5 ms·
What are the implications?
by gregorymichael 3y ago
What are the implications?
- kromem 3y agoBasically it means that we can't regard the Hubble result as a mismeasurement and the age of the universe seems to be different depending on how you measure it. From the article: "The bottom line is that the so-called Hubble Tension between what happens in the nearby Universe compared to the early Universe’s expansion remains a nagging puzzle for cosmologists. There may be something woven into the fabric of space that we don’t yet understand."
- washadjeffmad 3y agoSounds like they don't want to spoil everyone's research grants!
- jdiff 3y agoOutside of the tinfoil, it just sounds like the universe is complex and not always predictable.
- washadjeffmad 3y agoI meant it as a comment on the phrasing. Potentially jeopardizing a field's cash flow is a legitimate worry, and I see a few have felt that, as well.
- bigbillheck 3y agoThere's a whole lot of open problems in cosmology, nobody's going to be out of work if they solve this one.
- harywilke 3y agoIt's amazing that barely a 100 years ago The Great Debate in astronomy was weather the Milky Way was the extent of the universe or things like Andromeda were their own 'island universes'. In the 1920s, Edwin Hubble showed that Andromeda was far outside the Milky Way by measuring Cepheid variable stars. These are the same stars that we are measuring today in this debate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_(astronomy) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Debate_(astronomy)
- chadcmulligan 3y agoAnd not much longer before that the discussion was how long would the sun last - 5,000 years or so was the estimate if it was a big ball of burning gas (source: A scientific American article I read, wish I could find it again, hoping someone here knows)
- yokoprime 3y agoI think it’s this one you’re referring to https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-doubt-the-sun-is-actually-burning-coal/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/experts-doubt-the...
- chadcmulligan 3y agoThat's the one, thanks, I've been looking for it for ages
- techwiz137 3y agoI just think it means the expansion rate is not a constant, but a variable.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rihards__ 3y agoI kind of agree with this conclusion. Before we know better it can be just that spacetime was expanding at a different rate (we still would need at least one another Planck that operates in roughly same range to confirm this). Hubble wavelenght range - 0.1 to 0.8 μm Webb wavelenght range - 0.6 to 28.3 μm Planck wavelenght range - 330 to 10000 μm My understanding is that Planck was observing photons that have happened much more earlier.
- mr_mitm 3y agoEither we live in an unusually under dense region of the universe or our models are wrong ("new physics").
- amethyst 3y agoOr it's a simulation and someone keeps pushing changes to production.
- cwillu 3y agoWhich would also count as new physics.
- yreg 3y agoWith even more literal meaning of new.
- asylteltine 3y ago[dead]
- lajr 3y agoI wonder if their introspection is good enough to have our population on a Grafana dashboard somewhere
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- queuebert 3y agoSomewhere aliens are making fun of how shoddy our simulation is coded.
- brcmthrowaway 3y agoIt's definitely a simulation at this point
- ducttapecrown 3y ago
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]