This discovery has been in a bunch of articles from different sources, but in a nutshell there are conflicts in recent discoveries of conflicts concerning the Hubble Constant that need to be resolved involving the expansion rate of the universe.
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The universe’s rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve
Collapse
X
-
The universe’s rate of expansion is in dispute – and we may need new physics to solve
Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.Tags: None
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThis discovery has been in a bunch of articles from different sources, but in a nutshell there are conflicts in recent discoveries of conflicts concerning the Hubble Constant that need to be resolved involving the expansion rate of the universe.
JimLast edited by oxmixmudd; 08-16-2018, 01:30 PM.My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostSeems a bit overblown. Ever since I was a young man there have been articles on varying values of H0. At that time it seemed every study produced a different value and it often was given as a range (which typically would have included both the planck results and this study's results). I guess now the expectation is that with such high accuracy results as these and planck, coupled with the understanding the expansion rate is changing, we should see a convergence of values, but maybe it's just that we still don't quite understand why we get different values from different distance scales/objects? Seems the headline should be "Well, we thought we knew how to measure the hubble 'constant' ..."
JimGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI do not consider it overblown, nor do I consider it shaking the foundation of physics and cosmology, but I do consider it a problem that needs resolution, and over time it probably will be resolved.
One thing not made clear at all is how the Plank result is used to define the expected nearby value for the Hubble constant. We know from SN Type Ia data the expansion rate was slower in the past. So if I could see cepheids far enough away, I could expect them to show a lower H0 value than the one measured in this article. And if the Planck CMB data was telling us what that value was in the past we really would not have a problem, because we already know it was slower in the past. So I have to assume that Plank value represents the expected current expansion rate, which should be close to what we would measure in nearby cepheids. But I also expect that would be derived from some theoretical extrapolation from the measured Planck data into some overarching hypothesis about how the universe would evolve from those conditions. So we have a theoretical extrapolation pitted against high accuracy measurements. And those that believe in the theory and Planck will think there is some systematic error in the parallax data, and the believers in the parallax data will think there is something amiss in the theoretical extrapolation that gives us an H0 value from the Plank data.
The conundrum then is that to this point, no one can find a flaw in either. But even so, something must be wrong. Just like Quantum and the Theory of Relativity work really well on their respective scales, but inherently something is wrong with one and/or the other because they are - at least to this point - fundamentally incompatible theories, with neither predicting the results of the other at their respective scales.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostIt's the 'we may even need new physics!' angle that makes it overblown (but not necessarily wrong). In the paper the author just refers to the tension between this high accuracy cepheid results and the result that derives from the Planck data. I agree with you that it is a problem worthy of research and that it needs resolution. I don't agree with the way the article sensationalizes the discrepancy between the two types of measurement.
The conundrum then is that to this point, no one can find a flaw in either. But even so, something must be wrong. Just like Quantum and the Theory of Relativity work really well on their respective scales, but inherently something is wrong with one and/or the other because they are - at least to this point - fundamentally incompatible theories, with neither predicting the results of the other at their respective scales.
JimGlendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by oxmixmudd View PostThe conundrum then is that to this point, no one can find a flaw in either. But even so, something must be wrong. Just like Quantum and the Theory of Relativity work really well on their respective scales, but inherently something is wrong with one and/or the other because they are - at least to this point - fundamentally incompatible theories, with neither predicting the results of the other at their respective scales.
The two methods produce different values, and the statistics of them are such that they only way the uncertainties in these values can overlap is if we've gotten the statistics wrong.
Now, bad statistics are one avenue that researchers are exploring, in part by devising new ways of doing one of the measurements so that we can control uncertainties better. So far, that's only made the problem worse. So others are starting to explore the alternative: what if both are right, and the difference is caused by the different physics of the two experiments?
In the case of these two, the different physics explanation is pretty easy to understand: if some neutrons decay by a pathway that doesn't produce a proton, it's easy to explain why the two approaches would produce different values. The problem is that we know of no other way for a neutron to decay, and there are absolutely none predicted by the Standard Model. Hence it would have to be new physics.
I don't understand the details of the Planck measurements well enough to understand how new physics could make them systematically different from more traditional measurements of cosmic difference, but i'd assume something similar is happening there."Any sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from trolling."
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI tend to delete such editorial comments from layman articles. I can easily remember common layman articles on evolution that state; "New discovery over turns previous . . ." I, of course, consciously delete such editorial comments and go to the substance of the article.
This is the point of the reason I cited the article.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheLurch View PostI'm going to use a compatible situation that i understand better to explain the "new physics" angle. The example is the decay of neutrons, specifically what their half life is. We have two means of measuring this: put neutrons in a magnetic container, wait a bit, and see how many are left. The second is to watch a beam of neutrons and count the protons (a decay product) that come out of it.
The two methods produce different values, and the statistics of them are such that they only way the uncertainties in these values can overlap is if we've gotten the statistics wrong.
Now, bad statistics are one avenue that researchers are exploring, in part by devising new ways of doing one of the measurements so that we can control uncertainties better. So far, that's only made the problem worse. So others are starting to explore the alternative: what if both are right, and the difference is caused by the different physics of the two experiments?
In the case of these two, the different physics explanation is pretty easy to understand: if some neutrons decay by a pathway that doesn't produce a proton, it's easy to explain why the two approaches would produce different values. The problem is that we know of no other way for a neutron to decay, and there are absolutely none predicted by the Standard Model. Hence it would have to be new physics.
I don't understand the details of the Planck measurements well enough to understand how new physics could make them systematically different from more traditional measurements of cosmic difference, but i'd assume something similar is happening there.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
135 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
||
Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
|
16 responses
74 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:12 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
|
6 responses
47 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-08-2024, 03:25 PM
|
Comment