James Webb Space Telescope suggests 'new cosmic feature' is needed to solve 'Hubble trouble

[Admin]

'Hubble was right!' The largest cosmic survey from the James Webb Space Telescope indicates scientists may need another ingredient in their cosmic recipe.

James Webb Space Telescope suggests 'new cosmic feature' is needed to solve 'Hubble trouble : Read more

 

[Mustellus]

As a 76 year old professional astronomer, I had never, ever seen the Hubble constant cited in MPH/ MPC. It kinda rhymes that way, and yes, Km / Sec / MPC is still a set of bastardized units. But we are trying to ease everyone else into using metric....

 

[jimsuber]

I'm confused. Was there ever any doubt at all that any subset of our understanding of the universe was incomplete.

 

[orsobubu]

I'm confused. Was there ever any doubt at all that any subset of our understanding of the universe was incomplete.

it is incredible that a nobel prize winner can shamelessly say that his model of the universe MAY be incomplete

 

[Gibsense]

Please tell me why this is incorrect:

The Hubble Constant derived from light and age 13.77 billion years is 71 km/s/Mpc
The Hubble Constant derived from light + previous expansion - say 14.4 billion years is 68 km/s/Mpc
A further modification might be the removal of Dark Energy from the matter

 

[bernie]

Has anybody fully analysed credible alternatives to the concept of the accelerating expansion of the universe? There is one line of approach that requires no complex effects or parameters. Those galaxies at great distances travel faster than closer galaxies simply because they were generated travelling at higher speeds so they have travelled further. The acceleration may just be an illusion generated by the method of analysis. Simply put, a galaxy twice as far away as a distant galaxy would be travelling at twice the speed of the nearer. Discrepancies could be accounted for by the speed of light dropping over large distances. Afterall, the speed of light is not constant as it crosses the universe. The universe is not a vacuum, it is full of matter.

 

[RGDELIVERYGUY]

Has anybody fully analysed credible alternatives to the concept of the accelerating expansion of the universe? There is one line of approach that requires no complex effects or parameters. Those galaxies at great distances travel faster than closer galaxies simply because they were generated travelling at higher speeds so they have travelled further. The acceleration may just be an illusion generated by the method of analysis. Simply put, a galaxy twice as far away as a distant galaxy would be travelling at twice the speed of the nearer. Discrepancies could be accounted for by the speed of light dropping over large distances. Afterall, the speed of light is not constant as it crosses the universe. The universe is not a vacuum, it is full of matter.

I am a smart guy, but no education in astrophysics, but I know that gravity affects lights as in gravitational lensing. With the oldest, furthest light apparently showing the fastest expansion, it made me think that it has also been 'exposed' to gravity the longest. Now gravity could be something or possibly over 14 billion/17 billion years, maybe the speed of light itself has changed with either gravity slowing light more as it travels further and further as more and more is behind it as it gets closer to our observation point OR if the speed of lights slows for some other reason, we couldn't really say with certainty that the universe is expanding faster and faster.

A star at the outer edges of the universe emits light that has more and more mass behind it as it travels towards us even if we are not at the center of the universe, no matter what direction it came from. The amount of the light slowing from the force of gravity would be miniscule. But if a photon from 10 billion light years away has been speed checked, and found to have the exact same speed as a photon emitted locally, I would feel more comfortable with the use of the spped of light to measure accelerating expansion. I don't know how many decimal places out that a variation in light speed would matter but over the distance of billions of light years, even an immeasuable difference could add up. But taking the speed of light as a constant and using that one number as a base for calculations seems to be very trusing.

Someone much smarter than I am could maybe figure out if assuming possible changes in light speed over time, or change due to gravitational forces could account for some of the unexplained anomalies. Maybe 'dark energy' is really something not so strange. Gravity does have energy, maybe enough to make the energy of light change.

And your point of further galaxies seemingly moving fater- maybe 14 billion years ago, they were moving faster but have since slowed, You would expect that 14 billion years ago, right at the 'big bang' explosion, the 'debris' would be moving. All we know for sure is that light from stars 14 billion light years away is really only telling us the speed that galaxy or star was moving at that point.

 

[Classical Motion]

I believe that there is a way to discriminate that redshift, as to how much is caused by a moving distance emitter….. AND/OR the shift caused by expanding space. I think that those shifts are different and could be measured.

Even though we can’t measure it today.

The measurement problem is the flux. We have to be able to measure one singular ray. Out of that flux.

And then we need two, separate detectors, phased and switched in the proper manner to measure that ray.

When we can do that, cosmology will start anew. Spacetime and expansion will disappear and the search for gravity will start anew too.

But it’s just a belief. Light blinks. And that blink contains a load of accurate information.

 

[San Juan Hill]

I don’t keep track, but I think I’ve asked my questions at least three times before in this forum.

Since it seems we aren’t positive we have the correct answer about a lot of things in our universe, I’ll repeat my questions.

What was going on before the Big Bang? Where did the material that went BANG come from? Last, what is out there past where the JWST can see?

Seems we have the same vision problems we had before some sailor decided to go past the horizon on our ball of rock a few thousand years ago, and didn’t fall off!

 

[Classical Motion]

“What was going on before the Big Bang?“ No one knows.

“Where did the material that went BANG come from?“ No one knows.

“Last, what is out there past where the JWST can see?” Just more of the same.

“Seems we have the same vision problems we had before some sailor decided to go past the horizon on our ball of rock a few thousand years ago, and didn’t fall off!” No, they are entirely different problems.

The BB is a supposition, verified with affirmative supposition. Cosmology has to explain huge contradictions. And requires constant updating and debating. The more measurements, the more debate. And in this poor man’s opinion, comic book entities.

No human will ever know how this all started. All have asked those same questions many times over. You are not the first and you are not alone.

The question can not be answered. Many questions can not be answered. Only the present state can be investigated. We are very limited. The analyses of flux confuses us. Whether it’s a light flux or a time flux. The math of such is incomplete.

Many other scientists are submitting suppositions, with their math evidence, all the time.

 

[Atlan0001]

Location, location, location! Well, well, well! Magnitude, magnitude, magnitude! Fractal zooms structure of universe, accelerating in expansion, accelerating in contraction.

If something is accelerating in expansion, as a nova, then something is probably accelerating in contraction (possibly as a lot of somethings across the board, a lot of contractions totaling a balancing act of equal but opposites), even if a vast unseen, unnoticed, thus unrecognized something! The map, the observed and observable universe, is not the territory! The map may not not be all inclusive of all the territory! It may not be capable of being all encompassing!

 

[qubits]

Ok, non-scientist talking. Why is the known universe accelerating?

Supposing all the known matter/energy, since the Big Bang, is accelerating not just because it has hidden energy/mass(dark), but because it is accelerating outwards under the pull of some super gravitational source at the limit of the unknown universe. Sort of a small sphere of the known universe, within a super sized sphere, and that super sized sphere has a gravitational pull distributed over its surface shell. Would that not explain some of the missing energy/mass - another external force.

 

[Robin Curtis]

This is such a simple point and I'm surprised our astronomer didn't catch this:
a PARSEC is equivalent to 3.26 light-years or 5.8 trillion miles (9.4 trillion kilometers), and a MEGA-parsec, Mpc, is a million times that.