'Hubble trouble' could deepen with new measurement of the universe's expansion

[Admin]

Cosmologists have a problem: Their measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe don't agree. And a new, highly accurate measurement of variable stars could deepen this 'Hubble trouble.'

'Hubble trouble' could deepen with new measurement of the universe's expansion : Read more

 

[Pentcho Valev]

Cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their theory, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:

"Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356



Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/


Expanding space with non-expanding patches, per se, is nonsense of course, but it becomes utmost idiocy if we combine it with another nonsense - light stretched by expansion:

"The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...lore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day


"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml


How can stretching of light occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? The scenario is more than preposterous: Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it? Unfortunately, in Einstein's world, just like in Big Brother's world, even the most obvious idiocy can be universally accepted and even worshiped:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

 

[rod]

My observation. The values for H0 of 73 km/s/Mpc vs. 67 make real differences in the age of the universe using cosmology calculators. 13.083 Gyr old universe now and for the CMBR with postulated redshift of 1100, comoving radial distance some 43.428 Gly, were space is expanding 3.2422235E+00 or 3.24 x faster than c velocity. If we use an open universe, the age for the universe drops to 10.894 Gyr old. Consider in the 1930s, the universe age not more than 1.5 Gyr and radius perhaps near 1 Gly from Earth. H0 then was 500 km/s/Mpc using Cepheid distances. It is good to be flexible in astronomy and cosmology

 

[rod]

"Anderson explained why a difference of just a few km/s/Mpc in the Hubble constant matters, even given the vast scale of the universe. (The width of the observable cosmos alone is estimated to be around 29,000 MPC.)"

My note. You get diameters like this for the universe in the BB model using the comoving radial distance from Earth for where the postulated CMBR is at with a redshift of about 1100 today. Commonly this is about 93-95 billion light years in diameter. Astronomers do not see this size at all and space there is expanding more than 3 x c velocity. As I pointed out in post #3, the universe age collapses too when using H0 = 73 km/s/Mpc compared to 67.

 

[kyunus13.8+]

Cosmologists have a problem: Their measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe don't agree. And a new, highly accurate measurement of variable stars could deepen this 'Hubble trouble.'

'Hubble trouble' could deepen with new measurement of the universe's expansion : Read more

Edwin Hubble observed a recession in objects outside our galaxy and broke the misperception that the universe is static. Unfortunately the conclusion derived in the early 20th century was that the universe was expanding and that we are static. A better realization would have been that there is the possibility of expansion and contraction in all elements in the universe including ourselves.

Albert Einstein had proposed his General Theory of Relativity at that time. One of the consequences of his theory is the prediction that space-time expands and contracts. In the presence of extremely concentrated mass, the theory predicts a contraction in space-time to the point of a singularity at the center of mass.

The black hole at the center of the Milky Way has such an extreme mass concentration. At 4 million solar masses crammed into a spherical volume with a radius of less than 13 million miles, this monster is crushing space-time both inside and outside its event horizon. Its gravitational impact combined with the gravitation of the rest of the stars in the galaxy cause a gradual contraction in the space-time of the entire galaxy. This is why space appears to expand while galaxies do not - galaxies contract.

We observe the universe from a contracting platform. When Hubble proposed his constant (H0), there was enough theoretical information to postulate that the observation of a constant expansion in the universe is the result of our own contraction and that the number H0 is a measure of that contraction.

If the physicists of the early 20th century had realized that, they would have saved a century of agonizing over the craziness observed in the universe, which is nothing more than the optical illusion produced by our own contraction.

There is no accelerating expansion, no dark energy. The calculated gravitation necessary to explain the movement of the universe that results in 96% being dark matter is a fiction. This is the agony of not realizing that we are observing an optical illusion in extra-galactic space-time resulting from our own contraction.

 

[kyunus13.8+]

Cosmologists teach that space inside galaxies and galactic clusters does not expand at all. They reject the scenario in which expansion inside galaxies and galactic clusters does occur but is overcome by gravitational attraction. According to their theory, even the slightest gravitational attraction blocks any expansion:

"Space DOES NOT Expand Everywhere...Is the space inside, say, a galaxy growing but overcome by the gravitational attraction between the stars? The answer is no. Space within any gravitationally bound system is unaffected by the surrounding expansion."

View: https://youtu.be/bUHZ2k9DYHY?t=356



Sabine Hossenfelder: "The solution of general relativity that describes the expanding universe is a solution on average; it is good only on very large distances. But the solutions that describe galaxies are different - and just don't expand. It's not that galaxies expand unnoticeably, they just don't. The full solution, then, is both stitched together: Expanding space between non-expanding galaxies...It is only somewhere beyond the scales of galaxy clusters that expansion takes over." https://www.forbes.com/sites/starts...ont-actually-expand-in-an-expanding-universe/


Expanding space with non-expanding patches, per se, is nonsense of course, but it becomes utmost idiocy if we combine it with another nonsense - light stretched by expansion:

"The universe is expanding, and that expansion stretches light traveling through space in a phenomenon known as cosmological redshift." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...lore-galaxies-from-cosmic-dawn-to-present-day


"As light travels towards us from the distant galaxies, it is stretched over time by the ever expanding space it is travelling through. The longer it travels, the more the wavelengths are increased (reddened)." https://www.wwu.edu/astro101/a101_hubble_redshift.shtml


How can stretching of light occur if part of space is expanding and the other part is not expanding? The scenario is more than preposterous: Light is stretched as it travels in the space between galactic clusters, then stretching stops as the light enters a cluster, then stretching continues as the light leaves the cluster, etc. Idiotic, isn't it? Unfortunately, in Einstein's world, just like in Big Brother's world, even the most obvious idiocy can be universally accepted and even worshiped:

George Orwell: "In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

This nonsense as you have so aptly put it comes from one source. It is a simple question of galaxies being contracting structures. They contract from the gravitation in their black holes and from the mass in their stars. The Milky Way has a mass of 64 billion solar masses. This is the sum of the mass of Sagitarius A (its black hole) and all its stars. This mass produces an overall gravitation that results in the contraction of the space-time of the galaxy.

It is simple. We look out at space from a contracting structure and see an apparant expansion while the other contracting structures do not appear to expand. It is like looking at an expanding balloon with the individual items drawn on the ballon remaining constant. There can only be one explanation - galaxies contract.

When you realize that, all the nonsense goes away. There is no run away expansion, no dark energy pulling apart the universe, no movement so great that 96% of the universe must be dark matter to provide the required gravitation. This is a sensible universe behaving sensibly - no nonsense, just the Hubble constant (H0) measuring the rate of contraction of the Milky Way

 

[Helio]

IMO, the two expansion rates -- one from the CMBR representing the expansion rate 13.8 Gyrs. ago; one for the rate today -- simply tell us that the expansion rate of space is not fixed for all time. Given the discovery of DE, the arguments from scientists that DE's influence over spacetime is growing would require that these rates differ.

How can we claim the universe is, and has been, accelerating but require it to always have one speed? What good is acceleration if nothing can go faster? [I once had a car like that. ] I've yet to see an explanation for this simple question.

Also, the reason the Hubble Constant is now called the Hubble-Lemaitre Constant is because astronomers like to give credit where credit is due, but because of the remarkable clout and contributions from Hubble, the other two key players got set aside, apparently.

For those interested in the BBT story....

BBT Chronology:
1912 -- Henrietta Swan Leavitt gives us the Cepheid variable law that allowed for galaxy distance determinations, necessary to find their expansion rates.

1912 -- September 17 Vesto Slipher found, with great effort, the first redshift data for galaxies (extragalactic nebulae).

1914 -- In a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Slipher presented results for a total of 15 distant nebulae (later called galaxies). He was so convincing that his results were received by the audience (chronicles say) with a very long, standing ovation. Apparently, this is unusual.

George's Lemaitre was at that meeting.

1915-1916 GR (General Relativity) introduced by Einstein.

1917 – Einstein used GR to build a cosmology model.

1922 Alexander Friedmann found a math solution of Einstein’s equations suggesting the universe could be expanding or contracting. Einstein rejects this idea since the status quo was for a static universe.

DeSitter, and others, offered models that allowed for redshift in a static universe. DeSitter's model, for example, worked fine as long as his universe included no mass.

1927 -- Independent of Friedmann, Lemaitre, using GR, published (in French) his theory introducing not only the math for an expanding universe, but also evidence for this expansion (i.e. physics). His paper is entitled ‘Un Univers homogene de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des n´ebuleuses extra-galactiques’. There's no evidence anybody every read this Belgium work.

In this paper, Lemaitre introduced the world's first estimate for an expansion rate for the universe. He used the redshift data from Slipher and the galaxy distances from Hubble. Combining these gives an approximate expansion rate.

In 1929, I think, he listened to Eddington claim there was no explanation for the redshifts. He translated his original paper and soon the prominent scientists had their explanation. But Hubble had greatly improved the data, so Lemaitre left out his cruder estimate for the expansion rate, opening the door further for Hubble to get credit, accidentally.

Einstein stated that his math was fine but his physics was "abominable". [Einstein was stuck on the enduring Static model, but others soon un-glued him once Lemaitre gave an English translation to Eddington, who gave it to DeSitter. They quickly recognized its importance, as did Einstein.

Hubble, with the Hooker telescope and Humason, greatly improved the accuracy of both the distances to galaxies as well as, their redshift. Surprisingly, Hubble never stated that he held that the universe is actually expanding. His graphs imply otherwise, admittedly, but I would bet an ice cream sundae that no one can show where he published anything explicitly stating the universe is expanding, though I could be wrong, as well as several science writers, btw. Hubble stated that he was an astronomer, not a theorist. [He was also friends with deSitter, if that's a factor.]

 

[kyunus13.8+]

IMO, the two expansion rates -- one from the CMBR representing the expansion rate 13.8 Gyrs. ago; one for the rate today -- simply tell us that the expansion rate of space is not fixed for all time. Given the discovery of DE, the arguments from scientists that DE's influence over spacetime is growing would require that these rates differ.

How can we claim the universe is, and has been, accelerating but require it to always have one speed? What good is acceleration if nothing can go faster? [I once had a car like that. ] I've yet to see an explanation for this simple question.

Also, the reason the Hubble Constant is now called the Hubble-Lemaitre Constant is because astronomers like to give credit where credit is due, but because of the remarkable clout and contributions from Hubble, the other two key players got set aside, apparently.

For those interested in the BBT story....

BBT Chronology:
1912 -- Henrietta Swan Leavitt gives us the Cepheid variable law that allowed for galaxy distance determinations, necessary to find their expansion rates.

1912 -- September 17 Vesto Slipher found, with great effort, the first redshift data for galaxies (extragalactic nebulae).

1914 -- In a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, Slipher presented results for a total of 15 distant nebulae (later called galaxies). He was so convincing that his results were received by the audience (chronicles say) with a very long, standing ovation. Apparently, this is unusual.

George's Lemaitre was at that meeting.

1915-1916 GR (General Relativity) introduced by Einstein.

1917 – Einstein used GR to build a cosmology model.

1922 Alexander Friedmann found a math solution of Einstein’s equations suggesting the universe could be expanding or contracting. Einstein rejects this idea since the status quo was for a static universe.

DeSitter, and others, offered models that allowed for redshift in a static universe. DeSitter's model, for example, worked fine as long as his universe included no mass.

1927 -- Independent of Friedmann, Lemaitre, using GR, published (in French) his theory introducing not only the math for an expanding universe, but also evidence for this expansion (i.e. physics). His paper is entitled ‘Un Univers homogene de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte de la vitesse radiale des n´ebuleuses extra-galactiques’. There's no evidence anybody every read this Belgium work.

In this paper, Lemaitre introduced the world's first estimate for an expansion rate for the universe. He used the redshift data from Slipher and the galaxy distances from Hubble. Combining these gives an approximate expansion rate.

In 1929, I think, he listened to Eddington claim there was no explanation for the redshifts. He translated his original paper and soon the prominent scientists had their explanation. But Hubble had greatly improved the data, so Lemaitre left out his cruder estimate for the expansion rate, opening the door further for Hubble to get credit, accidentally.

Einstein stated that his math was fine but his physics was "abominable". [Einstein was stuck on the enduring Static model, but others soon un-glued him once Lemaitre gave an English translation to Eddington, who gave it to DeSitter. They quickly recognized its importance, as did Einstein.

Hubble, with the Hooker telescope and Humason, greatly improved the accuracy of both the distances to galaxies as well as, their redshift. Surprisingly, Hubble never stated that he held that the universe is actually expanding. His graphs imply otherwise, admittedly, but I would bet an ice cream sundae that no one can show where he published anything explicitly stating the universe is expanding, though I could be wrong, as well as several science writers, btw. Hubble stated that he was an astronomer, not a theorist. [He was also friends with deSitter, if that's a factor.]

Well said. Edwin Hubble always referred to the apparent expansion of the universe, he never committed to the fact the expansion was real. It was later on that apparent expansion became just expansion. People began to think of it as real. The alternative is that we are contracting and who would wish to contend with that.

In order to understand what is really out there, we must come to terms with our own contraction, which implies eventual disappearance to nothing. Ironically, what Saul Perlmutter et al were looking for in 1998 when they discovered the opposite was the big crunch. You have to look no further than our own Milky Way to find the so called big crunch.

This change of cosmological perspective leads to a new creation scenario - a big bang that is galactic not universal. That I would like to discuss at another time.

 

[rod]

H0 is measured using different methods vs. the CMBR only. The other methods do not agree with the CMBR value used. Here are some recent examples.

[2201.07801] Cosmological Results from the RAISIN Survey: Using Type Ia Supernovae in the Near Infrared as a Novel Path to Measure the Dark Energy Equation of State

There's a mystery in our universe's expansion rate and the Hubble Space Telescope is on the case

Scientists have a new, more accurate, measurement of the expansion of the universe thanks to observations by the Hubble Space Telescope. There's a mystery in our universe's expansion rate and the Hubble Space Telescope is on the case : Read more

forums.space.com

1,500 supernovas offer most precise survey of dark energy and dark matter to

Two decades' worth of observations of supernova explosions and a powerful new analysis tool has provided the most accurate accounting of dark energy and dark matter to . 1,500 supernovas offer most precise survey of dark energy and dark matter to : Read more

forums.space.com

No Release for the Hubble Tension

New data and analysis show that a long-standing discrepancy in the measurement of the current expansion rate of the universe is real.

skyandtelescope.org

Astronomers map distances to 56,000 galaxies, largest-ever catalog

How old is our universe, and what is its size? A team of researchers led by University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa astronomers Brent Tully and Ehsan Kourkchi from the Institute for Astronomy have assembled the largest-ever compilation of high-precision galaxy distances, called Cosmicflows-4. Using eight...

phys.org

There are plenty of examples now published and reported. The cosmology calculators using GR and the FLRW metric show the age of the universe bounces all around too.

 

[murgatroyd]

In order to understand what is really out there, we must come to terms with our own contraction, which implies eventual disappearance to nothing.

Aaa hahaha. So The Incredible Shrinking Man was a documentary

 

[Helio]

There are plenty of examples now published and reported. The cosmology calculators using GR and the FLRW metric show the age of the universe bounces all around too.

Have you tried using the range of values to give us the accuracy? Is it something like 10%?

 

[Helio]

Ironically, what Saul Perlmutter et al were looking for in 1998 when they discovered the opposite was the big crunch. You have to look no further than our own Milky Way to find the so called big crunch.

Nonsense. Saul Perlmutter is famous for being the leader of one of the two teams that independently discovered, using Type 1a SN, that our universe is not only expanding, but that this expansion rate is accelerating. No contracting.

If you have any scientific papers from Perlmutter even slightly suggesting the universe is contracting, or we are, please present them here. This is a science forum.

 

[rod]

Have you tried using the range of values to give us the accuracy? Is it something like 10%?

Yes, the calculators allow you to show the age of the universe for various H0 values, in my database values range from 65 km/s/Mpc to 75 for recent reports in the past several years using different objects vs. CMBR. Open or flat universe can make a big difference too. Open universe model the age collapses below 11 Gyr. Flat universe models for the large H0 values show around 12.7 to 13 Gyr. And the early values reported for H0 at some 500 km/s/Mpc showed the universe age less than 2 Gyr while radioactive rocks dated some 3 Gyr old Plenty of wiggle room in cosmology and astronomy to show the *true age* for the universe and avoid finding objects *older* than the universe.

 

[Helio]

Yes, the calculators allow you to show the age of the universe for various H0 values, in my database values range from 65 km/s/Mpc to 75 for recent reports in the past several years using different objects vs. CMBR. Open or flat universe can make a big difference too. Open universe model the age collapses below 11 Gyr. Flat universe models for the large H0 values show around 12.7 to 13 Gyr.

So these current values seem to allow something for an age around 12.7 Gyrs. to perhaps 14 Gyrs. Is that close?

And the early values reported for H0 at some 500 km/s/Mpc showed the universe age less than 2 Gyr ...

Yes, in fact Hubble's first estimate had the problem of estimating an age for our universe younger than the age of stars.

But recall those early values from Hubble were based on not knowing that Cepheids come in two flavors.

Lemaitre was the first to produce an estimate, not too far off from Hubble's, but he removed this historical first estimate for expansion once, two years later, he translated his work into English. He was well aware that Hubble had greatly improved his estimates for distance and redshifts.

 

[rod]

Helio asked in post #14: "So these current values seem to allow something for an age around 12.7 Gyrs. to perhaps 14 Gyrs. Is that close?"

Yes, basically. 65 km/s/Mpc, age is about 14.692 Gyr, 75 about 12.734 Gyr old. That is the flat model, open is younger. Max is 12.34 Gyr, min 10.6 Gyr. Changing distances to reconcile different ages looks like an interesting methodology 500 km/s/Mpc was reworked many times before values we see today using 65 to 75 km/s/Mpc. Always a good idea to keep the universe age older than objects found in it, that could be dated even older.

 

[Helio]

Yes, basically. 65 km/s/Mpc, age is about 14.692 Gyr, 75 about 12.734 Gyr old. That is the flat model, open is younger. Max is 12.34 Gyr, min 10.6 Gyr. Changing distances to reconcile different ages looks like an interesting methodology

Ok, thanks.

500 km/s/Mpc was reworked many times before values we see today using 65 to 75 km/s/Mpc. Always a good idea to keep the universe age older than objects found in it, that could be dated even older.

Yes.

From this site , which you may be using perhaps, shows some history on the estimates, though, once again Lemaitre is left out. I think his estimate was a little over 600 kps/Mpc., IIRC.

1956.. .180 kps/Mpc; Sandage, who replaced Hubble
1958... 75 kps/Mpc (same with help)
1970ish... 55 kps/Mpc by some
1970s.... 100 kps/Mpc by others

They used multiple techniques to get these estimates, all knowing their margin of errors were large, no doubt.

The HST allowed for far greater accuracy in the measurements, thus far greater accuracy in the results, so with less margins for the error bars.

None of this should be unusual. No cosmologists, that I'm aware, is arguing that there is a far greater, or less, expansion rate that is remotely likely.

 

[rod]

I keep track of values reported for H0 the old fashion way Various reports I read I document in my home database. Here is an example.

Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger, https://phys.org/news/2019-09-universe-billion-years-younger.html, Sep-2019.

"The universe is looking younger every day, it seems. New calculations suggest the universe could be a couple billion years younger than scientists now estimate, and even younger than suggested by two other calculations published this year that trimmed hundreds of millions of years from the age of the cosmos. The huge swings in scientists' estimates—even this new calculation could be off by billions of years—reflect different approaches to the tricky problem of figuring the universe's real age..."...Jee's team came up with a Hubble Constant of 82.4, which would put the age of the universe at around 11.4 billion years. Jee used a concept called gravitational lensing—where gravity warps light and makes far away objects look closer."

I can see the values and age differences in Allen's Astrophysical Quantities, Fourth Edition too on pages 646-647. Different values for H0 ranging from 40 km/s/Mpc to 100 km/s/Mpc and different variables used too, result in universe ages from 5.58 billion years old up to 31.13 billion years old. There is plenty of wiggle room Helio et al

 

[Helio]

I keep track of values reported for H0 the old fashion way Various reports I read I document in my home database. Here is an example.

Study finds the universe might be 2 billion years younger, https://phys.org/news/2019-09-universe-billion-years-younger.html, Sep-2019.

Interestng. Has anymore gravitational lensing helped improve this estimate since then?

The key is trying to get a handle on the margin of errors. Notice what is stated at the end of that article, "
Harvard astronomer Avi Loeb, who wasn't part of the study, said it an interesting and unique way to calculate the universe's expansion rate, but the large error margins limits its effectiveness until more information can be gathered.

'It is difficult to be certain of your conclusions if you use a ruler that you don't fully understand,'' Loeb said in an email."

The JWST, with it's ability to look at the distant, heavily redshifted light that passes through those lenses, should make a real improvement to the error bars, I assume.