The universe may be a billion years younger than we thought.

[Michael]

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/amp/ncna1005541

Given the stakes, everyone involved is checking and rechecking their results for possible sources of error. Increasingly, though, it looks like the problem lies not with the observations but with the theories of cosmology that underpin them. If those theories are wrong or incomplete, the interpretation of the Planck readings will be flawed, too.

"There's currently no consistent story that works for all our cosmological data," says Princeton University astrophysicist Jo Dunkley, who has extensively analyzed the Planck results. "That means there is fascinating work to be done, to see if there is something out there that can explain all of it."

It turns out that there's a "relatively easy" way to reconcile the two Hubble constant figures, but unfortunately the "fix" for the Hubble constant problem also highlights the redundant nature of the LCDM "dark energy" claim.

https://phys.org/news/2020-03-mystery-expansion-universe.html

possible solution to the Hubble constant discrepancy: Cosmology where the local volume expansion is driven by the domain average density

Consistency of the local Hubble constant with the cosmic microwave background - ScienceDirect

In particular, about 10% difference between the local and global Hubble parameters may be safely explained within the framework of linear perturbation theory, with the help of the spatial averaging procedure defined over a finite spatial domain in the t=constant hypersurface . Finally, we would like to mention an interesting possibility of solving the apparent acceleration of cosmic expansion. One of the present authors has reanalyzed the observed magnitude—redshift (⁠m—z⁠) relation of type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) and has examined the possibility that the apparent acceleration of the cosmic expansion is not caused by dark energy but is instead a consequence of the large-scale inhomogeneities in the universe [5]. He has concluded that, assuming the inhomogeneous Hubble parameter, a larger value of H0 in the nearby, low-redshift region than that in the distant, high-redshift region may be sufficient to explain the observed m—z relation for SNe Ia, without introducing dark energy. (Reference listed below).

https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article/117/6/1067/1917367

Suggesting density variation in spacetime is also consistent with recent discoveries of anisotrophy in the universe:

Universe is Anisotropic on Large Scales, New Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Essentially both the current tension in the Hubble constant, and enigma of "dark energy" could both be nothing more than mathematical "artifacts" which are related to the density differences within the universe at various scales. It's a potential solution that solves two major problems in astronomy today, and it *seriously* threatens the dark energy claims of the LCDM model and the LCDM itself.

 

[Brightmoon]

Interesting but I’m not a physicist and can’t comment one way or another

 

[ReesePiece23]

The observable universe and the actual universe are two completely different things in my book. Giving or taking a billion years here or there is just pedantic, I think.

 

[Michael]

The observable universe and the actual universe are two completely different things in my book. Giving or taking a billion years here or there is just pedantic, I think.

It's more like giving or taking 68 percent of a current cosmology model, in this case specifically the 'dark energy' component of the LCDM model.

 

[iluvatar5150]

The only reasonable conclusion one could draw from this is that the universe is 6,000 years old.

 

[rambot]

Of COURSE!!!


Just kiddin. I understand about 40% of the words in this threas

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can't see that it actually makes much practical difference how old the universe is. If it is a billion years younger than we thought will I get a better income or will corona virus disappear?

 

[ReesePiece23]

Of COURSE!!!


Just kiddin. I understand about 40% of the words in this threas

That's the whole point of academic glib more often than not. It's designed purposely to confuse the layman, so that you have no choice but to listen to the expert pitching the ideas.

That's not what's happening here, but it DOES happen - especially in situations where clients are handing over large sums of money for 'help'.

 

[rambot]

That's the whole point of academic glib more often than not. It's designed purposely to confuse the layman, so that you have no choice but to listen to the expert pitching the ideas.

That's not what's happening here, but it DOES happen - especially in situations where clients are handing over large sums of money for 'help'.

It's not designed to "purposely confuse the laymen". So many areas create their own vernacular out of necessity because of the tools they make and the objects and actions in their craft require new terms outside of the typical human experience. Get a PhD in immunology holder under a car and talk to him like a red seal mechanic and he'll be just as lost as vice versa.

It's the nature of the depth of human knowledge. Fewer and fewer people to more and more specific things. It can make people feel alienated. But it also afford the opportunity to develop trust. Trust in the idea that the knowledge they have gathered and sent through rigorous process is correct without us having intimate knowledge of it ourselves.

We all this in so many other areas of our lives. EVERY time we plug something in; go over a bridge, drive a car. Some of these things, by nature, are predictable; but some not.

 

[ReesePiece23]

Off topic

 

[SummerMadness]

Yeah, you're right. And TRUST is the major component - I've just seen that trust abused firsthand.

When I was a herdsman, there was a well known ruminant nutritionist who would go farm to farm waffling on about n3's, n6's, acidosis and all kinds of technical data, knowing full well that the farmers would acquiescently hand money over regardless of what he said (literally just because of the letters after his name) - not knowing that what he was saying one visit, completely contradicted what he said on the next visit.

The guy was a rip off, and we found him out in the end. But I knew what he was doing because I used to read scientific literature when I was in college.

Naturally, I'm more sceptical than most.

What's a ruminant?

 

[ReesePiece23]

Off topic

 

[SummerMadness]

An animal that regurgitates its cud from the rumen.

A cow, basically.

I know what it is, I was just making a tongue-in-cheek post about people using phrases designed to confuse laymen. Ruminant isn't exactly a laymen's term.

 

[Tanj]

An animal that regurgitates its cud from the rumen.

A cow, basically.

Well, no, there's a bunch of non cow ruminants out there. Ruminant is a very precise term with no ambiguity that encompasses a specific set of things that need encompassing. We don't use terminology to confuse people, because youd have to believe every scientists is a baby eating sub human demon that delights in the suffering of mankind for that. We aren't, turns out we are human beings. We use terminology like "ruminant" to communicate effectively and avoid ambiguity.

Anyone in any field can be dishonest and ripo you off, but yeah, lets blame all scientists. We're only in it for the money, that's why you'd have no problem naming a half dozen well known wealthy scientists.

 

[ReesePiece23]

Off topic