The mystery of the Hubble constant
FECYT – Spanish Foundation for Science and Technology
Solving the discordant data on the expansion rate of the universe is like trying to thread a ‘cosmic needle’, where its hole is the H0 value measured today and the thread is brought by the model from the furthest Universe we can observe: the cosmic microwave background.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltetch/ESA-Planck Collaboration/SINC
Physicists use two types of measurements to calculate the expansion rate of the universe, but their results do not coincide, which may make it necessary to touch up the cosmological model. “It’s like trying to thread a cosmic needle,” explains researcher Licia Verde of the University of Barcelona, co-author of an article on the implications of this problem.
More than a hundred scientists met this summer at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics at the University of California (USA) to try to clarify what is happening with the discordant data on the expansion rate of the universe, an issue that affects the very origin, evolution and fate of our cosmos. Their conclusions have been published in Nature Astronomy journal.
“The problem lies in the Hubble constant (H0), a parameter which value -it is actually not a constant because it changes with time- indicates how fast the Universe is currently expanding,” points out cosmologist Licia Verde, an ICREA researcher at the Institute of Cosmos Sciences of the University of Barcelona (ICC-UB) and the main author of the article.
“There are different ways of measuring this quantity,” she explains, “but they can be divided into two major classes: those relying on the Late Universe (the closest to us in space and time) and those based on the Early Universe, and they do not give exactly the same result.”
A classic example of measurements in the late universe are those provided by the regular pulsations of cepheid stars, which the astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt already observed a century ago and which helped Edwin Hubble calculate distances between galaxies and prove in 1929 that the Universe is expanding.
The current analysis of the variable brightness of cepheids with space telescopes such as the Hubble, along with other direct observations of objects in our cosmic environment and more distant supernovae, indicate that the H0 value is approximately 73.9 kilometres per second per megaparsec (an astronomical unit equivalent to about 3.26 million light years).
However, measurements based on the early Universe provide an average H0 value of 67.4 km/s/Mpc. These other records, obtained with data from the European Space Agency’s Planck Satellite and other instruments, are obtained indirectly on the basis of the success of the standard cosmological model (Lambda-CDM model), which proposes a Universe made up of 5 % atoms or ordinary matter, 27 % dark matter (made up of particles, as yet detected, that provide additional gravitational attraction so that galaxies can form and clusters of galaxies are held together) and 68 % dark energy, which is responsible for accelerating the expansion of the Universe.
“In particular, these measurements of the primordial Universe focus on the farthest light that can be observed: the cosmic microwave background, produced when the Universe was only 380,000 years old, in the so-called recombination era (where protons recombined with electrons to form atoms),” says Licia Verde.
The researcher highlights a relevant fact: “There are very different and independent ways (with totally different instruments and scientific tools) to measure the H0 on the basis of the early Universe, and the same goes for the late Universe. What is interesting is that all the measurements of one type are in mutual agreement with one another, at an exquisite precision of 1 or 2 %, as are those of the other type, with the same great precision; but when we compare the measurements of one class with those of the other, the discrepancy arises.”
“It looks like a small difference, only 7%, but it is significant considering that we are talking about precisions of 1 or 2% in the value of the Hubble constant,” as emphasised by Licia Verde, who jokes: “It is like trying to thread a ‘cosmic needle’ where its hole is the H0 value measured today and the thread is brought by the model from the furthest Universe we can observe: the cosmic microwave background.”
In addition, she points out some of the consequences of the discrepancy: “The lower the H0 is, the older the Universe is. Its current age is calculated at about 13.8 billion years considering that the Hubble constant is 67 or 68 km/s/Mpc; but if its value were 74 km/s/Mpc, our universe would be younger: it would be approximately 12.8 billion years old.”
Modifying the model in the early Universe
The authors point out in their study that this anomaly does not seem to depend on the instrument or method used for measuring, or on human equipment or sources. “If there are no errors in the data or measurements, could it be a problem with the model?” the researcher asks.
“After all, the H0 values of the primordial Universe class are based on the standard cosmological model, which is very well established, very successful, but which we can try to change a little to solve the discrepancy,” says the expert. “However, we cannot tamper with the characteristics of the model that work very well”.
If the data continue to confirm the problem, theoretical physicists seem to agree that the most promising route for solving it is to modify the model just before the light observed of the cosmic microwave background was formed, i.e. just before recombination (in which there was already 63 % dark matter, 15 % photons, 10 % neutrinos and 12 % atoms). One of the ideas proposed is that, shortly after the Big Bang, an intense episode of dark energy could have occurred that expanded the Universe faster than previously calculated.
“Although it is still highly speculative, with this fine-tuned model, the H0 value obtained with measurements based on the primordial Universe could coincide with local measurements,” notes Licia Verde, who concludes: “It won’t be easy, but in this way we could thread the cosmic needle without breaking what works well in the model.”
###
References:
Licia Verde, Tommaso Treu & Adam G. Riess. “Tensions between the early and late Universe”. Nature Astronomy 3: 891-895, October 2019
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think we’ve all cottoned onto the central issue in this problem:
“If there are no errors in the data or measurements, could it be a problem with the model?”
I ain’t no scientist, just a curious observer. But, I’ve for a long time believed that, sooner or later, the current established theory of the universe will fall apart.
If the age of the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 3 times that. That’s a bit like saying, my grandfather was the first person. And that don’t make no scene to me.
I remember when the Earth was older than the Universe. Then someone discovered a second class of Cepheids (stars used to measure distance of galaxies), and the Universe suddenly got much older. These astronomical numbers usually carry astronomical uncertainties.
The fact that the General Relativity allows for singularities, be it black holes or a Big Bang, naturally invites speculation. Until very recently, there were no direct observations of effects strongly deviating from Newtonian gravity.
LIGO observation of a merger of black holes is the first reasonably direct confirmation of singularities. Previously, we only had models of black holes, explaining observations of some strange objects. By the way, the black holes that LIGO observed, should not exist according to current models of star evolution.
The universe is a space-time enclosed entity of an endless cycle of conversion of mass to energy and vice versa. We may think of limits to universe containing mass but not of limits to one containing energy, since energy is omnipresent and in its entirety omnipotent. Perhaps, before idea of energy was properly and scientifically defined and quantified it was (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) the idea of what God is.
The God of Abraham, like those of other Near Eastern gods, plus of Nordic, Classic, Vedic, etc myths, was originally conceived of not as energies, but persons, usually larger than humans, whom they otherwise resembled. Hebrew coins show YHWH riding in a chariot across the sky, like the Greek sun god Apollo.
In the early parts of the OT, God appears to men and women, as to Adam and Eve, and walks with Abraham beneath the terebinth trees. Later, as with Moses, humans can only hear His voice in burning vegetation of mountaintop storms. Later still, to see Him is to die. Authors’ conceptions of God changes over the centuries during which the OT was written.
I know a bit about Greco/Roman gods and that is about it. Of ancient stories I have red Iliad &Odisey and speaches of Cicero, with Shakespeare next in chronological order following with European classics, so I take your word about the religious stuff.
John Tillman
November 19, 2019 at 2:50 pm
———————————-
John,
I am not sure what you trying a point out there John.
But as far as I can tell, the above claim of yours is wrong and most probably so due to your biased initial condition about the scriptures in question.
In consideration of all the names mentioned there by you, and many more that you may consider as per the scriptures in question, only Moses (which happens to be not a name) is the only character there that very clearly and specifically described
as the only one that indisputably considered to have being having the real experience of the whole full form presence of God, by his own request which was very kindly granted by God.
Probably what may be considered as the best kind top ever reward to Moses.
(as far as I can tell, from the way I remember the Biblical accounting)
I do not know of any one else character daring to even request such from God, let alone being granted such as a request.
And is clearly described there, in the accounting of a such event the seriousness and the daring of “to see Him is to die”.
In that account, God makes sure that Moses eyes are covered ( by God’s hand) till Moses is positioned in a safe distance place from where he can not have a direct straight look or view at the full mighty presence of God…
as per the line of the scriptures, either when such considered fictional or otherwise.
John,
you have the right as any one else there to argue one way or another, or have your own analyses and following proposition put forward in any given matter and issue, whether in a fictional or otherwise consideration of a given subject,
but I think you must recognize and accept the diminished value of such as when the initial approach in such subjects consist as an outright dismissal from the very outset… quite a biased stand.
And for what it may matter or be worth.
As for the consideration of “good Samaritan”…
one is borne, not simply just made.(kind of natural at it)…
if that makes some sense there!
cheers
No bias, just going by what the Bible actually says:
Exodus 33:20 (KJV)
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
John,
You mentioned Eve there John,
does “no man” covers for Eve or perhaps Miriam, the Moses sister!?
What about a child, John?
Humans, persons, John, “no man” or “no man” yet…
There is only four characters-persons in the Exodus that could enter safely and had no problem with The Holy of Holies, a God’s appearance presence enclosure.
No the full presence or the God’s face appearance there, but quite very deadly indeed to the many many.
Just saying, just a line of argument.
cheers
God appeared to Abraham.
Genesis 18:1.
From inside their tent, Sarah heard the three angels, who had eaten her bread and a calf.
A cycle would imply at some point time reverses, thus entropy reverses, and the universe contracts back to an origin. Not buying it without any evidence that entropy of the universe can decrease, that is, that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.
Now how long will I have to wait for nature to prove me wrong?
Hypothesized Big Crunch is probably wrong, but never say never! Or at least seldom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Crunch
Joel, if time itself began running backward when the expansion reversed, then the 2nd Law wouldn’t be violated. However, I have trouble visualizing that. 🙂
>>
. . . if time itself began running backward when the expansion reversed, then the 2nd Law wouldn’t be violated.
<<
The Second Law is intimately connected with the arrow of time. Take a movie of someone dropping an egg onto the floor–it shatters and the contents spill out. Now reverse the movie–essentially reversing time. The egg reassembles itself and jumps back into the hand. That would violate the Second Law and is why you never see it in actuality.
Jim
Making assumptions about anything can end up scuttling your canoe before you’ve gotten into it. How do we really know that things like the speed of light or even time itself are constant? Could things like that change over time and space? What if electrons weighed something just a little different just after big bang than they do now? Leave no stone unturned I always say!
The measured speed of the expansion of the Universe is flawed by far more than 7% no matter what the scientists say. They have based so much on a single simple assumption, and just can’t to understand that the assumption is what makes everything seem off.
They assume they thoroughly understand the intrinsic maximum brightness of a Super Nova Type Ia. They assume there is a binary system where mass is slowly exchanged from a lighter partner to a heavier star that is “on the edge” of being too heavy to support it’s structure. When the magic mass boundary is crossed, the star explodes shedding material and of course becoming very bright following a predictable curve. Since all Super Nova Tape Ia weigh (almost) the same, they must have the (almost) same brightness. If you know the true brightness of an object and view it from a distance, you can calculate that distance.
How do they know this? Well, they modeled it of course. Sound familiar?
The problems with this assumption is that we really do not know that all Super Nova Type Ia are really the same:
1) What if like some crystals that form from super-saturated fluids, some Type Ia can hold up longer than theorized? They go right past the boundary and at some random point, they suddenly collapse. Now the weight is off by more than expected, and so will be the brightness. What if this was more likely early in the universe than later? (see point 3 below)
2) What if the Type Ia is spinning very fast or slow. How would this affect the brightness. What if this caused the brightness to be variable depending on the angle of the spin axis? Now your calculations will be off more than expected. What if the early Type Ia had more average angular momentum than later age ones?
3) In the early universe, there was mostly hydrogen and some helium, with bits of other materials left over from the Big Bang. As stars keep forming and exploding, they leave behind more and more heavier elements. What if a Type Ia star’s brightness is more sensitive to heavier metals than expected? Older stars could be dimmer and newer ones brighter (or the other way around). Certain galaxies might have had more generations of stars than others (so more heavy materials), and appear closer or further away than they actually are.
I could go on…the problem is with the assumption that all Type Ia are easily predictable. NOTHING of consequence in nature is easily predictable – nature is messy and complicated. Just like climate change, Astrophysicists are assuming too much because they have no way to actually validate their models, theories, and guesses.
At some point there will be a breakthrough in understanding. Many of those astrophysicists already invested in “Dark Energy” will fight the new insights unto death, but a new generation of scientists will accept and produce new useful findings based on better understandings. Sound familiar?
Very few Type 1a supernovae are useful as standard candles.
Only in the very rare cases in which a white dwarf merges with another white dwarf will the Chandrasekhar mass limit momentarily be exceeded.
Then the united star begins to collapse, raising its temperature past the nuclear fusion ignition point. Within a few seconds of fusion initiation, a substantial fraction of the matter in the white dwarf undergoes a runaway reaction, releasing enough energy to unbind the star in a supernova explosion.
This type Ia category of supernova produces consistent peak luminosity, thanks to the uniform mass of white dwarfs that explode via the accretion mechanism. The stability of this value allows such explosions to be used as standard candles to measure the distance to their host galaxies, because the visual magnitude of the supernovae depends primarily on the distance.
>>
Only in the very rare cases in which a white dwarf merges with another white dwarf will the Chandrasekhar mass limit momentarily be exceeded.
This type Ia category of supernova produces consistent peak luminosity, thanks to the uniform mass of white dwarfs that explode via the accretion mechanism.
<<
That’s not my understanding. The standard candle comes from a close binary where one is a white dwarf and the other, probably a red giant, feeds the white dwarf star matter. Occasionally the new matter on the surface of the white dwarf will cook-off creating a nova explosion. If the slow accretion of matter on the white dwarf then just exceeds the Chandrasekhar limit, that will cause a SN explosion and results in a standard candle effect.
The merging of two white dwarfs could easily exceed the Chandrasekhar limit, create a much brighter explosion, and not create a standard brightness SN explosion.
Jim
https://newscenter.lbl.gov/2014/03/03/standard-candle-supernovae/
Who knows?
Nice link. Thanks.
Jim
You’re welcome.
We have yet only seen a tiny part of the universe,we have no idea how big it is or how old it is.
It is somewhat like believing the entire city is what you can see from your house in the burbs.
Pretending we know how the universe works by observing our neighbours.
+1
So, the Type 1A supernovas have already been found Not to be Standard. Maybe Cepheid stars also are not standard.
so, this Nobel Prize for the Type 1A Supernovae could turn out to be a mistake, hope they do not have to give it back.
I mentioned this before.
And, if the Universe is expanding, why is the Sun still the same distance from the Earth? Has not changed a bit since they first propounded this Dark Energy.
So glad I went into engineering and Not science…
That is not how expansion works.
Expansion in the ~13.8 billion years since the Big Bang works on the largest of scales, ie between galaxies. In the ~4.6 billion years since its origin, our solar system has not expanded.
When the young sun was more massive, earth orbited a bit closer to it. But we’ve basically been at about the same distance since the planets coalesced out of the protoplanetary disk. The sun isn’t getting farther from earth, except slightly from its losing mass. Similarly, the sun is not getting farther from other stars in our own galaxy.
The solar system and Milky Way galaxy don’t expand, while the universe as a whole does, because our stellar system and galaxy are held together gravitationally. Same goes for other star systems and galaxies.
However, as the universe expands, our galaxy is getting farther from other galaxies, as are they all. At intergalactic scale, the billions of galaxies are all moving away from each other. In that sense, the universe appears to be expanding.
Spacetime is inflating between and beyond the galaxies at faster than the speed of light, like a balloon being blown up.
And posted immediately. No one-hour thing at this time of night? world-wide forum, what now?
“In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Good a theory as any. Amazing that the ancients 4,000 years ago got this so close, expansion, inflation. The writers of the Bible knew nothing about the coming heat death of the Universe, and yet they described it almost exactly, and it sounds just like a cyclic Universe.
Kind of thing that makes you say, “Hmmm….”
Nope. The authors of Genesis, and much earlier Sumerian myth-makers whom they copied, could hardly have gotten it more wrong.
There were no waters at the origin of the universe, nor hydrogen and oxygen with which to make water.
Light was able to move through the universe not when God ordered it to exist, but at about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, when the hot, dense early universe cooled down enough for protons to attract free electrons, turning them into neutral H and He atoms.
And the rest of Genesis 1 and 2 goes downhill as to reality from that point on.
As noted, day and night, the earth and green plants did not all exist before the sun.
PS: After that first flash of light, the universe went dark again, until stars and galaxies formed.
The reason for the confusion is a mistake made in 1929. At that time, there were 3 competing models of the universe – expanding, contracting and steady-state. Hubble’s discovery of the red shift in the light from most galaxies observable from Earth meant that the distance between the Earth and most galaxies was increasing. The error was in concluding from this alone that the universe was expanding. Though counter-intuitive, Hubble’s red shift is equally consistent with a universe contracting around a cosmic singularity like a massive black hole. Moreover, the contracting model offers simple explanations for Dark Energy, Dark Matter and other phenomena. See http://www.bigcrunchuniverse.com.
Shouldn’t a blueshift have been observed, in that case?
No. That’s the trick. In a contracting universe we can only observe galaxies within the earth’s light cone. Nothing from those galaxies on the opposite side of the cosmic singularity which are moving toward us can escape the gravitational pull of the hole. So light from them never reaches us. Theoretically, if we could receive light from the other side of the singularity, it would be blue shifted because those objects are moving towards us and we’re moving towards them. But we can’t see them because the light from those objects on the other side is absorbed by the singularity. Think of it like a black hole. As you’re falling into the hole, you can’t see anything on the other side of the hole because light from those objects is absorbed by the hole that’s between you and them.
Pretty late in the thread to try this, but here goes.
I’ve taken the science necessary for my engineering degree, but every time I have asked this question I never got an understandable response.
I accept that red-shift is a doppler effect indicating an object is moving away from our point of observation. Objects 2 billion light-years distant are receeding at a given average rate. Objects 4 billion light-year distant are receeding at a greater rate, etc.
But I don’t follow the logic that the universe is expanding at an accellerated rate.
It seems to me, the flaw is the “are”.
The light-year is not just a measure of distance, but a measure of time.
Objects 2 billion light-years in the past “were” receeding at a given rate. Objects 4 billion light-years in the past “were” receeding much faster, etc.
i.e. the expansion is slowing, not accellerating.
In the words of the fictional Dr. Smith: “Marty, you’re not thinking 4th dimensionally”.
Red shift progressively increases with the distance of a source, suggesting it is a Doppler effect in non-linear space expansion, however it may not be Doppler effect and the universe may not expanding at all to have the same effect. Here are three possible alternatives, based on Einstein’s theory of relativity
a) Whenever the light’s trajectory is adjacent to a large mass time slows down (A.E. “closer the clock is the source of gravitation, slower time passes”) fractionally increasing lights wavelength i.e. result is the red shift. Near galaxies light (affected by both the mass of its source and the mass of our own galaxy) would show small red shift, while for the light from galaxies further away it is a bit more caused by galaxies in between.
b) If the hypothesis of ‘dark matter’ is correct, which is more or less evenly distributed through the universe, the effect would be a progressively increasing red shift since the light would encounter more ‘dark matter’ mass along its trajectory from more distant sources.
c) Total mass of universe causes degree of curvature in the light’s trajectory, longer the path grater the curvature, i.e. larger the red shift.
The apparent acceleration of expansion was discovered in 1998 by two different teams, both of which relied upon Type 1a supernovae observations. It has been confirmed by various other kinds of observations since then, but of course this conclusion is never settled, since cosmology is a real science, unlike “climate science”.
Prior to this seeming discovery, cosmic inflation was thought to be decelerating.
I’m certainly not an expert on any of this, but it seems that we are calculating an H0 value of 67.4 km/s/MPc. assuming “a Universe made up of 5 % atoms or ordinary matter, 27 % dark matter (made up of particles, as yet detected, that provide additional gravitational attraction so that galaxies can form and clusters of galaxies are held together) and 68 % dark energy, which is responsible for accelerating the expansion of the Universe.” However, 95% of that model is just hypothetical values of hypothetical things that are plugged into the equations of a theory so that the equations come out the way the proponents think they are supposed to.
We don’t even really know that H0 is really a constant variation of velocity with distance.
In my biz, we work off KNOT. What we know, what we think we know, what is opinion, and what we need to know (yes, it’s out of order but it makes a word.)
What we KNOW in science is what matter and energy do in the realms we can observe (i.e. we can observe a red-shift).
What we think we know are things that have a lot of evidence behind them, are in-line with with observations and we have no reason to believe differently so we use these as assumptions to base our theory on (we think we know the red shift means things are getting farther apart – this is not a certainty as posts above have shown).
Opinions would be logical conclusions from what we know and think we know, but have no confirmation of. These would be scientific theories here (Standard theory, string theory, etc.)
What we need to know would be items (perhaps experiments) that would prove or disprove the opinions (theories).
I’m not saying any of it is certainly wrong, just saying we need to be very humble in any assertions in scientific fields (like, say things dealing with climate).
My own theory is that there is a baseline level of un-quantized energy(/matter/gravity) throughout the universe and when it clumps together in quantized groups (only certain states are allowable) it creates observable matter and energy. Really not even a theory, but a concept of operations.
I’m sure some physicist could put together equations that would show this a valid theory in some aspects, but even doing that would really not be evidence that is was true.
Likelihood of being correct is very small.
My understanding is that according the the Theory of General Relativity any form of energy is a source of gravity.
Therefore, I cannot reconcile this statement from the above article: “. . . the standard cosmological model (Lambda-CDM model), which proposes a Universe made up of 5 % atoms or ordinary matter, 27 % dark matter (made up of particles, as yet detected, that provide additional gravitational attraction so that galaxies can form and clusters of galaxies are held together) and 68 % dark energy, which is responsible for accelerating the expansion of the Universe.” This statement seems to imply that “dark energy” does not contribute gravitational attraction within our universe, but instead only “pushes” the universe into greater expansion.
Can someone please explain this paradox? Is it as simple as we call it “dark energy”, but it is mischaracterized as such?
https://www.livescience.com/what-is-dark-energy.html
Two values. One based mostly on theory and calculations, the other on actual observation and measurement. The science I know says the one based on observations is correct and the calculations and their basis must be examined for error or correction.
You are in good company:
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, if it doesn’t agree with observation, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” — physicist Richard Feynman
After perusing the comments, I was surprised to not find any references to Halton Arp. It’s been years since I’ve read many of his papers, and maybe some of his ideas have been rendered passe, but he pressed against several attempts to force velocity as being the fundamental cause of redshift, particularly in trying to deal with the location of Quasars. He also was big on quantifying the observation that redshift was quantized, ie that there was not a continuum of shifts across the observable Universe.
From my perspective as a lowly measurements engineer, who came up with the absolute dictum that all redshift is velocity and how do you prove that?
The fact that we just discovered an interstellar ‘pressure’ outside our solar bubble might deserve some consideration. Phlogiston, anyone? /s
Arp’s colleague Margaret Burbidge still lives, aged 100.
Dr. Becky on the crisis in cosmology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnn_5YMpo3Q
Discussion of which starts around 14:30.
There is a similar crisis of dating with different methods in regards to rocks on the Earth, though at at much greater magnitude than the issues with cosmology. If you date lava with a known eruption date, you often get dates in the millions of years, when they should only register as 0 years old, when using the radiometric dating methods used for igneous rock. And if you date the carbon in 14 in diamonds, you end up in the range of 40,000 years, when it should have no C14 at all if they were over a billion years old. It seems that you can choose the date you want, by choosing the dating method that you think will give you the answer you want.
The ease of doing DNA sequencing is providing data that disagrees with what evolutionists have long held as fact about the tree of life created based on phylogenetic evidence.
Wrong on both counts, as to dating margin of error and the fact of evolution. Genomics has supported one phylogeny over another in some lineages, but that provides no evidence against evolution, which is confirmed by DNA and RNA sequencing.
“The problem lies in the Hubble constant (H0), a parameter which value
-it is actually not a constant because it changes with time-
indicates how fast the Universe is currently expanding,” points out cosmologist Licia Verde, an ICREA researcher at the Institute of Cosmos Sciences of the University of Barcelona (ICC-UB) and the main author of the article.
“There are different ways of measuring this quantity,” she explains, “but they can be divided into two major classes: those relying on the Late Universe (the closest to us in space and time) and those based on the Early Universe, and they do not give exactly the same result.”
____________________________________
Parts of an Equation:
Here we have an equation that says 4x − 7 equals 5, and all its parts: A Variable is a symbol for a number we don’t know yet. It is usually a letter like x or y. A number on its own is called a Constant.
____________________________________
Correct me where I’m wrong:
the Hubble constant (H0), is a variable depending on time / correlating with the sum of quantum mechanics effects.
“The problem lies in the Hubble constant (H0), a parameter which value
-it is actually not a constant because it changes with time-
indicates how fast the Universe is currently expanding,” points out cosmologist Licia Verde, an ICREA researcher at the Institute of Cosmos Sciences of the University of Barcelona (ICC-UB) and the main author of the article.
“There are different ways of measuring this quantity,” she explains, “but they can be divided into two major classes: those relying on the Late Universe (the closest to us in space and time) and those based on the Early Universe, and they do not give exactly the same result.”
____________________________________
Parts of an Equation:
Here we have an equation that says 4x − 7 equals 5, and all its parts: A Variable is a symbol for a number we don’t know yet. It is usually a letter like x or y. A number on its own is called a Constant.
https://www.google.com/search?q=a+mathematical+formula+consists+of&oq=a+mathematical+formula+consists+of+&aqs=chrome.
____________________________________
Correct me where I’m wrong:
the Hubble constant (H0), is a variable depending on time / correlating with the sum of quantum mechanics effects.
Ed Zuiderwijk November 19, 2019 at 2:58 am
things like ‘dark matter’ and ‘dark energy’ are ineffective by their poor chosen names:
– dark matter is in no way dark, but invisible for our baryonic sensors and
– dark energy is working without our cognition of its origin.
____________________________________
Non-baryonic matter is matter that, unlike all the kind kinds of matter with which we are familiar, is not made of baryons (including the neutrons and protons found in all atomic nuclei). … This attribute could be used to measure the contribution of non-baryonic matter to the total amount of mass in the universe.
https://www.google.com/search?q=baryonic&oq=baryoni&aqs=chrome.
The fallacity lies in assuming that quantum mechanics are a null sume game: matter completely destroys antimatter – If true we weren’t here.
Harald Lesch calls that ‘some kind of pollution’, the reason we “observe” a / any universe: we’re here, in a ever changing / expanding universe.