Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Astronomer: Standard Model of the universe needs no modification


Not what we have been hearing:

If it turns out that errors are causing the mismatch, that would confirm our basic model of how the universe works. The other possibility presents a thread that, when pulled, would suggest some fundamental missing new physics is needed to stitch it back together. For several years, each new piece of evidence from telescopes has seesawed the argument back and forth, giving rise to what has been called the ‘Hubble tension.’

Wendy Freedman, a renowned astronomer and the John and Marion Sullivan University Professor in Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, made some of the original measurements of the expansion rate of the universe that resulted in a higher value of the Hubble constant. But in a new review paper accepted to the Astrophysical Journal, Freedman gives an overview of the most recent observations. Her conclusion: the latest observations are beginning to close the gap.

That is, there may not be a conflict after all, and our standard model of the universe does not need to be significantly modified.

The rate at which the universe is expanding is called the Hubble constant, named for UChicago alum Edwin Hubble, SB 1910, PhD 1917, who is credited with discovering the expansion of the universe in 1929. Scientists want to pin down this rate precisely, because the Hubble constant is tied to the age of the universe and how it evolved over time. A substantial wrinkle emerged in the past decade when results from the two main measurement methods began to diverge. But scientists are still debating the significance of the mismatch.

University of Chicago, “’There may not be a conflict after all’ in expanding universe debate” at ScienceDaily (June 30, 2021) The paper is open access.

See also: Recently Discovered Giant Arc Of Galaxies May “Break” Standard Model In Cosmology

Some sense where Wendy Freedman is coming from:

and yet SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model is an over 150T:1 times a more reasonable model based on size, density and a straight line entropy factor alone. That is just to get started :) see Pearlman vs Hubble in SPIRAL volume II of the YeC Moshe Emes series for Torah and science alignment. Pearlman
From the OP: "That is, there may not be a conflict after all, and our standard model of the universe does not need to be significantly modified." Only by ignoring the evidence can anyone make the claim. What was believed when Big Bang was introduced as hypothesis turned theory, is different than what has been witnessed, thanks to Hubble and other advancements in technology that allows us to see things we never could. If a theory, something that was actually tested and reproduced, unlike evolution, no longer fits what is known, it can no longer be considered a theory. Only something that takes on a dogmatic view is held above such minor things as science. BobRyan
“CREDITED with discovering the expansion of the universe in 1929“ Neat bit of PR “credited” . Vesto Slipher showed evidence to the US Astronomical Society in 1914 and received a standing ovation, Friedman in 1922 And LeMaitre in 1927 produced the maths. It’s no longer called the Hubble Constant, it’s the Hubble/LeMaitre Constant. But the Uni don’t like letting go the glory even after the Constant name was changed from the Hubble. Interesting isn’t it? What is the credibility of the piece? Probably very good. But. Belfast

Leave a Reply