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
 
Jesus. That's the fucking Haber cycle. And I'm not sure if the ammonia would be a gas.

This is so insanely reductive that it threw me off the entire thing. Look at the temperature and pressure requirements for ammonia production. Nitrogenating shit is a nightmare - coincidentally, it's also the only reason why most prohibitor laws work. Natural nitrogen is inert, and it's the single largest barrier to entry for chemical production.

The chemistry isn't complicated. It's "how do I squeeze and/or heat this enough" - and all of these processes go far beyond what's possible, even in his diagram.

He could have drawn a big pile of coal in the middle, drawn arrows and made it look like a big blast furnace - which would be, unironically, easier to achieve.

>turbocharge it

This is a LARP.
You could melt those with a lighter. Steel production is hard because of how high the temperature needs to be - and ammonia is so hard to produce because it requires 250 atm, or above, at high temperatures.

This fucker is describing the Birkeland-Eyde process. The process which is carried out, by lightning, as one of the few sources for nitric acid in nature. It was used as a rival to the Haber process, but was generally less favourable and it was better to produce ammonia, then go via the Ostwald Process.

>transform methane gas into ammonium solution

1711015352923.png


The wiki image shows the difficulty in this.

1711015378486.png


This is around the pressure at which submarines fucking implode.
 
This is slightly off topic but there are some smart cunts in here so tell me if this tracks. Ever so often I read or see something that claims that "xyz life COULD NEVER EXIST!" Most recently in regard to the idea of silicon life forms. Or that this planet couldn't have life because it's too dry. Or whatever. It seems like a very unscientific view of life. It might be true to our current understanding of life on the planet earth that silicon life forms are impossible.
There are tons of examples of life thriving in enviroments that before we found them some would have said life was impossible there.

It just seems weird to say a flat no. Not possible.
 
This is slightly off topic but there are some smart cunts in here so tell me if this tracks. Ever so often I read or see something that claims that "xyz life COULD NEVER EXIST!" Most recently in regard to the idea of silicon life forms. Or that this planet couldn't have life because it's too dry. Or whatever. It seems like a very unscientific view of life. It might be true to our current understanding of life on the planet earth that silicon life forms are impossible.
There are tons of examples of life thriving in enviroments that before we found them some would have said life was impossible there.

It just seems weird to say a flat no. Not possible.
IMO, it's more a question of where life probably exists, not where life definitely can or cannot exist. This is why the search for extraterrestrial life tends to be focused on rocky planets with liquid water. We know that those types of planets can have life on them, because that's what we see here on Earth.
 
This is slightly off topic but there are some smart cunts in here so tell me if this tracks. Ever so often I read or see something that claims that "xyz life COULD NEVER EXIST!" Most recently in regard to the idea of silicon life forms. Or that this planet couldn't have life because it's too dry. Or whatever. It seems like a very unscientific view of life. It might be true to our current understanding of life on the planet earth that silicon life forms are impossible.
There are tons of examples of life thriving in enviroments that before we found them some would have said life was impossible there.

It just seems weird to say a flat no. Not possible.
Good professors/instructors would tell me to substitute ‘impossible’ with ‘improbable’.
 
Good professors/instructors would tell me to substitute ‘impossible’ with ‘improbable’.
Great answer.
IMO, it's more a question of where life probably exists, not where life definitely can or cannot exist. This is why the search for extraterrestrial life tends to be focused on rocky planets with liquid water. We know that those types of planets can have life on them, because that's what we see here on Earth.
That makes a lot of sense.
 
This is slightly off topic but there are some smart cunts in here so tell me if this tracks. Ever so often I read or see something that claims that "xyz life COULD NEVER EXIST!" Most recently in regard to the idea of silicon life forms. Or that this planet couldn't have life because it's too dry. Or whatever. It seems like a very unscientific view of life. It might be true to our current understanding of life on the planet earth that silicon life forms are impossible.
There are tons of examples of life thriving in enviroments that before we found them some would have said life was impossible there.

It just seems weird to say a flat no. Not possible.
Life like us wouldn’t exist. To state that life couldn’t exist is simply wrong. We have no idea what other systems life could organise around. Douglas Adams in HHGTG has a species called the Hooloovoo who are described as ‘a super intelligent shade of the colour blue.’ Which is silly. Or not, who knows?
Silicon has a similar valence type setup in its compounds to carbon so that’s why silicon based is a thing people think of. But what’s life? Define life.
Actually there IS a definition of life, and it’s that it has to display the following seven attributes: Nutrition, respiration, excretion, growth, movement, sensitivity, reproduction. That’s organic life of course and I think they’ve expanded the list since I was at college but basically it has to move, respond, eat, shit and reproduce. which raises further questions
What about a life form that’s pure energy? Could that exist? Pure information? Would an intelligent AI be life? Would an intelligent alien made of energy be seen as life? Would we even recognise all forms of life if we saw them?
I’m seconding @overlyserious ‘s recommendation of the book blindsight of this is a question you’re interested in.
 
I say the whole world is a flat disc on the back of four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. I mean it just seems so obvious to me, how can the rest of you not see it, have you all gone fucking blind? I mean, is there some kind of government conspiracy trying to suppress the obvious evidence of this, is that what this is? Why are so many people failing to see the light on this one?
 
I say the whole world is a flat disc on the back of four elephants standing on the back of a giant turtle. I mean it just seems so obvious to me, how can the rest of you not see it, have you all gone fucking blind? I mean, is there some kind of government conspiracy trying to suppress the obvious evidence of this, is that what this is? Why are so many people failing to see the light on this one?
And what's under the turtle? :smug:
 
So if I'm reading this right you're saying the magnetic field between Jupiter and Io are strong enough to heat Io? Why doesn't that apply to it's other moons? And how does magnetism heat?
I'm not familiar with the theory, but I do know enough about magnetism to hazard some guesses. Out of Jupiter's major moons, Io is the closest, and thus has the most magnetic force applied to it; this force is subject to some variation as it orbits Jupiter, however, as its orbit is slightly elliptical. Similar to other large rocky bodies, Io most likely has a core of iron and nickel, and likely has deposits of those metals, among others, within its crust and mantle. These are the ingredients for induction heating, where a constantly-changing magnetic field is used to generate electric currents within a material, in turn generating heat through electrical resistance. This last part is much like an incandescent light bulb.
 
I'm not familiar with the theory, but I do know enough about magnetism to hazard some guesses. Out of Jupiter's major moons, Io is the closest, and thus has the most magnetic force applied to it; this force is subject to some variation as it orbits Jupiter
The heating of Io is mostly due to tidal heating, the effect of Jupiter's gravity. Because Jupiter has such high gravity, the difference in gravitational force between Io's nearest and furthest points from Jupiter is appreciable, resulting in a slight deformation of the moon. As the moon revolves, the nearest and furthest points change location, and so is the direction of deformation. The effect is like squeezing a ball, the force of squeezing turning into heat.
 
Re: Blindsight
Aaaaaaaaaaand just like that my desperate plea to anybody to not read anything about the novella and go in without foreknowledge is disregarded. You have just majorly reduced your enjoyment and removed the slow mystery of the story.

Any chance I could at least ask you to edit out what you just wrote or at least spoiler tag it. You have no idea how much you've just ruined the story for anybody who doesn't know it.
 
Aaaaaaaaaaand just like that my desperate plea to anybody to not read anything about the novella and go in without foreknowledge is disregarded. You have just majorly reduced your enjoyment and removed the slow mystery of the story.

Any chance I could at least ask you to edit out what you just wrote or at least spoiler tag it. You have no idea how much you've just ruined the story for anybody who doesn't know it.
Mea Culpa.

I can't edit the post so I've reported it asking for it to be deleted.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: Overly Serious
The Universe as a whole is vast and unpredictable. Imagine how things are gonna be once we start actually start trying to explore the damn thing instead of being stuck on this Earth.

But as this planet still has problems to solve, the next best thing are probes and fiction.

Including the best way to name your pets.

Damn straight.
 
  • Feels
Reactions: frozen_runner
IMG_0938.jpeg
I don’t know where I first read about it but when I did it made a lot of sense to me that the universe was torus shaped. It explains why the universe isn’t expanding evenly in all directions and proposes that the universe may not actually be expanding but only appears to be because space-time dynamically flows with the geometry of a torus. So the universe may be simultaneously expanding and contracting in a closed loop, stretching at the top where space-time emerges from the centre of the torus, and contracting at the bottom where space-time flows back into the centre. There are infinite Big Bangs and Big Crunches, I can’t remember the theory but black holes had a lot to do with the Big Crunch aspect of it.
 
Back