Cosmology feels a lot like quackery these days. Does it even bother to rely on physics? Physical experiments show explosions do not propel all matter at the same rate. James Webb telescope recently found galaxies that were “too old”, would have formed right after the Big Bang. The prevailing wisdom was all matter spread out evenly due to the Big Bang, then coalesced into galaxies (I emailed various researchers to con…
> explosions… explosions
What are you drawing an analogy to explosions with in this comment? The Big Bang? Why do you expect the analogy to be as precise as you seem to take it to be?
Confused, are they saying that different parts of the universe are expanding at different rates? Or are they saying two methods give different results for the same parts?
The second one. This result confirms that the "hubble tension" is real. In other words, two methods for measuring the expansion of the universe disagree, but we can't figure out why and have new and really strong evidence that the "cosmic ladder" method is correct. (The other method is based on the cosmic microwave background radiation and our best theories of physics, so we're caught between a rock and a hard place…
Is this a discrepancy a MOND variant could account for?
Cosmology feels a lot like quackery these days. Does it even bother to rely on physics? Physical experiments show explosions do not propel all matter at the same rate. James Webb telescope recently found galaxies that were “too old”, would have formed right after the Big Bang. The prevailing wisdom was all matter spread out evenly due to the Big Bang, then coalesced into galaxies (I emailed various researchers to con…
We have some pretty good ideas about just how "lumpy" the explosion of the big bang should have been. And yes, the best theories in cosmology disagree with the recent observations highlighted in this article. On the other hand, those cosmological theories are rooted in extremely strong physics which does things like predict various attributes of particles that have been measured extremely precisely and were predicted correctly. So the Hubble tension is real. My money is on the theory needing revising, but how? There are no great candidates for something to replace the standard model and our best theories in cosmology. There are plenty of candidates, but no obvious methods to choose a best one. This is science! Remember, the most exciting words in science are, "huh, that's odd." The Hubble tension is extremely odd!
given everything we already know about the fabric of spacetime, this makes sense. Every time we expect there to be an even distribution, we find more structure. So if something like dark energy is the driver of the expansion, and there is an unequal distribution of that, then this would be an expected outcome.
But of course, without this new data it would be difficult to believe!
I don’t understand what “time does not flow the same everywhere” means. Can you elaborate?
I don't want to discourage question-asking but you're now asking someone to give you a background on a physics phenomena without them knowing your starting level. It's awesome that the poster you're replying to introduced a new concept to us (not something I was thinking about, either) and literally taking the thing you quoted: "time does not flow the same everywhere" into Google will give you a starting point for yo…
Okay. I am a professional astronomer at the University of Washington, and I don’t see that phrase as holding very much meaning. In particular, “flow” is a messy word to use.
A generous reading of the OP might be that it is a restatement of special relativity, but then it is indeed disconnected to this measurement. An uncharitable reading would be that it is spiritual goop.
Anyway, I prefer to let someone answer in their own terms.
given everything we already know about the fabric of spacetime, this makes sense. Every time we expect there to be an even distribution, we find more structure. So if something like dark energy is the driver of the expansion, and there is an unequal distribution of that, then this would be an expected outcome. But of course, without this new data it would be difficult to believe!
this is because when we looking closely at the game bounds, God gets nervous and throws in some Perlin noise to keep us guessing
Can someone more familiar with the science help me out? - On the one hand, the universe can be expanding at different rates. - On the other hand, is it possible our approach to measuring the expansion (e.g., using Cepheid variable stars) might be the problem?
I've found this interesting and have read up a little on it. I believe there have been a good amount of studies trying to verify the different measurement methods. I believe they have made some progress in verifying the methods but I'm sure there is still more work to do. I think this is mainly in attempts to deal with the "cosmological crisis."
I get that the universe can be expanding, and that there might be different methods to calculate/measure this that have discrepancies. But that the rate of expansion is accelerating, how in the world is that possible?
Cosmology feels a lot like quackery these days. Does it even bother to rely on physics? Physical experiments show explosions do not propel all matter at the same rate. James Webb telescope recently found galaxies that were “too old”, would have formed right after the Big Bang. The prevailing wisdom was all matter spread out evenly due to the Big Bang, then coalesced into galaxies (I emailed various researchers to con…
What you explain is the confusion that comes from reading news articles about science ans succumbing to nihilism and conspiracy theories.