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
 
Wouldn't the farther you look mean moving through more gravity wells in space where there is more space light has to travel through compared to an area with less gravitational forces?
 
More simply, if you would be so kind for those of us who aren’t so well versed? What’s a lambda system? What is quantum light?
Here you go friend. Here is the brief wiki explanation of our λCDM model and a github write up and proof of photonic entanglement aka what I referred to as quantum light because it’s easier to say instead of trying to explain how two points of the same simultaneous light occur instantaneously at different spaces in time.
 
Wouldn't the farther you look mean moving through more gravity wells in space where there is more space light has to travel through compared to an area with less gravitational forces?
It always bugged me how they say "the big bang happened X years ago and took Y seconds. All this happened before physics exists". Then how did time exist? And if it did exist it wouldn't have been a second as we know it. The big bang could have taken 100 trillion years, but with no time, it took looked like that it took seconds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoReturn
It always bugged me how they say "the big bang happened X years ago and took Y seconds. All this happened before physics exists". Then how did time exist? And if it did exist it wouldn't have been a second as we know it. The big bang could have taken 100 trillion years, but with no time, it took looked like that it took seconds.
Not a physicist, but:
It seems like whenever physicists talk about "events" and "time" and "causation" and such they are talking about it in domain-specific senses. So whatever our intuitions are about "causation" and "time" and "events" in a broader sense, physicists are only interested in stuff they can model and talk about in those domain-specific senses, and in those domain-specific senses it may be comprehensible, but it does not necessarily grok with commonsense usage.

On a tangent from this, it also seems appropriate that physicists talk about this stuff only in domain-specific senses and ignore speculations about "what happened before the big bang?" (using ordinal language like "before" in the general, and not physics-sense, of the word) because even if that is an important question it is not really a question they can currently hope to answer in a manner they could verify under their adopted — and incredibly useful — framework, so it would defy the point for them to do so.
 
Here you go friend. Here is the brief wiki explanation of our λCDM model and a github write up and proof of photonic entanglement aka what I referred to as quantum light because it’s easier to say instead of trying to explain how two points of the same simultaneous light occur instantaneously at different spaces in time.
I find this all very hard to wrap my head round in an intuitive way. It’s fascinating, but I feel I don’t understand it at all. When I think about my own field, molecules moving around in cells, I can understand it on an intuitive level but this I can’t. What does it mean to be outside the universe? How can space expand to drive things apart faster than light? It’s hard to frame it in human terms
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoReturn
What does it mean to be outside the universe?
Not really anything, energy shows up at the boundary and people talk about it "coming from outside" but that's not something they can really say.
How can space expand to drive things apart faster than light?
The speed of light's a limit on causality, (the constant's c, you can think of it as "the speed of causality") the parts of space that go away faster than the speed of light are gone for good, so there's no casual problem at all.
 
I find this all very hard to wrap my head round in an intuitive way. It’s fascinating, but I feel I don’t understand it at all. When I think about my own field, molecules moving around in cells, I can understand it on an intuitive level but this I can’t. What does it mean to be outside the universe? How can space expand to drive things apart faster than light? It’s hard to frame it in human terms
Cosmology is weird I’m not an expert in it either I really only ever work in the computer science field. I like to read up on it sometimes because it’s really neat since there’s the tie-in with information and entropy. https://sentinelmission.org/cosmology-glossary/cosmological-horizon/
Basically whatever is observable in our galaxy is only because the light is gravitationally bound in such a way it can actually reach us. Time and gravity are weird when you really think about it.
 
IDK I feel like articles like this always come across like they are running under the assumption that the density of spacetime is consistent throughout the universe but the LIGO experiments have already proven that you can detect gravitational waves through the changes in the density of spacetime. If the density of spacetime is not consistent then the farther you look, the more varied your measurements are going to be in different directions
 
It always bugged me how they say "the big bang happened X years ago and took Y seconds. All this happened before physics exists". Then how did time exist? And if it did exist it wouldn't have been a second as we know it. The big bang could have taken 100 trillion years, but with no time, it took looked like that it took seconds.
In A Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking suggested thinking of Time like a globe. You can't ask "what's before the South pole?" To a small creature on the surface of the globe that thinks in two dimensions the notion that you can go so far in one direction that you just run out of direction is bizarre. They keep asking "but there must be something before South". But there isn't because X and Y only exist independently of Z in an abstract mathematical way. Nothing real actually exists only in X and Y without Z. Just as nothing real actually exists only in Space coordinates and without Time. If something had no presence in the dimension of Time it would be unobservable, uninteractable, and therefore from a scientific point of view, unexistent. :)

There is nothing "before" time. Or to make it clearer through the power of English language's subtlety, we can rearrange that sentence to: Before Time, there is nothing.
The speed of light's a limit on causality, (the constant's c, you can think of it as "the speed of causality") the parts of space that go away faster than the speed of light are gone for good, so there's no casual problem at all.
What if the thing that is faster than the speed of light and is gone for good, slows down and then is no longer gone for good? Has it moved in and out of causality?
 
Slowed down how? Relative to us it's moving faster than C.
Don't know, don't care. If something can accelerate to be moving faster than C relative to us, the assumption in @Vecr 's statement, then what stops something either changing vector or reducing speed relative to us so that it no longer is. In terms of the statement about limits of causality.
 
Don't know, don't care. If something can accelerate to be moving faster than C relative to us, the assumption in @Vecr 's statement, then what stops something either changing vector or reducing speed relative to us so that it no longer is. In terms of the statement about limits of causality.
It hasn't accelerated faster than C, the space between us and it has expanded at a rate faster than C to us. So to reach us it would need to itself accelerate faster than C. There is no way to do this AFAIK without going into out there models of the universe like the censor field one.

It's not that 'nothing moves faster than light' it's nothing can accelerate faster than light through space, except space itself.
 
It hasn't accelerated faster than C, the space between us and it has expanded at a rate faster than C to us. So to reach us it would need to itself accelerate faster than C. There is no way to do this AFAIK without going into out there models of the universe like the censor field one.

It's not that 'nothing moves faster than light' it's nothing can accelerate faster than light through space, except space itself.
Is the popular theory still that Space-Time is curved? If curved sufficiently, how can we be sure that the Space that is accelerating away from us, is not accelerating towards us also?

The phrasing may be amusing but the question is not meant facetiously.
 
Is the popular theory still that Space-Time is curved? If curved sufficiently, how can we be sure that the Space that is accelerating away from us, is not accelerating towards us also?

The phrasing may be amusing but the question is not meant facetiously.
The space isn't moving towards us or away from us. The objects in that space are, so we can measure the way the light from objects - visible due to light lag but in actuality now lost due to the increase in space between us passing C - is red or bue shifted. The space itself has expanded, which means there is now more of it, not that itself is accellerating. It is just as valid to say 'All objects move away from each other subject to their own gravity' as it is to say that space between them is expanding.

But yeah. It is entirely possible that the universe is 'pacman like' in that those objects moving awau, may also be movng towards us on an arbitrarily large timescale. I don't think that there is any evidence of this taking place. There is something called Gödels model which assumes that it is. But there are also models of the universe that fit with what we see and still allow for FTL travel. I think we're at a stage where it's basically not possible to say with any certainty.
 
ΛCDM never made any fucking sense anyway.
The idea that the universe is governed by invisible pixie dust and bad juju (because the alternative is, the math doesn't work and you just don't understand) is fucking retarded.
I don't really like it either, and yet galaxies continue to stubbornly refuse to behave like they should if their mass was distributed according to their visible matter. I like rooting for alternatives like MOND, but none of the theories we have feel really satisfying.
 
Back