Scientists debate the seriousness of problems with the value of the Hubble Constant

universe
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

Astronomers, astrophysicists and particle physicists gathered recently at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California to discuss the seriousness of differing measurements of the Hubble Constant. They met to talk about a problem that has become a major concern in astrophysics—figuring out how fast the universe is actually expanding.

Estimates of its value based on studying the light emitted from the Big Bang differ from those calculated using data from supernovas. Put a simpler way, researchers using data from studies involving the oldest history of the have calculated a different value for the Hubble Constant than those involved in studying more recent activity. And the reason it has become such a hot topic is because if a reasonable reason for the differences cannot be found, scientists in the field might have to completely rethink how the universe works.

The basis of the debate began back in the 1920s when Edwin Hubble noted that the farthest objects in the universe appear to be moving away from one another faster. Theorists suggested a fixed number could be used to express just how fast the universe was expanding—thus the Hubble Constant was born. It is defined as the rate of expansion of the universe. As its name implies, theory suggests it is a single unchanging number. But experiments to find the true value of the Hubble Constant have delivered mixed results.

One technique involves using data from devices that measure the , which is believed to be light emitted not long after the Big Bang. Such studies have shown the Hubble Constant to be 67.4 km/s/Mpc, with an error rate of just 0.5 km/s/Mpc. Meanwhile, other studies involving use of data from supernova have found the constant to be 74.0 km/s/Mpc—a far cry from the first error rate. Clearly both cannot be correct, unless there was something odd going on during the early expansion of the universe. Some physicists believe it is possible that there was a different kind of dark energy pushing the universe apart back then, accounting for the difference.

In any case, the researchers at the recent meeting voted against calling it a crisis, suggesting that few in the field are ready to throw out major theories underlying the understanding of how the universe works—at least not right now.


Explore further

New Hubble constant measurement adds to mystery of universe's expansion rate

More information: Joshua Sokol. New tactics clash on speed of expanding universe, Science (2019). DOI: 10.1126/science.365.6451.306
Journal information: Science

© 2019 Science X Network

Citation: Scientists debate the seriousness of problems with the value of the Hubble Constant (2019, July 31) retrieved 22 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-07-scientists-debate-seriousness-problems-hubble.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
996 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jul 31, 2019
The following theory, Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature, shows that gravity from adjacent universes contributes to red shift of light, and thus could be the reason that the Hubble constant is not uniform in the universe. Please do a search for Sphere Theory Explains the Prevalence of the Golden Ratio in Nature

Jul 31, 2019
Well the Hubble Constant is not a constant. The rate of expansion of the universe changes over time. It is the current rate of expansion that is inconsistent. But, really assuming our current model is correct in the general, there are several reasons why they have gotten different results. The problem with cosmology is that u can't really break an experiment down into a single variable, there are assumptions made in every measurement. U only need a few assumptions to be off by a little to account for the discrepancy we are seeing and it isn't easy to figure out where we are going wrong.

Jul 31, 2019
I think in general bad theories tend to get more and more complicated as they struggle to explain new data. You can always tweak a theory to encompass new data. In this case, for example, is the proposal for a different kind of dark energy. No one has even identified what dark energy is in the first place, and now we have a second kind of unidentifiable dark energy.

As more and more theories hit brick walls, hasn't it become clear that the most basic ideas about the nature of reality are wrong?

Jul 31, 2019
Snag is there are two 'robust' data-sets derived from completely different processes occurring aeons apart. Until data can be found to describe the 'middle', or eg something 'interesting' falls out of the hunt for 'Dark Matter', they'll have to agree to politely differ...

Jul 31, 2019
The following theory, Sphere Theory


So does Lisi's E8 and it's as wrong as can be.

Jul 31, 2019
At some point, astrophysicists are going to have to face the music: a more realistic model is called for. The principle of action/reaction, which is entirely absent the Standard Model, needs to be included. For a complete description, see the Dark Energy Dialogue on YouTube:

https://youtu.be/4goInwbOix4


Jul 31, 2019
@BobSage

As more and more theories hit brick walls, hasn't it become clear that the most basic ideas about the nature of reality are wrong?

No Bob that is just asinine to make that assumption.

Jul 31, 2019
More here: https://www.scien...s-crisis .

The data series reminds me of the history of early measurements of various quantities (say, universal speed limit https://en.wikipe..._history ).

I think in general bad theories tend to get more and more complicated as they struggle to explain new data. You can always tweak a theory to encompass new data.


No, you can't - then it's a new theory. What we can see when theories break is that there are more and more data that is put in tension. That is not exactly happening here, since there is just one parameter that is problematic.

No one has even identified what dark energy is in the first place [and the rest of that comment is just as wrong]


The common identification is vacuum energy. It needs to be better tested, for sure, but that is what GR & QFT agree on.

Jul 31, 2019
Is it possible that what is being seen in the difference between the CMB and supernovae is that the inflationary period which is described as being faster that light, at some point slowed down to the expansion rate we have now. And the two measurements are based on two differing rates of expansion, since one, the CMB is a measurement taken further back in time than the measurement for supernovae.

Jul 31, 2019
Until we eliminate all possibility of systematic errors, there's no point in fooling around with changes to the theory.

Jul 31, 2019
Appendix 1.
"It means that if 10 Mpc equals 32,6 millions of light-years
then Hubble's law doesn't apply for galaxies and objects, the values of which are more easily determined." Wikipedia
Let's check that on the distances at which Hubble's law should apply:

RMB 56 distance 65,2 Mly… blue shift.. -327 km/s…….(65,2 Mly x Hubble c. = -327 km/s Ha, ha..)
NGC 4419........56 Mly……..........-0,0009 (-342 km/s)…..(56 x H C = -342 km/s ..)
M90...............58.7 ± 2.8 Mly..........−282 ± 4 km/s……….(58,7 x H c = -282 km/s)"
+ "compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift). Distance 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)"
"Again, there is nothing in accordance with the constant and Hubble's law!" ..(53,8 Mly x Hubbl c. = 0 to -866 km/s ..Ha..)
Who lies? Autor or evidence? In the translations: a person who talks without a background (evidence) or scientific evidence?

If " "Objects observed in space - extragalactic space, 10 (Mpc)" = ~700 km/s

Jul 31, 2019
"NGC 7320c distance 35 Mly, speed 5.985 ± 9 km/s…(~10 Mpc x Hubble c. = 5.985 ± 9 km/s.. ha, ha..)
NGC 4178..............43 ± 8...................377 km/s
NGC 4214...............44.........................291 ± 3
M98 ........................44.4 ...............−0.000113 ± 0.000013
Messier 59...............60 ± 5..................410 ± 6
NGC 4414................62,3 ....................790 ± 5
NGC 127................188........................409 etc....

The Laniakea Supercluster.......250 Mly.......+0,0708 (z)
Horologium_Supercluster ........700 Mly..........0,063
Corona Borealis Supercluster ...946 Mly..........0,07 etc...
(The galaxy is distant 250 Mly is faster (has a bigger red shift) than the galaxy at the distance 700 and 946 Mly ..)

Q0906 + 6930 ..................12,3 Gly.....5,47.(z)...speed ....299,792 km/s
Z8 GND 5296...................13,1 Gly....7,5078±0,0004.......291.622 ± 120 km/s
GN-z11..............................13,4 Gly...11,09.......................295.050 ± 11

Jul 31, 2019
Who lies? .....
Object with red shift. 5.47 is faster than objects with red shift 7.05 and 11.09 ha, ha. Authors Hubble constant really need to go back to elementary school and learn math (basic for kids).
From https://www.svemi...h-Images
A Constant Growth, Rotation And Its Effects, Cyclones, Light And Redshift With Images
DOI: 10.18483/ijSci.1908 07/2019

Jul 31, 2019
In any case, the researchers at the recent meeting voted against calling it a crisis, suggesting that few in the field are ready to throw out major theories underlying the understanding of how the universe works—at least not right now.
Whew!

Because: A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant should nail it down pretty well...

Jul 31, 2019
Hadn't we sorted this last week with that red giant star at 70 km/s/Mpc

It's like a week in politics
What's a week in Hubble's expansion rate?

Jul 31, 2019
Well the Hubble Constant is not a constant. The rate of expansion of the universe changes over time. It is the current rate of expansion that is inconsistent. But, really assuming our current model is correct in the general, there are several reasons why they have gotten different results. The problem with cosmology is that u can't really break an experiment down into a single variable, there are assumptions made in every measurement. U only need a few assumptions to be off by a little to account for the discrepancy we are seeing and it isn't easy to figure out where we are going wrong.
I did predict a Hubble constant of 71.03 many years ago. It looks more like I was correct. Although my current work refines it a little bit to 70.93 Please see Sphere Theory Calculates a Hubble Constant in Line with Average of Wikipedia Summary

Aug 01, 2019
"And the reason it has become such a hot topic is because if a reasonable reason for the differences cannot be found, scientists in the field might have to completely rethink how the universe works."

Correct. They will be dragged to it kicking and screaming, but they will have to concede eventually that the Big Bang monstrosity of a theory is wrong.

It is the converse of what is actually happening, which is why it appears to accord with observations. As predicted by Newton and Einstein, gravity has created unimaginably large bodies in the universe, and the galaxies in our local region are being drawn towards one of them, although more than one cannot be ruled out.

This causes the cosmological redshift. Galaxies closer to the Great Body than the observer, are more strongly influence by its gravity, so are moving towards it more quickly. Galaxies further away from it than the observer also appear redshifted as the observer recedes from them.

Voila. Get it now?

Aug 01, 2019
wduckss, who lies? Are you serious? You cherry picked 10 data points. Do you understand mathematics and statistics or are you just a great example of the dunning kruger effect?

Aug 01, 2019
"And the reason it has become such a hot topic is because if a reasonable reason for the differences cannot be found, scientists in the field might have to completely rethink how the universe works."

Correct. They will be dragged to it kicking and screaming, but they will have to concede eventually that the Big Bang monstrosity of a theory is wrong.

I also did show that the Big Bang was disproved please see the vixra link at 1903.0252. It is disproved since I showed that the universe is actually rotating and its size is limited by the speed of light.

Aug 01, 2019
Redshift is also an inherent property of matter, which changes in quantized steps. Hubble would be turning in his grave if he knew how the maths metaphysicists had taken over astrophysics.

Aug 01, 2019
Gravitational waves aren't impeded or affected by intervening gas, dust, etc. in the slightest, because the propagating energy is in the form of a change in spacetime curvature. Hard to ask for a better standard candle than that. See

A gravitational-wave standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant

Aug 01, 2019
wduckss, who lies? Are you serious? You cherry picked 10 data points. Do you understand mathematics and statistics or are you just a great example of the dunning kruger effect?


First, learn to count.
from the comments "+ compiled a list of 65 galaxies in Virgo with VLG < 0 (blue shift). Distance 53.8 ± 0.3 Mly (16.5 ± 0.1 Mpc)
"Again, there is nothing in accordance with the constant and Hubble's law!" ..(53,8 Mly x Hubbl c. = 0 to -866 km/s ..Ha..)."
A few more examples at https://www.svemi...bles-law
Demolition Hubble's law, Big Bang the basis of "modern" and ecclesiastical cosmology etc. Etc. ...
Who lies, you?

Aug 01, 2019
I see the Hubble constant as a tetrahedron like wormhole that duplicates so that each tetrahedron becomes two tetrahedrons and is part of the flow of time
besides the event horizon of each tetrahedron Planck mass wormhole (which helps with understanding entanglement) i made a simulation that uses this idea..
and i believe this to be underlying foundation on the Hubble constant !
https://youtu.be/KSyWkFEeRk4
so if we wanted to travel back in time we would have to know that each tetrahedron duplicates and then we could reverse time, in controlling just those tetrahedrons that were there before the new tetrahedrons, Teleportation would require the same understanding, as well as controlling the spin of each tetrahedron like wormhole, and you cant just rule out future time travel just because those tetrahedrons dont exist yet, you could in theory predict that configuration.
think reverse polarization of the space-time configuration

Aug 01, 2019
https://youtu.be/2dkRPIweXcc
here is a Calabi-Yau matrix simulation which is viewed as a double tetrahedron; the anti dimension and our reality or our dimension...
remember that each face and the center of the tetrahedron is 5 dimensions
giving the 10 dimensional space time frame for string-theory

Aug 01, 2019
gravitational lensing gives us the best proof that at a mi-nute level Planck Scale space has a Tetrahedron shape
https://scienceba...coolest/
compare this to a tetrahedron and notice the light in all 5 faces of the tetrahedron including its center...

Aug 02, 2019
If we place our Earth as a point inside the volume of the whole Universe some 300-400 thousand light years after the Big Bang, when the first radiation (cosmic microwave background) starts to appear (BD + 17 ° 3248 13,8±4 G years)...
We have a claims, "The universe is spreading", then there should be a small universe (with a small diameter) 300-400 thousand years after the so-called Big Bang, and a big universe, in which "...the most distant objects in the universe are the galaxies GN-z11, 13,39 G etc.
If an emission of light happened 13,39 light-years ago (EGSY8p7, 13,23 G ly, etc.), one could ask: did light travel at all through these 13,39 bilion ly, since we can see it now? [33]
Our Universe is created inside a whole that has started to brighten up..
Radiation is coming from all directions of the Universe, which is contradictory to the expansion of the Universe...

Aug 02, 2019
Gravitational waves aren't impeded or affected by intervening gas, dust, etc. in the slightest, because the propagating energy is in the form of a change in spacetime curvature. Hard to ask for a better standard candle than that. See

https://arxiv.org...10.05835
Matter doesn't impede gravitation. It goes right through it like it isn't even there. I don't know about whether it goes through black holes, so I didn't say "mass," I said "matter." This is well-known and measured both by experiment and observation. If you want some evidence, consider that the influences of the Sun and Moon extend all the way through the Earth and attract the far side from them as much as the near side, except for the inverse-square falloff due to the greater distance from the far side.

Aug 02, 2019
Think about the big bang.. where did all the anti-matter go;
we can can deduce that with out space there is no time..
think about the big bang as creating two time flows -
one that moves backwards in time, and one that moves forward in time.
and the center of the tetrahedron space geometry (wormhole) being a door
the past that hasnt happened yet connected with the future that hasnt happened yet.. then 2 dimensions hold together the present.. in that sense
and the Calabi-Yau is full picture of the two dimensions, the one we reside in going forward in time and the other traveling backward in time..
so now we see the big bang from a different view point, not just the forward time
flow yet also a backwards time flow complete with anti-mater traveling backwards in time from the moment of the big bang
so how fast did the space-time tetrahedrons duplicate
was it faster at the moment of the big bang
is the Hubble constant really constant or more of a Hubble Sequence.
which now seems constant

Aug 02, 2019
Now to Sum this up view the Calabi-Yau as having two time flows 5 dimensions
moving forward in time and 5 dimensions moving backward in time, at the same time since the moment of the big bang the rate of the Calabi-Yau duplicating was faster; so is the evidence here showing that supernovas speed up this duplication rate like a mini big bang ! hense a Hubble sequence, not a Hubble constant.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more