'Standard model' of cosmology called into question by new measurements

Scientists ! they've always got to break something , just when you have a perfectly good working theory of the speed of Universal expansion along come some scientist and tip over the apple cart .... gotta love science.

There have been questions over the accuracy of the Hubble Constant for a couple of years but a team from the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard have used a number of telescope's from around the world to measure our distance from four different galaxies to determine how fast the Universe is expanding , the number they got once again calls into question the accuracy of the Hubble Constant which determines the speed the Universe is expanding at , the Hubble Constant gives a number of 45.9 miles per second but the number the team behind the new figure came up with is just 41.9 miles per second so again calling accuracy of the Hubble Constant into question.

“Testing the standard model of cosmology is a really challenging problem that requires the best-ever measurements of the Hubble Constant," Dom Pesce, a researcher at the Center for Astrophysics at Harvard and Smithsonian and lead author on the new paper, said in a statement.

"The discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the Hubble Constant points to one of the most fundamental problems in all of physics, so we would like to have multiple, independent measurements that corroborate the problem and test the model," Pesce said. "Our method is geometric and completely independent of all others, and it reinforces the discrepancy."

"There has been debate over whether this problem lies in the model itself or in the measurements used to test it," Braatz added. "Our work uses a distance measurement technique completely independent of all others, and we reinforce the disparity between measured and predicted values. It is likely that the basic cosmological model involved in the predictions is the problem."
www.space.com...

Or is this further evidence for a fifth force of nature we have yet to discover ?

a reply to: gortex


Have you heard of the Star that is older than the Universe?

How far or fast is that in plank lengths ? Grins. Yeah I love stuff like this but one has to think the the solution will be short and mindbogglingly lovely and simple if well explained.

Star “HD 140283” or Methuselah star. Hmmm, curious...

a reply to: gortex

for me the electric universe theory and part of the hollow Earth theory line up better mathematically.

It seems almost every new discovery calls things into question or brings the wrong prediction. In which more than not the electric universe predictions are more accurate.

It would be really simple had they added more electrical measurement devices on the probe they sent to the sun.

Not to mention the new form or state of matter they found.

It's a cliche, but this goes to show once again that the more we learn, the more we realize we don't know squat.

The plot thickens!

I love looking back at the patterns in science and how much out understandings of the way things in general work in this universe. It makes me excited to think about all the amazing thing we don't know and may discover at any time.

a reply to: gortex

The thing is we're looking at things in a three-dimensional space and we don't do that from at least two far apart angles just from here.
So how reliable can any measurements really be? Trilateration would be really great, one point of observation here and another one at least at Canis Major Dwarf.
I know I know "red-/blue-shift" but to claim you can pinpoint a difference of 10km seems ... abstract.

a reply to: randomthoughts12

In which more than not the electric universe predictions are more accurate.

Which predictions would that be? Which EU predictions concern the rate of expansion of the Universe?

a reply to: Peeple
It is km/s/megaparsec, aka distance over time aka speed, not just distance. This means you have a time factor in your math equation.

You have to multiply the delta (10km/s) by the delta of the timespan the measurements were taken and put it into relation with the other dataset.

These 10km/h turn out to sum up a huge amount of discrepancy in distance between the two measurements that gave different numbers.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I know I read that. My point still is it might not be a linear movement for example, we couldn't tell because we only see it from here.

I just checked and it never was not topic of debate, so instead of arguing about it, it might be wiser to find out why that doesn't want to fit in a constant.
Might be smarter to examine what the circumstances are that lead to the biggest deviation.
"No I want my universe to move in straight lines!"
Ha!

If I am understanding any of this it looks like they are saying that structures of dark matter are affecting the measurements ? Just doesn't feel right to me but I am way out of my league here.

a reply to: Peeple

Indeed have been theories about the universe expanding in different rates, in different places, to explain the older than the universe star mentioned earlier by another member.

Isn't this science denial?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Very interesting indeed. Science is and always has been a moving target.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

So the logical first step might be to compare that with those nice background radiation and those temperature maps we made. But dang it: again we only got a 2d view of a 3d object....

But would feel like home, right? If it were so simple as colder+more "noise"= sticky
warmer+less noise= slippery

Haha I see myself out

a reply to: Peeple

So the logical first step might be to compare that with those nice background radiation and those temperature maps we made.

That's part of the problem, actually. This experiment increases the discrepancy.

However, predictions of the Hubble Constant from the standard cosmological model when applied to measurements of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) -- the leftover radiation from the Big Bang -- produce a value of 67.4, a significant and troubling difference.

The new experiment is also more in line with other recent experiments.

"Our measurement of the Hubble Constant is very close to other recent measurements, and statistically very different from the predictions based on the CMB and the standard cosmological model. All indications are that the standard model needs revision," said Braatz.

www.sciencedaily.com...

The problem seems to be with modelling the stuff we can't see and don't really know anything about. A revision of the Lambda CDM model would not necessarily be "Earth shaking." Unless you really are concerned about how the Universe began and how it may end.

a reply to: Phage

That's a much better article. Thank you.

a reply to: Peeple

In general, space.com sucks.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: gortex
Have you heard of the Star that is older than the Universe?

originally posted by: Plotus
Star “HD 140283” or Methuselah star. Hmmm, curious...

It seems the only people who really have a problem with that are those who don't understand math and statistics, that's not really a problem, but the problem mentioned in the OP really is a problem and not a new one, it's been a problem for some time.

originally posted by: randomthoughts12
a reply to: gortex

for me the electric universe theory and part of the hollow Earth theory line up better mathematically.

I looked for an electric universe "theory" and the underlying mathematical model but never found it. All I ever found was people talking BS without any mathematical model.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: randomthoughts12

In which more than not the electric universe predictions are more accurate.

Which predictions would that be? Which EU predictions concern the rate of expansion of the Universe?

Not that much surprises me any more but I'll be surprised if you get a good answer to that question!

originally posted by: gortex
"The discrepancy between the predicted and measured values of the Hubble Constant points to one of the most fundamental problems in all of physics, so we would like to have multiple, independent measurements that corroborate the problem and test the model," Pesce said. "Our method is geometric and completely independent of all others, and it reinforces the discrepancy."

"There has been debate over whether this problem lies in the model itself or in the measurements used to test it," Braatz added. "Our work uses a distance measurement technique completely independent of all others, and we reinforce the disparity between measured and predicted values. It is likely that the basic cosmological model involved in the predictions is the problem."

Something doesn't add up somewhere, there is definitely a discrepancy which is still unsolved.
This blows holes in arguments from people who say scientists just accept the existing paradigm, since obviously that's not what's happening here; they are using data from different techniques to show there's a problem and not just accepting the existing model.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: gortex


Have you heard of the Star that is older than the Universe?

If you mean HD 140283 (the Methuselah Star), then it is not necessarily older that the stated age of the universe. There is a +/- 800 Million years uncertainty to the supposed age of the star, which at the low end of it's uncertainty range puts its age at just slightly younger than the universe.

It could also be that the method astronomers use to measure the star's age might be slightly off (perhaps not a wrong method in general, but in need of refining). Its age was estimated by looking at its the heavier elements present in it. Since heavier elements, such as oxygen and metallic elements, weren't around in the early universe, it is assumed that stars with little to no heavy elements are from the early universe.

Using that method, they came up with the 14.4 Billion [+/- 0.8 Billion]. But if there are other yet-unknown reasons for a star to have low metallicty, then maybe the Methuselah Star is slightly younger than their estimate.

Either way, it doesn't necessarily mean the model and the science is completely wrong. Just like every scientific model, it frequently requires a little adjustment to fit in with new observations. They may need to find those other yet-unknown reasons for low metallitcity and adjust the model for it, or adjust their method for determining a star's age.