The James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

[dlamberth]

"For decades, measurements of the universe's expansion have suggested a disparity known as the Hubble tension, which threatens to break cosmology as we know it. Now, on the eve of its second anniversary, a new finding by the James Webb Space Telescope has only entrenched the mystery."

After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

 

[Bradskii]

Exciting stuff!

 

[AlexB23]

"For decades, measurements of the universe's expansion have suggested a disparity known as the Hubble tension, which threatens to break cosmology as we know it. Now, on the eve of its second anniversary, a new finding by the James Webb Space Telescope has only entrenched the mystery."

After 2 years in space, the James Webb telescope has broken cosmology. Can it be fixed?

The Livescience article is not from NASA, and the title seems a little clickbaity. Here is a similar, but less sensationalist article directly from NASA, one of the main operators of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). NASA is hoping that the JWST can find why our calculations of the universe's expansion is slightly off: Webb Confirms Accuracy of Universe’s Expansion Rate Measured by Hubble, Deepens Mystery of Hubble Constant Tension – James Webb Space Telescope

The Hubble Tension is a mathematical discrepancy between the expansion rate of the universe calculated from Cephied variable stars, and the expansion rate of the universe calculated from Cosmic Microwave Background data gathered from the ESA's (European Space Agency) Planck satellite: https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2019/news-2019-25.html

 

[dlamberth]

The Livescience article is not from NASA, and the title seems a little clickbaity. Here is a similar, but less sensationalist article directly from NASA, one of the main operators of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). NASA is hoping that the JWST can find why our calculations of the universe's expansion is slightly off: Webb Confirms Accuracy of Universe’s Expansion Rate Measured by Hubble, Deepens Mystery of Hubble Constant Tension – James Webb Space Telescope

The Hubble Tension is a mathematical discrepancy between the expansion rate of the universe calculated from Cephied variable stars, and the expansion rate of the universe calculated from Cosmic Microwave Background data gathered from the ESA's (European Space Agency) Planck satellite: https://hubblesite.org/contents/news-releases/2019/news-2019-25.html

The title may seem a clickbaity, but the article actually goes into pretty good detail. But thank you for the other links.

 

[AlexB23]

The title may seem a clickbaity, but the article actually goes into pretty good detail. But thank you for the other links.

You are welcome. The NASA and Hubble articles go in to great detail as well, so, now we have three articles about our universe here.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Dark energy was always just a variable to fill the discrepancy in the rest of the model.
My guess would be there's no such thing...

 

[Neogaia777]

It's quite simple really, it's because the universe both is and has always been (since the start of it anyway) equally expanding at the same rate always equally everywhere.

It's a constant that can be measured just as much as any other constant can, like the speed of light for example, and that may even be it even, or may even be the answer even, that the universe both is and has always been quote/unquote "expanding" always at the exact rate of exacly 1x the speed of light equally everywhere, which is actually quite slow at supergalactic scales, etc. While the gravitational pull of everything else, on everything else, is constantly adding a "pull to the push", or is always constantly trying to reign everything back in, etc.

God Bless.

 

[sjastro]

It's quite simple really, it's because the universe both is and has always been (since the start of it anyway) equally expanding at the same rate always equally everywhere.

It's a constant that can be measured just as much as any other constant can, like the speed of light for example, and that may even be it even, or may even be the answer even, that the universe both is and has always been quote/unquote "expanding" always at the exact rate of exacly 1x the speed of light equally everywhere, which is actually quite slow at supergalactic scales, etc. While the gravitational pull of everything else, on everything else, is constantly adding a "pull to the push", or is always constantly trying to reign everything back in, etc.

God Bless.

Wow you state this with great conviction despite being totally wrong.
How many times does it need to be explained to you it is space-time which expands and the recession velocity of a galaxy depends on its distance from the observer.
At redshifts z > 1.46 the recession velocity of a galaxy exceeds the speed of light.

If the velocity of expansion was always equal to the the speed of light, this leads to another problem known as the horizon problem.
In the very early and small universe two diametrically opposite points are causally disconnected from each other as information can only travel at the speed of light and there would not have been enough time for information to travel between these points such as temperature.

The Hubble sphere which is expanding at the speed of light contains all points which are causally connected.
The observable universe needs to be larger than the Hubble sphere for it to be causally connected everywhere.
This is accomplished by a very brief period of exponential expansion many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early universe known as inflation.
The evidence for the universe being causally connected everywhere is the temperature of the CMB which is 2.7⁰ K in all directions from the observer.

 

[Neogaia777]

Wow you state this with great conviction despite being totally wrong.
How many times does it need to be explained to you it is space-time which expands and the recession velocity of a galaxy depends on its distance from the observer.
At redshifts z > 1.46 the recession velocity of a galaxy exceeds the speed of light.

If the velocity of expansion was always equal to the the speed of light, this leads to another problem known as the horizon problem.
In the very early and small universe two diametrically opposite points are causally disconnected from each other as information can only travel at the speed of light and there would not have been enough time for information to travel between these points such as temperature.

The Hubble sphere which is expanding at the speed of light contains all points which are causally connected.
The observable universe needs to be larger than the Hubble sphere for it to be causally connected everywhere.
This is accomplished by a very brief period of exponential expansion many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early universe known as inflation.
The evidence for the universe being causally connected everywhere is the temperature of the CMB which is 2.7⁰ K in all directions from the observer.

Perhaps you have another explanation as to why the universe seems to be "expanding" (although I hate using that word) away from us as the center, but faster away from us as the center the further away from us it is as the center then?

Even to the point that beyond a certain point it is "expanding" away from us as the center at speeds faster than the speed of light then?

Please explain all of that to us please.

Since we know none of that is actually true, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Wow you state this with great conviction despite being totally wrong.
How many times does it need to be explained to you it is space-time which expands and the recession velocity of a galaxy depends on its distance from the observer.
At redshifts z > 1.46 the recession velocity of a galaxy exceeds the speed of light.

If the velocity of expansion was always equal to the the speed of light, this leads to another problem known as the horizon problem.
In the very early and small universe two diametrically opposite points are causally disconnected from each other as information can only travel at the speed of light and there would not have been enough time for information to travel between these points such as temperature.

The Hubble sphere which is expanding at the speed of light contains all points which are causally connected.
The observable universe needs to be larger than the Hubble sphere for it to be causally connected everywhere.
This is accomplished by a very brief period of exponential expansion many magnitudes greater than the speed of light in the very early universe known as inflation.
The evidence for the universe being causally connected everywhere is the temperature of the CMB which is 2.7⁰ K in all directions from the observer.

And I only postulated the speed of light as being the constant as just one possibility, but am not sure of/at the exact rate supergalactically, etc.

But just that right now at least, it is happening at the exact same equal rate, equally everywhere, etc.

And that that is a constant I think, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Bradskii]

Perhaps you have another explanation as to why the universe seems to be "expanding" (although I hate using that word) away from us as the center, but faster away from us as the center the further away from us it is as the center then?

Stand in the middle of the room you are in. You are the centre. Place one object two feet away from you and another object two feet further away again.

Now expand the space between you and each of the objects equally. Double it.

Now the first object has moved two feet away further away from you but the second has moved four feet further away.

Now consider the second object as the centre and the same applies. Objects further away from whatever you consider to be the centre move away from the centre faster.

 

[Neogaia777]

Stand in the middle of the room you are in. You are the centre. Place one object two feet away from you and another object two feet further away again.

Now expand the space between you and each of the objects equally. Double it.

Now the first object has moved two feet away further away from you but the second has moved four feet further away.

Now consider the second object as the centre and the same applies. Objects further away from whatever you consider to be the centre move away from the centre faster.

Exactly! But we are not the centre, and neither is anything else, but there is actually an equal amount of expansion everywhere.

Now, can you picture that, etc?

 

[Neogaia777]

Stand in the middle of the room you are in. You are the centre. Place one object two feet away from you and another object two feet further away again.

Now expand the space between you and each of the objects equally. Double it.

Now the first object has moved two feet away further away from you but the second has moved four feet further away.

Now consider the second object as the centre and the same applies. Objects further away from whatever you consider to be the centre move away from the centre faster.

It is actually the space between objects that is growing equally everywhere, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

Exactly! But we are not the centre, and neither is anything else, but there is actually an equal amount of expansion everywhere.

Now, can you picture that, etc?

Yeah. Everything moves away from everything else (with local exceptions) at the same rate. The expansion rate is the same. As you just showed by standing in the middle of the room with two objects.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yeah. Everything moves away from everything else (with local exceptions) at the same rate. The expansion rate is the same. As you just showed by standing in the middle of the room with two objects.

K, so now picture it, an always exactly equal equal uniform expansion everywhere, but no exact centre, in part due to the equal amount of growth/expansion happening both at that centre, and also outward from it, or all around it, equally everywhere, etc.

And, no cheating, there is no centre if it's always exactly equal everywhere, and that never changes, etc.

When picturing it, the centre you would be focusing on is never actually the centre, but is always tself moving also, or is in motion also, so that has to be taken into account when trying to picture it, etc.

God Bless.

 

[Neogaia777]

Yeah. Everything moves away from everything else (with local exceptions) at the same rate. The expansion rate is the same. As you just showed by standing in the middle of the room with two objects.

You are still accepting the view or picture of wherever you are standing as being the unmoving centre, with everything else moving away from you faster the further away from you it is, but it's different than that, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

K, so now picture it, an always exactly equal equal uniform expansion everywhere, but no exact centre, in part due to the equal amount of growth/expansion happening both at that centre, and also outward from it, or all around it, equally everywhere, etc.

And, no cheating, there is no centre if it's always exactly equal everywhere, and that never changes, etc.

When picturing it, the centre you would be focusing on is never actually the centre, but iis always tself moving also, or is in motion also, so that has to be taken into account when trying to picture it, etc.

God Bless.

There is no actual centre of the universe. What we call the centre is just our position at the centre of the observable universe.

Imagine you're in a field on a foggy day and visibility is only 50m. What you see is the equivalent to the observable universe, 100m in diameter. You are the centre of what you can see. Someone else elsewhere in the field is the centre of what she can see. She's the centre of her observable universe.

When we say centre it always is in reference to our particular viewpoint. But if the field is infinitely big it has no actual centre.

 

[Bradskii]

You are still accepting the view or picture of wherever you are standing as being the unmoving centre, with everything else moving away from you faster the further away from you it is, but it's different than that, etc.

See above.

 

[Neogaia777]

@Bradskii

Everything at or near the centre is growing/moving/expanding at the very same rate as everything outside of it, or much further away from it, etc.

It changes the picture drastically, etc.

 

[Neogaia777]

There is no actual centre of the universe. What we call the centre is just our position at the centre of the observable universe.

Imagine you're in a field on a foggy day and visibility is only 50m. What you see is the equivalent to the observable universe, 100m in diameter. You are the centre of what you can see. Someone else elsewhere in the field is the centre of what she can see. She's the centre of her observable universe.

When we say centre it always is in reference to our particular viewpoint. But if the field is infinitely big it has no actual centre.

We if what we are seeing is wrong, etc?

Can we picture the real picture, etc?

God Bless.