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
 
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'm quite happy with the CDM (cold dark matter) part of ΛCDM. CDM has to exist in order to explain the rotational anomalies of galaxies, and it was known since at least the 1930s that galaxies must be surrounded by invisible "halos". Also CDM does provide a sensible model of galaxy genesis (Because CDM only interact through gravity, it is able to clump and establish a gravity well before ordinary (baryonic) matter, which in the early epoch of the universe was busy interacting with through electromagnetism, absorbing and radiating energy, can subsequently settle in). What is problematic with CDM theory is the lack of predictive power. If the Large Hadron Collider manages to find CDM candidates, this would count as a successful prediction, but so far, nothing.

Is the popular theory still that Space-Time is curved?
Huh? Through observation Spacetime is very very close to flatness, and this is taken as an evidence that there must be quite a lot of dark matter (never mind Hot or Cold) around.
 
Last edited:
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.
None of them behave as they should according to models. That's the problem. MOND, Dark Energy, and all the various Dark Matter alternatives are attempts to prop up the models by adding new parameters to fill in the difference. They're all "magic" epicycles. The models aren't broken, the paradigm insists; reality is simply not living up to expectations.
 
None of them behave as they should according to models. That's the problem. MOND, Dark Energy, and all the various Dark Matter alternatives are attempts to prop up the models by adding new parameters to fill in the difference. They're all "magic" epicycles. The models aren't broken, the paradigm insists; reality is simply not living up to expectations.
"Facts stubbornly refuse to conform to theory", experts bitch. - Science, 2024
 
"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy"

Imagine thinking we, limited flesh that we are, really were close to understanding the entire universe after a mere six thousand years of uninterrupted civilization.

Lol. Lmao even.
We don’t even know all the mysteries of our own planet. I think we should figure out everything about our home before we learn everything about the universe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoReturn
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.
The alternative is to shoehorn observations into our models to retroactively make them work, ie, making shit up until it sort of works. These are called MONDs and none whatsoever have managed to explain all the anomalies that led scientists to believe in dark matter. For the record, we correctly figured out black holes exist by observing gravitational anomalies in the center of our galaxy so assuming our models are wrong right away is not a good idea IMO.
 
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.
Then why is there something rather than nothing??????????????
 
Then why is there something rather than nothing??????????????
You're a super retard if you think something called "God" might even possibly be a reason.

Say a bunch of dipshits.

For some reason a lot of theoretical physicists have not ruled out that possibility. Because it would be retarded to ignore it in the epistemological impossibility of even knowing.
 
except space itself.
Why does space get a pass here?
Here’s a thought experiment I’ve wondered about since I was a kid. Let’s say im being very annoying and tapping out morse code messages with a three metre long pole on the wall across the room. I move the pole back and forward. Tap tap tap. The pole is rigid and as I move my end forward for a tap the other end also taps on the wall. Simultaneously.
Now my pole is the length of the universe and I’m moving the pole backwards and forwards to tap out my message to my pal at the end of the universe or wherever (a very very long way away.) . The pole is totally rigid and the message is therefore being tapped out on her end as I move my end of the pole. Simultaneously
Why isnt this message being transmitted faster than light from where I am to the person at the other end, even though the pole itself is moving back and forth slower than light?
 
Why does space get a pass here?
Here’s a thought experiment I’ve wondered about since I was a kid. Let’s say im being very annoying and tapping out morse code messages with a three metre long pole on the wall across the room. I move the pole back and forward. Tap tap tap. The pole is rigid and as I move my end forward for a tap the other end also taps on the wall. Simultaneously.
Now my pole is the length of the universe and I’m moving the pole backwards and forwards to tap out my message to my pal at the end of the universe or wherever (a very very long way away.) . The pole is totally rigid and the message is therefore being tapped out on her end as I move my end of the pole. Simultaneously
Why isnt this message being transmitted faster than light from where I am to the person at the other end, even though the pole itself is moving back and forth slower than light?
The relative motion at one end of the pole is different to the relative motion at the other. Same as me sending a laser signal to a satellite in orbit. No matter the property of the connection itself, the two points ae in discrete reference frames. Which is why a geostationary satellite will still experience lost time despite being in a constant connection with a ground based point with the connecting object moving at C, the rod you described. Both objects are communicating at the speed of light, but both have themselves discrete reference frames that drift due to difference in velocity. Space itself doesn't actually move faster than light, it's just that there's no real way of describing something with zero reference points, zero mass and zero energy in terms of anything but movement on such massive scales as to be relevant to the expansion of the universe. That rod you described though. Stretch it only a few galaxies and spin it at the speed of light and you've made a time machine.

That being said, there is no reason why FTL anything cannot exist with our current understanding of the universe, not strictly having to cause time travel. Not even getting into wonky folded space. The issue with FTL is one of mass and energy interplaying with gravity. Weirdly a former UKIP MP, and satellite communications engineer (among other things) wrote a paper on FTL being perfectly possible with our understanding of the universe. The model he proposed is AFAIK still perfectly possible
 

Attachments

Last edited:
No matter the property of the connection itself, the two points ae in discrete reference frames.
Hang on, so I zap a laser beam and the photos have to move through space, which takes time because they have to move. Or I fire a pea shooter at the wall and the peas have to move to hit the wall to tap, but that’s different to tapping it with a stick isn’t it? Is me tapping with the stick different becasue it’s a single object moving or not? Is the nature of the connection. The same whether I’m moving the stick and back and forth or firing a thing at the wall? If I fire a thing at the wall it has to move a distance to the wall, and at a constant speed it will take twice as long to hit a wall 2m away than a wall 1m away, but me tapping a 2m long stick is the same as tapping a 1 m long stick. Isn’t it?

This makes me think of the hotel thought experiment with moving guests to demonstrate different infinities.
 
We could examine your thought experiment on the practical or the theoretical level. The practical would be to look at the feasibility of a giant stick with zero compressability leading to a pressure on one end leading to instantaneous corresponding pressure on the other; but I believe Warwick David is answering on the theoretical level that accepts this as an actual given and is saying that it wouldn't change anything because the movement in one place is different to the movement in the other - the frame of reference has changed between one and the other (because that's what frame of reference means). That's the relativity in General Relativity. Relative frame of reference.

But going back to the speed of light being the limit on the speed of causality, that is why your theoretical pole would be a time machine, right? Because it would - due to its instantaneous transmission of effect due to its infinite non-compressability, be able to transmit an effect (information) ahead of light getting there. Warwick of Auschwitz - correct?
 
Nothing is instantaneous about pushing a stick because you are applying force to the stick atoms that all push each other in a direction until making contact with the wall and repelling. There’s been engineering experiments on YouTube before measuring the delay of this phenomenon. Light is a similar concept as it’s both wave and particle so it must be directed and takes time to travel.
 
Hang on, so I zap a laser beam and the photos have to move through space, which takes time because they have to move. Or I fire a pea shooter at the wall and the peas have to move to hit the wall to tap, but that’s different to tapping it with a stick isn’t it? Is me tapping with the stick different becasue it’s a single object moving or not? Is the nature of the connection. The same whether I’m moving the stick and back and forth or firing a thing at the wall? If I fire a thing at the wall it has to move a distance to the wall, and at a constant speed it will take twice as long to hit a wall 2m away than a wall 1m away, but me tapping a 2m long stick is the same as tapping a 1 m long stick. Isn’t it?

This makes me think of the hotel thought experiment with moving guests to demonstrate different infinities.
Fundamentally they are not different things; you are propagating energy through a medium. For the peashooter the store of energy is the pea, for the stick the store of energy is the stick in aggregate but actually it's the individual molecules of the stick. The reason why is also why you can't really have an infinitely rigid stick. When you say infinitely rigid, what you are saying is that the energy - in this case mechanical compression wave through the material - has no speed limit. In reality it's the speed of sound in that material. To allow it - energy - to instantly move from one atom to the next would require you to have a speed of sound through that material that is faster than the speed of light. In your example you could 'hum' a song at that stick, and it would arrive at the otther side of the universe faster than it would arrive at the other end of the room, and would then arrive back at your end - assuming it echoed on the other side - instantly as well.

As overly serious says, because both frames of reference - the start and stop - of the stick are both real and both 'correct', you will also have sent energy that arrives before it has actually left. If you had a second stick and asked for it to be poked back at you when the end of your stick moves, you will have the odd effect of that second stick poking you, before you poked it. If you agreed that when the second stick pokes you, you won't push on your stick you then run into the issue of paradox.

The actual time machine comment though, was because gravity drags light, and drags the causal relationship between objects. So you build a hollow stick, spin it at the speed of light, fly down it to the other 'end' and pop out before you left. A Tipler Cylinder.

I am however of the general opinion that anytime your equation spits out 'infinite lol' when given finite parameters, you fucked up, so Tiplers cylinder probably would not work..
 
Back