Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Saturday June 13 2020, @11:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the size-matters dept.

New Distance Measurements Bolster Challenge to Basic Model of Universe:

A new set of precision distance measurements made with an international collection of radio telescopes have greatly increased the likelihood that theorists need to revise the “standard model” that describes the fundamental nature of the Universe.

The new distance measurements allowed astronomers to refine their calculation of the Hubble Constant, the expansion rate of the Universe, a value important for testing the theoretical model describing the composition and evolution of the Universe. The problem is that the new measurements exacerbate a discrepancy between previously measured values of the Hubble Constant and the value predicted by the model when applied to measurements of the cosmic microwave background made by the Planck satellite.

"We find that galaxies are nearer than predicted by the standard model of cosmology, corroborating a problem identified in other types of distance measurements. There has been debate over whether this problem lies in the model itself or in the measurements used to test it. Our work uses a distance measurement technique completely independent of all others, and we reinforce the disparity between measured and predicted values. It is likely that the basic cosmological model involved in the predictions is the problem," said James Braatz, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO).

[...] "The maser method of measuring the expansion rate of the universe is elegant, and, unlike the others, based on geometry. By measuring extremely precise positions and dynamics of maser spots in the accretion disk surrounding a distant black hole, we can determine the distance to the host galaxies and then the expansion rate. Our result from this unique technique strengthens the case for a key problem in observational cosmology." said Mark Reid of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard and Smithsonian, and a member of the Megamaser Cosmology Project team.

"Our measurement of the Hubble Constant is very close to other recent measurements, and statistically very different from the predictions based on the CMB and the standard cosmological model. All indications are that the standard model needs revision," said Braatz.

Journal Reference:
D. W. Pesce, J. A. Braatz, M. J. Reid, et al. The Megamaser Cosmology Project. XIII. Combined Hubble Constant Constraints - IOPscience, The Astrophysical Journal Letters (DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab75f0)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Snotnose on Saturday June 13 2020, @11:59PM (2 children)

    by Snotnose (1623) on Saturday June 13 2020, @11:59PM (#1007605)

    Just a month or two ago I was reading there might be more than 1 way for a type 1a Supernova to happen. If true, the 1a can no longer be considered a standard candle and as such, stuff like the universe is expanding is no longer valid.

    --
    When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:04AM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 14 2020, @01:04AM (#1007625) Journal

      While there are three proposed ways for a type 1a supernova to happen, they all have the same brightness. So they are still good as "standard candles".
      https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/galaxy-s-brightest-explosions-go-nuclear-unexpected-trigger-pairs-dead-stars [sciencemag.org]

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:08PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:08PM (#1007864)

      > the universe is expanding is no longer valid.

      That's a big statement. More plausible would be the measured rate of universal expansion has a larger-than-expected systematic uncertainty (or even correction)

      i..e. the universe is expanding, but maybe at a different speed.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by darkfeline on Sunday June 14 2020, @12:31AM (2 children)

    by darkfeline (1030) on Sunday June 14 2020, @12:31AM (#1007611) Homepage

    These sorts of things make me wish that I were born further in the future (assuming humans are still around and thriving, anyway). For all its fault, contemporary education teaches a lot of overly simplified knowledge which is insanely valuable, the product of generations of work, which past societies would have been willing to pay handsomely for. That boring introduction about germ theory in a primary education classroom is the culmination of millennia humans theorizing about humors and spirits and folklore. One day (again assuming humans are still around and thriving), kids will be learning about the geometry and physics of space travel as common knowledge, blissfully unaware of all of the trials and errors humanity endured to earn that knowledge.

    --
    Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:56AM (#1007666)

      One interesting possibility as anasiotropy. There's an increasing amount of evidence mounting that the universe is not isotropic - not physically uniform. If that's the case there will never be a class on the geometry and physics of space as it may in an irregular way from point to point. And frankly as the universe seems to become more and more weird each new step of discovery we make, this would be hardly surprising.

      On other slight tangent I'd take is on the nature of education. I completely agree that our simplified models of.. everything.. can be extremely useful, but I think that can also be harmful. In times past, not even that long of the past, when we knew we didn't know much it seemed to have inspired a greater sense of discovery and wonder. Now unless you end up in a senior/junior level physics type class you probably think most things are basically just worked out - quoting Morley of the famous Michelson-Morley experiment : 'The future of physics rests in little more than the 6th decimal place.' Various other famous scientists made similar observations, such as Kelvin. Of course these comments were all made just briefly before physics was thrown upside down with relativity.

      I think if we emphasized our uncertainty and lack of knowledge more, it could help drive more people to realize that there are so many unanswered question out there that we already live in a world of exploration, even if we're still for now, mostly stuck on this rock. So much of our entire cosmological model isn't even pieced together with duct tape and blue, because duct tape and blue actually hold - but rather things that are mutually exclusive and other things that are just complete hand-wavings. For instance the hypothesis of cosmic inflation [wikipedia.org] always rubbed me the wrong way somehow. Working forward from our theory of the big bang to today results in a radically different universe than what we have. So we added a hack claiming that for some brief period of time early in the universe somehow everything magically went way faster than the speed of light then it, equally magically, all slowed back down. No logic, no rationale, no justificaiton. Only reason it was proposed was to try to create a 100% ad-hoc fix to make the big bang fit something vaguely resembling what we see. That, in my opinion, is the sort of science more suited to social psychology and it's 20% replication rates, than to cosmology. Yet, cosmic inflation is now a deeply embedded and normal part of our entire cosmological model. If it fails, so does everything built upon it.

    • (Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:16PM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Sunday June 14 2020, @07:16PM (#1007869)

      One of the interesting things about home schooling is seeing just how far one can push the science syllabus. My kids (poor things) have been taking on sciences 5+ grades above their nominal level and suck it up quite happily. I can't push much maths on them yet - and here I think learning algebra really does take some time - but the rest goes in just fine.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Bot on Sunday June 14 2020, @09:01AM

    by Bot (3902) on Sunday June 14 2020, @09:01AM (#1007708) Journal

    One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered community of believers in the standard model when the maser method confirmed that CMB has yet again proved to not match theories, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of any model. Coming on the heels of a recent survey which plainly states that the big bang theory has lost more netflix market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. CMB as the echo of the big bang is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent professors of physics comprehensive chatting at the coffee machine test...

    --
    Account abandoned.
(1)