, or to possible systematic changes in supernova brightness, such as might be caused by metal concentration of stars decreasing with distance/age. So, if we just wait, LIGO will give an answer. Possibly, a third answer. If so, we will then have two problems, or maybe three: explaing why the Planck prediction is off, explaining why supernova brightness and/or redshift is off, and maybe even why LIGO is off.
- chopin 7y ago
  Do you have a citation for the LIGO based derived Hubble constant? I didn't find it mentioned in the article (just CMB and Cepheid derived values).
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    No, it wasn't in the article, because it wasn't relevant, except as independent confirmation that both are in the ballpark. I just gurgled LIGO and Hubble relation, and up popped https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05835.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05835.pdf and 'Dr Stephen Feeney of the Center for Computational Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute in New York City, “We should be able to detect enough mergers to answer this question within 5-10 years.”'
stillbourne 7y ago
Missed opportunity for title alliteration: Hubble Hobbles Hubble Constant.

80 points by daegloe 7y ago

The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. For me, it's clear that Universe has no bounds, so objects after Visible Universe is invisible because of geometry - we just cannot see objects which are sending less than 1 photon per hour per square meter, so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale, it's just aging of light, so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects.

u-get-downvotes 7y ago
Enjoy your downvotes, you worthless piece of shit. And remember: it’s just that the software produces a “noisy signal” at first.
v_lisivka 7y ago
I have some followers^W folhaters here. :-)
magicalhippo 7y ago
> The mystery is why only one theory is accepted, while all other are left behind. Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. > so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale What is this supposed to mean? > it's just aging of light You mean red-shifting or something else here? > so background microwaves is just aged light from distant objects How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? [1]: http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.html http://background.uchicago.edu/~whu/intermediate/summary.htm... [2]: http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf http://folk.uio.no/hke/AST5220/v11/AST5220_2_2011.pdf (slide 23 and onwards)
- andrekandre 7y ago
  >> it's just aging of light >You mean red-shifting or something else here? I think they are probably talking about tired light[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light [edit] spacing
  - v_lisivka 7y ago
    Not exactly. In tired light theory, red shift of light is result of scattering, which is very unlikely, because scattering changes course of photon, so these photons will not be associated with original object after some very short distance. My own idea is that photon itself has no mass, because it just wave of energy, but vacuum of volume of photon has some non-zero mass. As analogy, water wave has no mass, but water has, so water, which forms wave, can be affected by external forces, e.g. gravitation of Moon and Sun, thus form of water wave can be disturbed by these forces. LIGO demonstrated that light can be affected by gravitational waves, so these gravitational waves, in form of constant noise, can disturb shape of photon, so photon will lost small fraction of energy to gravitational field. Moreover, as EM force, photon should be affected by fluctuations of quantum foam, which are happened nearby. In this case, photon will lose small fraction of energy to these virtual particles.
- v_lisivka 7y ago
  > Because the other theories we leave behind do not make predictions compatible with our measurements of the universe. It's temporary. With more data, we will have more and more exceptions, which cannot be explained by patches to mainstream theory. >> so there was no Big Bang less than nanosecond ago at Universe scale > What is this supposed to mean? Lifetime of larger objects usually is much larger than lifetime of smaller objects, so, as we increase scale of x,y,z, t axis should be increased proportionally. > You mean red-shifting or something else here? Modern version of tired light. A kind of resistance for light, which causes loss of energy proportional to light frequency. See below. > How do you account for the CMB angular power spectrum[1][2] with your "tired light"? I see just aged spectrum. IMHO, it's helium. :-/
  - 7y ago

danielbigham 7y ago

I wonder if spacetime, in addition to being curvable by mass, is also inherently curved at the scale of the universe.

scotty79 7y ago
Maybe it's not inherently curved. Maybe it's just curved by a mass that is further from us than tens of billions of light-years. We can't know if whole universe looks as smooth as observable universe.
- ben_w 7y ago
  I sometimes ask a similar question about matter/antimatter symmetry, if the “tiny asymmetry” that gets used as an explanation for why any baryonic matter exist at all, could be explained by the antiparticles we should’ve annihilated with being on the other side of our cosmic event horizon.
  - ianai 7y ago
    Seems like a not bad idea. Especially if the antiparticles accelerated away before they could interact. But the two types of particles should be mutually attracted. They’d also have to appear in an organized way to avoid collisions with other particles. Maybe there wasn’t a Big Bang, but instead a “large shearing”. Ie two “sheets” (like higher dimensional objects) started in contact with one another and moved apart/were pulled apart from one another. Before the shearing, lots of energy existed with little or no opportunity for massive objects to form. During the shearing the particles adhered to one sheet (for whatever reason) and the antiparticles the other. (End of my out there positing)
  - akira2501 7y ago
    A question I'm too amateur to resolve on my own is what if the Big Bang simply created two universes? One made primarily of "matter" and the other made of "anti-matter?" What if the big bang was simply a Casimir event? The particles should have collided and annihilated, but didn't? The result being two new universes pulled into existence by the sudden inversion of entropy?

ccvannorman 7y ago

We are an ant on a leaf in a bathtub with a fancy tiny telescope. These observations aren't going to make sense until we get far outside of our mono perspective from Earth (eg travel to Andromeda and take more data). Yes, I realize this requires FTL. :-]

ncmncm 7y ago

So there are three numbers: the expected expansion based on Planck measurements of a historical value based on cosmic microwave background, red shift of distant supernovas calibrated to nearby Cepheids, and an independent value obtained from LIGO based purely on gravitational waves, which still has uncertainty that encompasses both of the others, but will sharpen in coming years. The LIGO measurement is not subject to vagaries of electromagnetic effects that could be introducing anomalous redshift, or to possible systematic changes in supernova brightness, such as might be caused by metal concentration of stars decreasing with distance/age. So, if we just wait, LIGO will give an answer. Possibly, a third answer. If so, we will then have two problems, or maybe three: explaing why the Planck prediction is off, explaining why supernova brightness and/or redshift is off, and maybe even why LIGO is off.

chopin 7y ago
Do you have a citation for the LIGO based derived Hubble constant? I didn't find it mentioned in the article (just CMB and Cepheid derived values).
- ncmncm 7y ago
  No, it wasn't in the article, because it wasn't relevant, except as independent confirmation that both are in the ballpark. I just gurgled LIGO and Hubble relation, and up popped https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05835.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/1710.05835.pdf and 'Dr Stephen Feeney of the Center for Computational Astrophysics at the Flatiron Institute in New York City, “We should be able to detect enough mergers to answer this question within 5-10 years.”'

stillbourne 7y ago

Missed opportunity for title alliteration: Hubble Hobbles Hubble Constant.