New Hubble Data Breaks Scientists’ Understanding of the Universe

[nec209]

A new attempt to find the universe's age revealed troubling flaws.

https://futurism.com/hubble-broke-understanding-universe

 

 

 

[exchemist]

48 minutes ago, nec209 said:

A new attempt to find the universe's age revealed troubling flaws.

https://futurism.com/hubble-broke-understanding-universe

 

 

 

This article seems to be from mid-2019. Is what sense is it "new", then? And what is troubling about the discrepancies? Aren't they just intriguing? To the right sort of person, I mean.  

Edited May 4, 2021 by exchemist

[Phi for All]

It seems like they're just re-phrasing what most scientists know, that our current models (and our understanding of the universe) aren't complete. New data has shown this hasn't changed.

Popular science articles never seem to tire of using sensational headlines that make it sound like everything we know is wrong. I think it's because there are a LOT of folks who would like that to be true, because everything we know is an awful lot of complex information to learn. If all of it were wrong, we'd all be back at square one, in their minds. Seems that way to me, sometimes.

[MigL]

There is nothing broken about the model, so far.

Measurement of the Hubble expansion constant has varied through the years ( E Hubble's original estimate was way too low ) simply because it needs to use 'markers' to judge distance.
We are talking about huge distances where triangulation is useless, so astronomers look for 'standard candles', astronomical objects that have a specific brightness, and judge distance by comparing relative brightness.
E Hubble originally used Cepheid variable stars, but this turned out to give wrong figures, and a more accurate estimate was obtained using type 1A supernovae.
The latest estimates have been obtained using the CMB relic radiation, giving a result almost 10% lower, and, in the study described in the article, brightness of red giant stars, which reach uniform brightness, gives an in-between estimate.

If you take error into consideration, all three are probably valid.

 

edit
This may give a clearer understanding 

Cosmic distance ladder - Wikipedia

Edited May 4, 2021 by MigL

[beecee]

9 hours ago, nec209 said:

A new attempt to find the universe's age revealed troubling flaws.

https://futurism.com/hubble-broke-understanding-universe

 

Cosmology, particularly measuring the expansion rate and age of the universe is a continuing matter of refinement of the measurements. With the recent gravitational waves discoveries, we are able to be more accurate...it's as simple as that.

https://phys.org/news/2021-05-gravitational-wave-scientists-method-refine-hubble.html

Gravitational-wave scientists propose new method to refine the Hubble Constant—the expansion and age of the universe

more at link..............

 

the paper:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/abf502

Mapping the Universe Expansion: Enabling Percent-level Measurements of the Hubble Constant with a Single Binary Neutron-star Merger Detection:

 

Abstract:

The joint observation of the gravitational-wave (GW) and electromagnetic (EM) signal from the binary neutron-star merger GW170817 allowed for a new independent measurement of the Hubble constant H0, albeit with an uncertainty of about 15% at 1σ. Observations of similar sources with a network of future detectors will allow for more precise measurements of H0. These, however, are currently largely limited by the intrinsic degeneracy between the luminosity distance and the inclination of the source in the GW signal. We show that the higher-order modes in gravitational waves can be used to break this degeneracy in astrophysical parameter estimation in both the inspiral and post-merger phases of a neutron star merger. We show that for systems at distances similar to GW170817, this method enables percent-level measurements of H0 with a single detection. This would permit the study of time variations and spatial anisotropies of H0 with unprecedented precision. We investigate how different network configurations affect measurements of H0, and discuss the implications in terms of science drivers for the proposed 2.5- and third-generation GW detectors. Finally, we show that the precision of H0 measured with these future observatories will be solely limited by redshift measurements of EM counterparts.

[John Cuthber]

"New Hubble Data Breaks Scientists’ Understanding of the Universe"

That's what research is for.

It's called progress.

 

However, my guess is that the headline is misleading.

[beecee]

On 5/5/2021 at 12:15 AM, Phi for All said:

Popular science articles never seem to tire of using sensational headlines that make it sound like everything we know is wrong.

 

8 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

However, my guess is that the headline is misleading.

It is and was of course nothing more then a refinement of measurements. Pointing out that fact is of course valid and required.

The link to the "futurism" site in the OP, most certainly indulges in over the top, "wrong" headlines, and is one that I actually avoid for that reason. 

Of course most science news sites [including my favourite physorg which gave the proper headline at https://phys.org/news/2021-05-gravitational-wave-scientists-method-refine-hubble.html] create headlines to attract readers. The trick is of course to read the whole article in detail, particularly if it is inferring some outstanding retribution or invalidating of accepted mainstream science.

While sensationalism and journilism is par for the course, pop science articles can and do grab the curious amongst us and perhaps create an  interest in science in general...and Lordy knows! that is something science really needs! I believe I am proof of that.😊

My point being, [other then the futurism link ] let's not be too critical of science news outlets in general because they are imo, doing a job.

My own methodology is that if I see any article making some sensational claim re "new science" for example, I will immediatly check it out elsewhere. Any such discovery or sensational event would of course be plastered across all news outlets.

And of course even reputable scientists make their own errors in judgement, or more correctly, jump the gun in great anticipation of a long sort after discovery. Remember the BICEP2 experiment. To the credit of science in general though, it did what it does best and the errors in that experiment were dismissed in relatively short time by science itself...as it of course always does.