Improved Hubble data provide fresh evidence for new physics

https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/03/02/adam-riess-cosmic-ladder-universe-expansion/

by rbanffy • 8 years ago

64 26 8 years ago

hub.jhu.edu

montrose• 8 years ago

This is copied from another site. The original is at: https://hub.jhu.edu/2018/03/02/adam-riess-cosmic-ladder-univ...

dang• 8 years ago

Thanks! Changed to that from https://www.astromart.com/news/show/an-improved-hubble-yards....

hartror• 8 years ago

Here's the possibly unsettling news: The new numbers remain at odds with independent measurements of the early universe's expansion, which could mean that there is something unknown about the makeup of the universe.

Unsettling?! This is the stuff that makes science exciting.

maxxxxx• 8 years ago

"Unsettling?! This is the stuff that makes science exciting. "

There are a ton of researchers who are only waiting to see data that's not consistent with the current models. From what I have read it's disappointing for many how well the standard model and relativity are holding up.

ASalazarMX• 8 years ago

If the Hubble observations end up fitting old boring theories, I fear those scientists might release a new Universe.js framework on their own. A modern, beautiful and almost as performant universe than the native one,

hi412• 8 years ago

Since the universe is 13.8 billion years old, we are able to see objects which are 13.8 billion light years away. How are the physicists able to say that the diameter is 93 billion light years? Shouldn't it be closer to 27.6 billion light years in diameter?

simcop23872• 8 years ago

So as you've set things up, the radius of the sphere we can see is 13.8 billion light years. That means that the diameter of that sphere is 27.6 billion light years. But here's the rub, the visible parts are all moving away from us, so while we see them as being 13.8 billion light years away, they've been traveling for 13.8 billion years away from us. Along with that, the rate that they're traveling has been increasing the further away (in time and space) they are.

Now since we've found ways to correlate the distance and velocity that things are traveling on large scales in the universe, we can actually figure out about how far away the objects we can see should be from us, after traveling 13.8 billion years. This is where the 93 billion light year figure comes from, how far away those "edges" have traveled since they emitted the light we see today.

hi412• 8 years ago

Thank you much!

petermora• 8 years ago

How could they travel that far? Isn't that faster than speed of light?

twtw• 8 years ago

Space has expanded in the interim.

btilly• 8 years ago

The usual image is to picture light traveling through the universe as being like an ant crawling along an expanding balloon. The distance from where the ant is to the point that it started at is longer than the distance that it crawled. Because you have to add in how much the path expanded after the ant crawled past.

In 13.8 billion years, light crawled 13.8 billion light years. However the point where it started is now roughly 45.5 billion light years away. Making the diameter of the visible universe 93 billion years.

(In general relativity there are complications about what "now" means between distant points. But suffice it to say that there is a reasonable way that sensible people can agree on to make sense of it, and those are the answers that we arrive at.)

v_lisivka2• 8 years ago

They don't. Light from distant stars has red shift, similar to Doppler shift.

IF this red shift is interpreted as Doppler shift, then we can calculate corresponding velocity and then calculate position of a star at today date, and we will see that visible Universe is expanding. However, we need to point to source of energy for that expanding (with acceleration!). Nobody able to find that source yet.

IF this red shift is interpreted as something else (e.g. loses due to friction), then visible Universe is still.

badosu• 8 years ago

IF this red shift is interpreted as something else (e.g. loses due to friction), then visible Universe is still.

This is a pretty interesting idea, I wonder if a consistent model of EM frequency damping with distance traveled could be built.

pokemongoaway2• 8 years ago

Because they just fudge the math to match the old theory. They're frauds that are uncomfortable with change. Changing the theory to match new data so many times over the last century and acting like the theory hasn't failed or really had to change at it's core (and when other theories have predicted CMB and other measurements more closely) is the definition of fraud in science.

AstralStorm• 8 years ago

Is it really? Are you arguing for attaching version numbers to theories?

This is not someone in backyard presenting a random set of equations that are not interlinked as a theory. Not epicycles.

xelxebar• 8 years ago

Not quite sure, but I think this is the main paper in question:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02711

Just reading the titles of Riess' other papers on arXiv gives an interesting peek at the clever work that went into getting this H0 measurement.

Thanks for sharing!

acqq• 8 years ago

I think it's this one:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.01120

keyle• 8 years ago

Hubble, that outdated expired project that keeps on giving. Most of the global good news I read came from Hubble these days. <3

sametmax• 8 years ago

That's a good point. I keep hearing from it since I was a kid. And it doged retirement many times already. The builders can be proud.

rbanffy• 8 years ago

Congress should tell NASA to prepare a servicing mission. It can be competed out to Boeing and SpaceX, at least.

lostmsu• 8 years ago

There's also a recent theory, that suggests, that the space expanding is accelerating due to a very distant merger of gigantic (on the scale of mass of the entire visible universe) black holes, caused by long gravitational wave pressure (as I understood it), emitted by that merger. The theory is interesting for it drops the need for cosmological constant.

https://don-beaver.livejournal.com/196412.html

Mix of Russian explanation + paper in English published in MNRAS (closer to the end of post).

The theory's main premise is that "gravitational waves don't have gravitational mass", and spewed quite a lot of debate.

I wish I'd know physics better to check their math.

Improved Hubble data provide fresh evidence for new physics

Related Stories