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.

 

[Gibsense]

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!

An answer to the last question seems fairly reliable:

As expansion occurs the further you look the faster the recession. Eventually, the recession exceeds the speed of light so light from beyond can never reach us. As 'our time passes' before we intercept light (the light is of a long time past) then the further we look the older the objects.

This gives us the impression we are looking at a time shortly after the Big Bang which may be a location in time but not where the Big Bang is or an edge of the universe (in the normal sense even though an event horizon). Therefore this limit is called "the observable universe". Beyond this event horizon (or observable universe limit) is more universe.

You may of course be asking what lies beyond the universe. To answer we need to define 'universe'. If you mean 'everything' then the first response has to be - 'It depends on shape'. If the universe is spherical (a Hypersphere fits the bill): In this case 3D space extends around the sphere - you could travel forever circumnavigating - and in 4D it has a boundary (the present Time). Beyond that time boundary is nothing (some say). No space, no vacuum, no virtual particles, just zero (but with likely, I think, potential dimensions).

 

[Gibsense]

What was going on before the Big Bang? Where did the material that went BANG come from?

This is still unknown. My suggestion is that we are experiencing a White Hole. My reasoning is simple: we resemble a black hole in reverse. The common notion is that a white hole is a mirror image of a black hole, perhaps differing only in shape. A white hole could be considered a separate universe where time transitions from compression to expansion. It does not go 'negative' as some might suggest; rather, it literally flips at a 90-degree angle from space, moving from one side to the other. This concept can be easily illustrated with a drawing.

 

[John Darkphysics]

Hello,
I think I have an explanation why measures of Hubble and James Webb have some issues with the acceleration of the universe.
For me the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not constant and is changing function of the direction you are measuring in the sky. And I have explained what is missing in the current Theory.

I cannot explain the theory in this article because of many calculations and so I have written a book to be more clear.
I will be happy to have some comments on this theory.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

It is of course progress that the precarious cosmic ladder method can rule out bias caused by having had relied on a single instrument. But it hasn't ruled out method biases which Freedman et al showed is at hand (2 of 3 ladder methods align with early universe methods).

The latest DESI survey had yet again a robust LCDM even when recent supernova results are added. [DESI 2024 VI: Cosmological Constraints from the Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations] As long as that happens, the likelihood is that the ladder methods has unknown biases that skew their results.

 

[Torbjorn Larsson]

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

Yes, since we now have a concordance cosmology (inflation + LCDM). Some subsets may be problematic, but not a significant amount.

Has anybody fully analysed credible alternatives to the concept of the accelerating expansion of the universe?

Yes, and all have failed against the current best theory. The details depend on which theory you propose, yours for example mistake space expansion for peculiar velocities of galaxies (and assume a finetuned set of those for Earth observers only).

Gravity does have energy, maybe enough to make the energy of light change.

Yes, as in gravitational time dilation. Those effects have been observed on cosmological scales (in galaxy clusters). So there is merit to that.

But as for galaxy velocities, see above.

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?

All these are routinely answered in science news contexts.

• You don't define "the Big Bang". Before the hot big bang we had inflation. But if you mean the most generic definition of space expansion, it is an open question if there ever was an initial state (of no expansion, say).
• Nothing went "BANG" as in an explosion (in some preexisting space) the universe is too homogeneous for that - space expanded (doing away with preexisting space notions). There was no material or radiation during the inflation era, but when it spontaneously and locally stopped the potential energy of the inflation field was released. That is what cosmologists call "(re)heating" since all the radiation and later massive matter were produced as the universe cooled from the expansion.
• Beyond JWST is more of the same early universe. We can't see further than the cosmic background radiation that was released some hundreds of million years earlier. It comes from us in all directions and its homogeneity is one big data point on why "Big Bang" means space expansion, not "BANG". Possibly we can one day see the neutrino background released immediately after the hot big bang. But after that we run out of "time", the inflation field leaves a smidgen of an imprint (in the cosmic background radiation and the cosmic web filaments initial energy densities) in its last 10^-35 s of end roll before it vanished entirely.

Here is a (speculative, from the research edge) video explaining some of the current context:

If something is accelerating in expansion, as a nova,

Actually the local expansion rate is slowing down, asymptoting to a smidgen less than today's Hubble rate value. It is the summed up expansion volumes that are exponentially increasing in size due to the constant vacuum ("dark") energy now dominating the universe's inner energy budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology)

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

It isn't, it is space that is expanding. And as I noted above, the expansion is slowing down, it is the constant rate that sums up to an exponentially larger universe.

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.

He was irritated (as am I) that a US science news media doesn't use the astronomy customary (and internationally) used SI units. Velocities are measured in m/s (hence "KMH" can be practical).

This is still unknown. My suggestion is that we are experiencing a White Hole.

And physicist's suggestion is that we are not, since a black hole solution has a boundary while a general relativistic universe has none. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

For me the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not constant and is changing function of the direction you are measuring in the sky.

It is not constant - see my comments above - but it is observably homogeneous across the sky - also noted above.

Since you present no peer review publication, you have no scientific theory to present. A book is not sufficient in most cases, I wouldn't try that route, it is already paper producing scientists that write books that may (or may not) interest peers.

 

[Gibsense]

And physicist's suggestion is that we are not, since a black hole solution has a boundary while a general relativistic universe has none. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2010/04/28/the-universe-is-not-a-black-hole/

The link you provided states:
"
We call that singularity the Big Bang, but it’s very similar to what we would expect from a white hole, which is just a time-reversed version of a black hole.

That insight, plus four dollars or so, will get you a grande latte at Starbucks. The spacetime solution to Einstein’s equation that describes a universe expanding from the Big Bang is very similar to the time-reversal of a black hole, but you don’t really learn much from making that statement, especially because there is no outside; everything you wanted to know was already there in the original cosmological language. Our universe is not going to collapse to a future singularity, even though the mass is enough to allow that to happen, simply because it’s expanding; the singularity you’re anticipating already happened."

The latter paragraph is nonsense.

1. "There is no outside". a) The evidence is what? b) That is irrelevant. Like the BB if there is no outside our universe exists and that shows that a universe (a white hole) can exist "with nothing outside*.
2. The expanding universe is presented as an indication that we cannot become a black hole but the suggestion is that we are a white hole. The author is rather confused.
3. "The singularity has already happened" Yes of course this is exactly what you would expect for us to be a white hole

 

[Gibsense]

Yes, and all have failed against the current best theory. The details depend on which theory you propose, yours for example mistake space expansion for peculiar velocities of galaxies (and assume a finetuned set of those for Earth observers only)

It turns out that it is simply astronomers' obsession with the idea that the universe is Flat. That all time (propper time) is parallel. Clearly wrong as time runs orthogonal to space. It depends where you are or better wherever you are time runs orthogonally including in a spherical universe.
[url=https://postimages.org/]
https://forums.space.com/[url=https...Sphereland-Hypersphere-v-Flat-Space.jpg[/img][/URL]
[/URL]


Equal distances in the 3D space (the circumference of a hypersphere) are interpreted, by obsessed Flatlanders as smaller - as the apparent t=0 is approached. That gives the impression that greater distances between galaxies is achieved per second in recent times.
We can only perceive space in 3D - it appears flat.
A, say, 2D person on the 2D surface of a sphere would have trouble perceiving their 3D situation (mathematicians might work it out). Similarly a 3D person on a hypersphere might have similar narrow mindedness especially if the hypersphere was very big.
A book dealing with this subject mathematically is being discussed on these forums. It's got some errors IMO but is worth the mental challenge

The diagram show a simplified situation. A sufficiently large universe would have t=0 occurring before the quartile and therefore the apparent speed of expansion would be different. By correlating the two, that is matching the apparent speed of expansion with the theory, the size of the universe can be established.

 

[John Darkphysics]

Hello,
I am new in this forum and I am sorry if I have made a mistake by speaking of my book.
The ebook is free for 3 days and after you can find all days parts of the ebook for free also on Amazon.
I don't want to make some advertissement on my book, I just want to have some feedback on my Theory.
I have not made any publication because I don't want to make advertissement and I prefer to have people who read because they are interested instead of other reasons.
I will write some other posts related to the experimentation of my Theory because I agree with some comments : people don't know me here and I have to better explain my ideas and not refer to a book.
I will prepare this in the next days.
My email is john.darkphysics@gmail.com if you want to have more explanation

 

[Aretino]

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.

That sounds a bit like the "tired light" idea.

 

[Atlan0001]

It turns out that it is simply astronomers' obsession with the idea that the universe is Flat. That all time (propper time) is parallel. Clearly wrong as time runs orthogonal to space. It depends where you are or better wherever you are time runs orthogonally including in a spherical universe.
[url=https://postimages.org/]
https://forums.space.com/[url=https...Sphereland-Hypersphere-v-Flat-Space.jpg[/img][/URL]
[/URL]


Equal distances in the 3D space (the circumference of a hypersphere) are interpreted, by obsessed Flatlanders as smaller - as the apparent t=0 is approached. That gives the impression that greater distances between galaxies is achieved per second in recent times.
We can only perceive space in 3D - it appears flat.
A, say, 2D person on the 2D surface of a sphere would have trouble perceiving their 3D situation (mathematicians might work it out). Similarly a 3D person on a hypersphere might have similar narrow mindedness especially if the hypersphere was very big.
A book dealing with this subject mathematically is being discussed on these forums. It's got some errors IMO but is worth the mental challenge

The diagram show a simplified situation. A sufficiently large universe would have t=0 occurring before the quartile and therefore the apparent speed of expansion would be different. By correlating the two, that is matching the apparent speed of expansion with the theory, the size of the universe can be established.

You don't have your onion curvatures repeating in omni-directional and omni-magnitudinous parallels to infinities:

....((((((((((....
....))))))))))....

You may not see the resulting geometry, but now it reduces to more asymptotic Flatland (singular) out of the Flatlands (plural).

 

[Gibsense]

Hello,
I think I have an explanation why measures of Hubble and James Webb have some issues with the acceleration of the universe.
For me the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is not constant and is changing function of the direction you are measuring in the sky. And I have explained what is missing in the current Theory.

I cannot explain the theory in this article because of many calculations and so I have written a book to be more clear.
I will be happy to have some comments on this theory.

According to Hawking a perfect sphere does not work. It would need to be a bit flattened (like the Earth) and with a rough surface. Peering outward from wherever would provide different results it seems

 

[Atlan0001]

You don't have your onion curvatures repeating in omni-directional and omni-magnitudinous parallels to infinities:

....((((((((((....
....))))))))))....

You may not see the resulting geometry, but now it reduces to more asymptotic Flatland (singular) out of the Flatlands (plural).

It is a plurality of paralleling spheres to infinity in every direction and magnitude, NOT a singular sphere. The radiuses parallel to infinity, there is no singularity of radius . . . except in the increase in overall magnitude, the accelerating expansion of overall magnitude of always the same measurement of radius to the same observable (ever unreachable) horizon.

....((((((((((....
....))))))))))....