Cosmology Intelligent Design Physics

At Nature: Debate on universe expansion NOT settled by recent findings

Spread the love

As was hoped:

A new map of the early Universe has reinforced a long-running conundrum in astronomy over how fast the cosmos is expanding. The data — collected using a telescope in Chile’s Atacama Desert — back up previous estimates of the Universe’s age, geometry and evolution. But the findings clash with measurements of how fast galaxies are flying apart from each other, and predict that the Universe should be expanding at a significantly slower pace than is currently observed…

The European Space Agency’s Planck telescope mapped the entire CMB sky from 2009 to 2013 with unprecedented precision, and its observations are considered the gold standard of CMB cosmology. The ACT data now vindicate Planck’s findings and produce a very similar value for the Hubble constant.

But neither result matches direct measurements of the Hubble constant — a discrepancy that has become known as the Hubble-constant tension. Astronomers who use the brightness of particular types of stars and supernova explosions, collectively called standard candles, to calculate the expansion rate find that galaxies rush away from each other roughly 10% faster than the CMB maps predict.

Many researchers had hoped that as techniques became more accurate, the gap would shrink. Instead, narrowing error bars for each type of study have only made the inconsistency more significant.

Davide Castelvecchi, “Mystery over Universe’s expansion deepens with fresh data” at Nature

Papers.

We live in an age when science just isn’t giving us Answers any more.

10 Replies to “At Nature: Debate on universe expansion NOT settled by recent findings

  1. 1
    jawa says:

    “ Many researchers had hoped that as techniques became more accurate, the gap would shrink. Instead, narrowing error bars for each type of study have only made the inconsistency more significant.”

    Isn’t this happening in biology research too?

    I mean the gap between expectations and reality.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    Science is giving us lots of answers, just not always the same answer.

  3. 3
    ET says:

    Then evolutionary biology is not a science as it hasn’t provided any answers to the big questions

  4. 4
    Latemarch says:

    Sev,
    “Science is giving us lots of answers…..

    Science is giving us lots of data. It’s not the data’s fault that scientists are always trying to shoehorn new data into old theories. Old theories with often unexamined and unwarranted assumptions.

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    “We live in an age when science just isn’t giving us Answers any more.”

    This is so American (and so ID insofar as it gleefully celebrates yet another “failure” within the scientific community). If you don’t have the answer texted to your phone in 10 seconds or less you jump to the overwrought conclusion that the whole system is falling apart. Just relax, we are talking about a 10% discrepancy between observation and theory, not the end of the universe (no pun intended). This will simply give some smart kid at Princeton something to work on for his or her dissertation.

  6. 6
    polistra says:

    In fairness, this question has never been strictly scientific. There’s no way to compare with a baseline, no way to do a controlled experiment. We can measure stuff, but we’ll never know what the measurements mean. Astronomers have generally recognized this fact.

  7. 7
    Pearlman says:

    There is no ongoing cosmic expansion, since early in the history of the universe, according to the highest probability explanation of the vast body of empirical explanations, ie the strongest science.
    start study and fair consideration at:
    http://www.academia.edu/370669....._vs_Hubble
    excerpt from SPIRAL cosmological redshift hypothesis and model.
    SPIRAL’s ‘comic blue-shift offset’ hypothesizes helps account for ‘Hubble Tension’

  8. 8
    Seversky says:

    Latemarch @ 4

    Science is giving us lots of data. It’s not the data’s fault that scientists are always trying to shoehorn new data into old theories. Old theories with often unexamined and unwarranted assumptions.

    It’s a standing dilemma in science, change the existing theory to fit the data or construct a new theory? Although neo-Paleyists like to think otherwise, modifying a theory to accommodate new data is a feature of science not a bug.

  9. 9
    EDTA says:

    >We live in an age when science just isn’t giving us Answers any more.

    Perhaps science never gave us certain answers, but it seemed that way pre-internet. Scientists could better control the release of their findings when things moved more slowly. Now every discrepancy is on the table for everyone to see (not completely, but to a much greater degree). Sort of like how the mainstream media seems more fragmented and fallible, now that one newspaper and only 3 networks no longer have a lock on our eyes and ears.

  10. 10
    tjguy says:

    One huge problem with science is that we don’t know that some of what we think is true is really false. This is one example. We have been using the Hubble Constant in theories, hypotheses, calculations, models, etc. for years – all with the assumption that it is true, accurate, and valid.

    Now we find out that what we once thought to be true and proudly hailed it as true as scientists, is really not true after all.

    The problem is this: How many other “facts”/beliefs/models/theories that we currently hold to are not really true?

    How do these false beliefs affect other theories that we build these false beliefs on or models in which we include these false beliefs/facts in?

Leave a Reply