Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 38 of 38

Thread: For Edwin Hubble's Birthday, a solution to the "Hubble tension"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    I think I get what you're saying.

    By the way, any idea how fast space is expanding the right side of the picture?



    It seems to me the light on the top would be traveling through more space than the light on the bottom.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    The expanding universe:

    • explains the observed cosmological redshifts
    • tells us the age and size of the universe
    • predicts the CMB
    • passes the Tolman Surface Brightness test
    • all based on well understood principles


    The problem is, in 2020, none of that is totally true.

    Redshift and Hubble tension

    Based on the observed redshifts, how fast do we think the universe is expanding? The latest precise measurements disagree.



    Age and size of the universe

    If the universe started with a Big Bang, as we look back in space and time,
    we should be seeing fewer and fewer mature galaxies, and eventually only young galaxies.
    In the 21st century observations show that's not true:



    The size of the things we observe in the universe doesn't seem to be constrained by what we assume are the theoretical limits they could reach
    given the age and size of the universe. From Wikipedia:



    And then there's the weird coincidence that the age of the universe is about equal c/H, the
    radius of the Hubble Volume.
    If we were living 5 billion years ago, or 5 billion years from now, the age of the universe and Hubble's radius would be unrelated.
    By pure coincidence, we are living when they match.

    The CMB

    You may have heard that the Big Bang theory predicted the CMB. That's sort of true.
    The Big Bang predicted a black body radition, which was right, although not at the right temperature.



    CMB was discovered in 1964 at 3K. The most accurate preditions for the background temperature of space were based on a stationary universe, not an expanding one.

    That's not a deal breaker, but it's a major coincidence.

    If we were living 5 billion years from now, or 5 billion years in the past, the CMB would be a different temperature according to the Big Bang.
    It's apparently just a pure coincidence that the CMB is the same temperature today as the minimum temperature for stuff in our galaxy.

    All of that could be ignored, but in the last decade anomalies have been spotted in the CMB. It's cooler to one side than the other.

    Two Cosmic Microwave Background anomalous features hinted at by Planck's predecessor, NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP),
    are confirmed in the new high precision data from Planck. One is an asymmetry in the average temperatures on opposite hemispheres of the
    sky, with slightly higher average temperatures in the southern ecliptic hemisphere and slightly lower
    average temperatures in the northern ecliptic hemisphere. This runs counter to the prediction made by the standard model that the Universe
    should be broadly similar in any direction we look.
    There is also a cold spot that extends over a patch of sky that is much larger
    than expected.


    https://sci.esa.int/web/planck/-/51559-hemispheric-asymmetry-and-cold-spot-in-the-cosmic-microwave-background
    The CMB is predicted to be the same temperature in all directions. It is not.

    We see a cold spot to the south. In the diagram, does the south observer see a cold spot to their south?
    Does the north observer see the same CMB anomalies as we do?



    This is a question the expanding universe theory doesn't have a clear answer for.

    However, if the observable region is, as Hubble puts it, "an insignificant sample of a universe that extends indefinitely in space and in time",
    then there are no anomalies or questions. The cold spot is to our south, but to the southern observer the cold spot is in their vicinity.

    Tolman Surface Brightness Test

    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test is meant to distinguish a static universe from an expanding one.

    An expanding universe predicts an extra factor of dimming, due to the photons arriving at a lower rate due to the galaxy's motion away from us.

    "The exponent found is not 4 as expected in the simplest expanding model, but 2.6 or 3.4, depending on the frequency band."

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman...rightness_test
    Dark Principles

    The Big Bang originally was about the universe expanding presently, and thus growing from a single point in the past:



    That model broke in the 1970's. To make a software analogy, there were a lot of bugs that needed patching. Such as:



    They came up with a cool trick to solve this problems, cram 1 trillion years of expansion into a single nanosecond, called inflation:



    For these reasons and others, the widely accepted expansion theory is increasingly being compared to outdated software:
    burdened by outlandish patches and still full of bugs:

    The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed -- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

    What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.


    Open Letter on Cosmology / Cosmology Statement (2004)
    More:


    The evidence in 2020 contorts the Big Bang model into something rather unrecognizable driven by unobserved forces and weird coincidences.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Breaking news:

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/astro...orse-20201217/

    Astronomers Get Their Wish, and a Cosmic Crisis Gets Worse

    We don’t know why the universe appears to be expanding faster than it should. New ultra-precise distance measurements have only intensified the problem.

    ...

    The tension is this: The cosmos’s known ingredients and governing equations predict that it should currently be expanding at a rate of 67 kilometers per second per megaparsec — meaning we should see galaxies flying away from us 67 kilometers per second faster for each additional megaparsec of distance. Yet actual measurements consistently overshoot the mark. Galaxies are receding too quickly. The discrepancy thrillingly suggests that some unknown quickening agent may be afoot in the cosmos.
    Isn't it obvious? "The cosmos’s known ingredients" are wrong.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nowhere (middle)
    Posts
    38,753
    Quote Originally Posted by Michael Helland View Post
    Breaking news:

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/astro...orse-20201217/



    Isn't it obvious? "The cosmos’s known ingredients" are wrong.
    So, it may very well be that the Lambda CDM needs further adjustment or is wrong in some particulars. As often happens in scientific models. That's how science works.

    It does not follow that your particular replacement for it is right. The criticisms of your model by the other posters still apply.
    "I'm planning to live forever. So far, that's working perfectly." Steven Wright

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Noclevername View Post
    So, it may very well be that the Lambda CDM needs further adjustment or is wrong in some particulars. As often happens in scientific models. That's how science works.

    It does not follow that your particular replacement for it is right. The criticisms of your model by the other posters still apply.
    They weren't really criticisms, just questions about what answers it gives, which you can see for yourself here:

    https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Castle Valley, Utah
    Posts
    158
    So you're saying that light loses energy and slows down over long distances. Where do you suppose the energy is going?

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    103
    Quote Originally Posted by Lucretius View Post
    So you're saying that light loses energy and slows down over long distances. Where do you suppose the energy is going?
    Probably just deposited into space.

    It's basically a photon decaying until nothing.

    Which fits with what we observe.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,326
    This thread has run for its 30 days and is closed.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •