this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2025
481 points (100.0% liked)

[Dormant] moved to [email protected]

10405 readers
1 users here now

This community is dormant, please find us at [email protected]

You can find the original sidebar contents below:


Rules

  1. Be respectful and inclusive.
  2. No harassment, hate speech, or trolling.
  3. Engage in constructive discussions.
  4. Share relevant content.
  5. Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
  6. Use appropriate language and tone.
  7. Report violations.
  8. Foster a continuous learning environment.

Picture of the Day

The Busy Center of the Lagoon Nebula


Related Communities

🔭 Science

🚀 Engineering

🌌 Art and Photography


Other Cool Links

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

...there are two different ways to measure this cosmic expansion rate, and they don’t agree. One method looks deep into the past by analyzing cosmic microwave background radiation, the faint afterglow of the Big Bang. The other studies Cepheid variable stars in nearby galaxies, whose brightness allows astronomers to map more recent expansion.

You’d expect both methods to give the same answer. Instead, they disagree—by a lot. And this mismatch is what scientists call the Hubble tension...Webb’s data agrees with Hubble’s and completely rules out measurement error as the cause of the discrepancy. It’s now harder than ever to explain away the tension as a statistical fluke. This inconsistency suggests something big might be missing from our understanding of the universe - something beyond current theories involving dark matter, dark energy, or even gravity itself. When the same universe appears to expand at different rates depending on how and where you look, it raises the possibility that our entire cosmological model may need rethinking.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 93 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (19 children)

The article over-dramatizes the story. This "deeply wrong" discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.

Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it's more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago (9 children)

i agree with you that here, the difference between 68 and 73 seems very small.

For me, it's even amazing that they get, for the CBM, any number even close to the same order of magnitude, given that it seems like a linear division of speed of light divided by light travel distance at the age of the universe, is the value for Hubble parameter (H)*_ at CBM.

That seems in contradiction to the fact that, when adding relativistic velocities (and incrementally up to the speed of light !), linear addition is out of question and general relativity has to be used.

This is just one of the apparent difficulties and obviously there are much more and harder challenges than this one.

_*(... and is the age of the universe defined or measured by other means than simply :
Δt = 1/H ... ? That can't be : since we have 2 parameters to evaluate, so, we need 2 independent experimental measurement variables. )

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Lambda-CDM is fully aware of general relativity. Some people may try to explain it with nonrelativistic pictures to help you build intuition, but the actual theory and calculation is fully relativistic so you don't have to worry about that.

since we have 2 parameters to evaluate

I don't follow. What two parameters?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes i agree with you that, of course, physicists working on this have to be well aware of general relativity. Still, there is this linear relationship that bothers me for the Hubble parameter.

What two parameters ?

i should have put more effort in understanding before writing my comment ... and this confusion about "two parameters" is nothing of importance for what i try to say in that comment. Sorry if you don't see anything interesting in what i said.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Any linear relationship in this calculation would be an approximation. They're useful for intuition and quickly explaining things, but for actual business either the full nonlinear relationship is used, or if the linear approximation is used the approximation error must be bounded by an acceptably small parameter.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)