SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 14 2020, @04:56AM
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.