Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

esa.int

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 380 posts

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#13

Post by cwillu »

amethyst wrote: post #7
mr_mitm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either we live in an unusually under dense region of the universe or our models are wrong ("new physics").

Or it's a simulation and someone keeps pushing changes to production.

Which would also count as new physics.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#14

Post by lajr »

amethyst wrote: post #7
mr_mitm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either we live in an unusually under dense region of the universe or our models are wrong ("new physics").

Or it's a simulation and someone keeps pushing changes to production.

I wonder if their introspection is good enough to have our population on a Grafana dashboard somewhere

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#15

Post by orra »

JohnMakin wrote: post #2

This sort of brushes on it but for a long time there was hope at resolving the Hubble Tension by saying that Hubble telescope’s measurements were incorrect, because that would be the most simple explanation. This was not the case, so if anything, the mystery deepens. I don’t know for certain but I believe Hubble’s estimation has been widely accepted for a while though, because we’ve been using the 13.8 billion cosmol…

> we’ve been using the 13.8 billion cosmological age estimate ever since I started brushing up my layman's understanding of the subject.

I remembered the age of the universe as as 13.7 billion years, but I wasn't sure why that was.

Well, the initial WMAP results in 2003 supported an age of 13.7 billion years. Later results nudged this upwards to 13.8 billion years. Of course, all the results have error bars.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#16

Post by queuebert »

amethyst wrote: post #7
mr_mitm wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Either we live in an unusually under dense region of the universe or our models are wrong ("new physics").

Or it's a simulation and someone keeps pushing changes to production.

Somewhere aliens are making fun of how shoddy our simulation is coded.

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#17

Post by perihelions »

JohnMakin wrote: post #2

This sort of brushes on it but for a long time there was hope at resolving the Hubble Tension by saying that Hubble telescope’s measurements were incorrect, because that would be the most simple explanation. This was not the case, so if anything, the mystery deepens. I don’t know for certain but I believe Hubble’s estimation has been widely accepted for a while though, because we’ve been using the 13.8 billion cosmol…

Here's a graph of the contradictory measurements (JWST data not yet included),

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law#Determining_the... (caption: "Value of the Hubble constant in (km/s)/Mpc, including measurement uncertainty, for recent surveys[54]")

Re: Webb and Hubble confirm Universe's expansion rate

#18

Post by westurner »

Hubble's law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Expansion of the universe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion_of_the_universe :

> While objects cannot move faster than light, this limitation only applies with respect to local reference frames and does not limit the recession rates of cosmologically distant objects

Given that v is velocity in the opposite direction, and c is the constant reference frame speed of light; do we account for velocity in determining whether light traveling at c towards earth will ever reach us?

  v - c c
  v + c > c if v>0
Are tachyons FTL, is there entanglement FTL?

How far away in light years does a mirror in space need to be in order to see dinosaurs that existed say 100 million years ago?

Post reply on HN