Science James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe - Aether theory boys is this our moment?

Source: https://www.livescience.com/space/c...-wrong-with-our-understanding-of-the-universe
Archive: https://archive.is/363nM

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe​


News - By Ben Turner - published March 14, 2024
Depending on where we look, the universe is expanding at different rates. Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics — that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.

1710874127628.png
"With measurement errors negated, what remains is the real and exciting possibility we have misunderstood the universe," lead study author Adam Riess, professor of physics and astronomy at Johns Hopkins University, said in a statement.

Reiss, Saul Perlmutter and Brian P. Schmidt won the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics for their 1998 discovery of dark energy, the mysterious force behind the universe's accelerating expansion.

Currently, there are two "gold-standard" methods for figuring out the Hubble constant, a value that describes the expansion rate of the universe. The first involves poring over tiny fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) — an ancient relic of the universe's first light produced just 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Between 2009 and 2013, astronomers mapped out this microwave fuzz using the European Space Agency's Planck satellite to infer a Hubble constant of roughly 46,200 mph per million light-years, or roughly 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc).

The second method uses pulsating stars called Cepheid variables. Cepheid stars are dying, and their outer layers of helium gas grow and shrink as they absorb and release the star's radiation, making them periodically flicker like distant signal lamps.

As Cepheids get brighter, they pulsate more slowly, giving astronomers a means to measure their absolute brightness. By comparing this brightness to their observed brightness, astronomers can chain Cepheids into a "cosmic distance ladder" to peer ever deeper into the universe's past. With this ladder in place, astronomers can find a precise number for its expansion from how the Cepheids' light has been stretched out, or red-shifted.

But this is where the mystery begins. According to Cepheid variable measurements taken by Riess and his colleagues, the universe's expansion rate is around 74 km/s/Mpc: an impossibly high value when compared to Planck's measurements. Cosmology had been hurled into uncharted territory.

"We wouldn't call it a tension or problem, but rather a crisis," David Gross, a Nobel Prize-winning astronomer, said at a 2019 conference at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics (KITP) in California.

Initially, some scientists thought that the disparity could be a result of a measurement error caused by the blending of Cepheids with other stars in Hubble's aperture. But in 2023, the researchers used the more accurate JWST to confirm that, for the first few "rungs" of the cosmic ladder, their Hubble measurements were right. Nevertheless, the possibility of crowding further back in the universe's past remained.

To resolve this issue, Riess and his colleagues built on their previous measurements, observing 1,000 more Cepheid stars in five host galaxies as remote as 130 million light-years from Earth. After comparing their data to Hubble's, the astronomers confirmed their past measurements of the Hubble constant.

"We've now spanned the whole range of what Hubble observed, and we can rule out a measurement error as the cause of the Hubble Tension with very high confidence," Riess said. "Combining Webb and Hubble gives us the best of both worlds. We find that the Hubble measurements remain reliable as we climb farther along the cosmic distance ladder."

In other words: the tension at the heart of cosmology is here to stay.


Ed. Note - The comments section
1710874232710.png
1710874274906.png
1710874351916.png
 
At some point, the idea that our place in the universe is basically average turned from a reasonable guess based on probability into a dogma. I'm not quite sure when or why.
I've seen a recent question, what is the size of a photon? It's not an easy question, because it's both a subatomic particle and a wave front probability that can be the size of the universe. There's more than can be know, or understood, within this universe. It seems to be setup, maybe like again Sagan said. As if there were a God, saying things are up to you.


It's hard to find that ending, but at 56 min he kinda got it I think. He was focused on nuclear war too much, but it's an interesting viewpoint.
59:50 of that tears me up each time I watch it.
 
The issue at stake is Isotropy: the cherished idea that the Earth, our Galaxy, or any thing about us does not occupy a special place in the cosmos. Every sizable volume of the cosmos should look indistinguishable from any other of the same size.

Isotropy is already challenged by the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. I'm not if cosmology has assimilated the significance of the CMB anisotropy; they seem to chalk it up to quantum fluctuations in the universe being "frozen" during the Inflation phase of the Cosmic history. If the James Webb finding holds, this would be another serious blow to the Isotropy dogma (which is the descendant of the Copernican principle).

The Big Bang Paradigm will hold -- after all, Big Bang merely means time and space have a beginning. What might be at peril is the theory of so-called Cosmic Inflation, first articulated by Alan Guth but then developed into a dozen byzantine versions. Isotropy seems like an expected consequence when space expanded to many, many trillions of its former volume in a fraction of a second. Still, given Inflation is so theoretical, so unconstrainted by observation, there'll be someone who fobs the math enough to accommodate any findings.
 
The issue at stake is Isotropy: the cherished idea that the Earth, our Galaxy, or any thing about us does not occupy a special place in the cosmos. Every sizable volume of the cosmos should look indistinguishable from any other of the same size.

Isotropy is already challenged by the observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation. I'm not if cosmology has assimilated the significance of the CMB anisotropy; they seem to chalk it up to quantum fluctuations in the universe being "frozen" during the Inflation phase of the Cosmic history. If the James Webb finding holds, this would be another serious blow to the Isotropy dogma (which is the descendant of the Copernican principle).

The Big Bang Paradigm will hold -- after all, Big Bang merely means time and space have a beginning. What might be at peril is the theory of so-called Cosmic Inflation, first articulated by Alan Guth but then developed into a dozen byzantine versions. Isotropy seems like an expected consequence when space expanded to many, many trillions of its former volume in a fraction of a second. Still, given Inflation is so theoretical, so unconstrainted by observation, there'll be someone who fobs the math enough to accommodate any findings.
Thanks, I couldn't think of the term, but isotopy is it. I don't think it's an answerable question, a bit like Godel's incompletion theorem. We're trying to define a set of all sets, which may not be possible within any set of spacetime. That's my take on it anyway. I think we'll chisel away more and more, and find more and more confounding evidence.

My idea is that it's a matter that Copenhagen is right, and things can't be defined fully. All I know is we won't know that much more and there won't be a GUT in this lifetime.

ETA I'd like to see Roger Penrose's ideas on this, but he may be too old now. I like to bring him up a lot, he's a fav of mine.
 
Last edited:
One thing that pisses me off alot about the way science is communicated especially when it comes to Cosmology and Physics in general is that a scientist will make a declarative sentence about a topic when at the current time we have zero ability to actually test any of these hypothesis. It's especially bad in Quantum Physics. It's fine if you want to talk about your hypothesis just make sure it's understood that's what it is and that it's not actually a theory.
Cosmology as a whole is mostly people looking at what we can see, and then unironically making shit up to fill the gaps, making shit up to make the prior shit be able to cohabitate, and then gluing it all together and telling people "This is probably how the entire universe works" and preening about just how smart they are. By its very nature, its not possible for it to be experimental, only observational. The way they present this to the layperson makes them think they've discovered objective fact, when all they're doing is interpreting observations to fit with their fabrications, or creating fabrications to justify the observations.

There is a lot of work around it mathematically, but a lot of lay people seem to assume that "Science guy says the math checks out" means its actual physical law, rather than the reality of weird shit like Negative Energy, existing off the back of rules lawyering quantum effects into the macro scale, creating "Theoretical" mechanics that are completely unevidenced, but then used to support other theories. The math checking out just means numbers on the board add up, rather than proof it can exist in reality.

Cosmology is a great thought experiment space and opportunity to give novel consideration to interactions well and truly beyond most peoples ability to even comprehend, but the field is still closer to Plato's Man than it is to Newtons Law of Gravity, much less anything more accurate than that.
 
There is a lot of work around it mathematically, but a lot of lay people seem to assume that "Science guy says the math checks out" means its actual physical law, rather than the reality of weird shit like Negative Energy, existing off the back of rules lawyering quantum effects into the macro scale, creating "Theoretical" mechanics that are completely unevidenced, but then used to support other theories. The math checking out just means numbers on the board add up, rather than proof it can exist in reality
The interesting thing is that a lot of the math did work out, discoveries and math theories went back and forth. Maxwells equations and Fouriers.. And especially Boltzmann predicted in math what would later be discovered with experiment. Einstein of course too. But things will always refine.

P7140526.jpg
 
The interesting thing is that a lot of the math did work out, discoveries and math theories went back and forth. Maxwells equations and Fouriers.. And especially Boltzmann predicted in math what would later be discovered with experiment. Einstein of course too. But things will always refine.

View attachment 5833279
That’s such an amazing tomb. Poor bloke was severely mentally ill, imagine what he’d have accomplished if he’d lived longer
 
The thing that they never consider in all these calculations: Plasma, which as the chief component of star surfaces is mostly what we see when looking at distant galaxies, can have an intrinsic red shift. The possibility of intrinsic red shift in apparently distant objects throws the entire red-shift-distance calculation out of the window.
 
Another expansive grand cosmic explosion? It would be funny if it was discovered one day the universe hit a bump in the road and just started colliding with another universe, also trying to infinitely expand.
This reminds me of the holographic universe theory in which all matter (and I think energy too?) is an interaction of two universes for want of a better term overlapping in opposite directions, creating the observable universe like the interference pattern of a hologram. Was a very cool concept.

Every direction we look there is red shifting, which means objects are moving away from us. So something has to be driving it.
It is possible that it's California? The Universe appears to be expanding in all directions away from us because all Space and Time is attempting to move further away from California?

Slightly different, as far as I understood. Which wasn’t much, if I’m honest. It wasn’t just that particles behave like point vibrations or whatever.
I'm not sure anything can exist that isn't moving. The manifestation of anything is movement. Ex nihilo.

The single thing most seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe is the arrogance of those claiming we understood the universe before this latest revelation. It's the universe and we are only a miniscule, inconsequential part of it, bound by our tiny mammal brains and fragile, ephemeral bodies to three-dimensional space in what is almost certainly a multi-dimensional reality.
In a sense should we even be trying to understand the universe in this sense? If it turned out that F=MA + k where k was some previously unnoticed constant and the universe had some tiny infinite appearance of new energy from nowhere at all times, would we have to say "and the reason for this is" or would the scientific thing just be to confirm that it is real, confirm that it is constant, and say: "This Is". What I'm getting at is to question what Understanding actually is. Ultimately what we're trying to do is model the universe. It may be that the only truly accurate model of the universe is the universe itself. We may not be smart enough to say "the reason for this is...", there may be no reason for it that anybody inside the universe could discern. We can say at the high level the "reason" for something. The ball falls at this rate because it was thrown at this speed and the mass below it is yo mama this big. But can we really say why the mass attracts the ball? At what point does understanding cease to be analysis and become merely description?

That said, the search for answers is a Heck of a buzz!
 
In a sense should we even be trying to understand the universe in this sense? If it turned out that F=MA + k where k was some previously unnoticed constant and the universe had some tiny infinite appearance of new energy from nowhere at all times, would we have to say "and the reason for this is" or would the scientific thing just be to confirm that it is real, confirm that it is constant, and say: "This Is". What I'm getting at is to question what Understanding actually is. Ultimately what we're trying to do is model the universe. It may be that the only truly accurate model of the universe is the universe itself. We may not be smart enough to say "the reason for this is...", there may be no reason for it that anybody inside the universe could discern. We can say at the high level the "reason" for something. The ball falls at this rate because it was thrown at this speed and the mass below it is yo mama this big. But can we really say why the mass attracts the ball? At what point does understanding cease to be analysis and become merely description?
1710959914087.png
I like this image because
1. It's funny
2. I like the philosophical implications of constants in our universe being the cosmic equivalents of a ceiling bird
 
Ultimately what we're trying to do is model the universe. It may be that the only truly accurate model of the universe is the universe itself. We may not be smart enough to say "the reason for this is...",
This is kind of what I was asking in the ‘can science explain everything’ thread. I’m not even sure the human brain can explain itself or consciousness, never mind the universe. However, you’re right that a. We should keep trying and b. It’s probably California
 
View attachment 5833846
I like this image because
1. It's funny
2. I like the philosophical implications of constants in our universe being the cosmic equivalents of a ceiling bird
With this image, you have refuted my proposal that it is sufficient to merely describe the universe in place of explaining the universe.

Not in a logical way, but in an emotional way. Which may after all be the only way that this specific proposal could be refuted.

Well done.
 
This is kind of what I was asking in the ‘can science explain everything’ thread. I’m not even sure the human brain can explain itself or consciousness, never mind the universe. However, you’re right that a. We should keep trying and b. It’s probably California
I have to ask you if you've ever read Blindsight by Peter Watts. I suspect you have. He's a marine biologist by profession and Blindsight is the only Vampire story I ever actually found scary/unsettling. But on the off-chance you have not, it's only novella length and I suspect you will find it very enjoyable. He has it on his website for free though it is also available on Amazon.

Again, on the off-chance you haven't read it or for anybody who finds your comment above interesting but doesn't know it, it's a strong recommendation from me and avoid reading summaries, comments or anything else about it before you read it. Go in... blind.
 
I have to ask you if you've ever read Blindsight by Peter Watts. I suspect you have. He's a marine biologist by profession and Blindsight is the only Vampire story I ever actually found scary/unsettling. But on the off-chance you have not, it's only novella length and I suspect you will find it very enjoyable. He has it on his website for free though it is also available on Amazon.

Again, on the off-chance you haven't read it or for anybody who finds your comment above interesting but doesn't know it, it's a strong recommendation from me and avoid reading summaries, comments or anything else about it before you read it. Go in... blind.
Seconded, big time. Peter Watts is the guy who wrote The Things - the The Thing fan fiction short story from the thing's perspective (also an excellent read.) Blindsight's sequel Echopraxia falls apart at the end a bit, but is also pretty great.
 
Yeah, there are too many variables in this for me. Cepheids, are we sure about their universality? Redshift, could gas or star plasma effect it?

I'm not even sure how they could fix this. Triangulation could work, but you would need giant telescopes at markedly different positions, even to just confirm everything.

I have a feeling that we'll get some answers when we get some observatories farther than Earth and ten times the size of Webb, but it maybe a century or two away.
 
Back