Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter
One Number Shows Something Is Fundamentally Wrong With Our Conception of the Universe (space.com) 57
“We are measuring something fundamentally different,” said Adam Riess, Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Physics and Astronomy at The Johns Hopkins University. “One is a measurement of how fast the universe is expanding today, as we see it. The other is a prediction based on the physics of the early universe and on measurements of how fast it ought to be expanding. If these values don’t agree, there becomes a very strong likelihood that we’re missing something in the cosmological model that connects the two eras.”
Re:Either way… (Score:5, Informative)
by r2kordmaa ( 1163933 ) on Thursday September 05, 2019 @03:29AM (#59160578)Not really relevant, these two problems are on vastly different scales, pretty much all discovered exoplanets are Milky Way, Hubble constant is about how fast distant galaxies are receding. Uncertainties in one problem have little to nothing to do with the other problem.- by jiriw ( 444695 )
Except for the issue that all of current science is percieved to be warped since Archimedes…all the way up to Einstein and beyond. At least for certain individuals that can’t stand to do some critical thinking and rationally and logically percieve what those scientists are doing. The people doing actual science have clues as to what’s wrong, so that’s why they’re happy scienceing, to try to discover some hidden truths. It’s the impenetrable way science is done with its golden standards like falsification and reproducability. A way no other school of thought has, which makes anything else but science fundamentaly flawed and prone to dogmas. Articles like this merely point out that there is so much yet to understand about our universe. A look upon both the very big and very small is needed to tackle many problems that exist at the level of the solar system. It’s frustrating to see so many fellow humans shun fundamental science, certainly if you know -everything- needed to be able to post here on slashdot wouldn’t have been possible if we stopped doing fundamental research a few 100 years ago. Electricity, semiconductor theory and materials science, quantum theory resulting in the notions of stimulated emission of electromagnetic waves (lasers – no they didn’t exist before Einstein posed his theories), the mathematics of fundamental computer science, the fundamental science behind many time saving gadgets and tools that make it possible for any individual in this day and age to have actual leisure time to ‘discuss things on the ‘net’ instead of having to spend it, every day, to get enough nutrition to be capable of reproduction…
There, fixed it for you.
We have waited for you for 100 years now, to explain that “accounting mistake”. So wonderful that you finally explain it to all of us. You must be a greater genius than Einstein, Feynman, Hawking, more or less all scientists of the 20st and 21st century combined. Where they spread darkness, you will bring the light.
One small detail though:
What exactly is that “accounting mistake” you are talking about, and how do we correct it?Of course your correction will explain all those pesky inconsistencies we found,
- Also, I’ve falsified it. That part is done. I’d like you to tell me whom I should contact to present my falsification. Please? Pretty sure you can’t.
- Certainly not rejected, merely corrected. Accounting is pretty important. Let’s get the basics right, before we claim more than we should. Peace out.
- If science was about things we already did know, it wouldn’t be science it would be engineering. Scratching your head about things you don’t have a clue about is what science is, not the long list of things we used to scratch our heads about, have since figured out and written down in textbooks. It’s a common misunderstanding, people think they are learning science is schools, when in fact they are simply learning things that science used to be about back in the day. You can’t do science when you already kn
- But I am an engineer, so that’s what I do. I’m never going to bust on the curiosity that drives our shit forward, but if there’s an accounting glitch that keeps getting propagated forward, let’s fix it, yeah?
- Guy, it is not hard: we use our comprehension of the Doppler effect to evaluate the rate of cosmic expansion through pulsating stars. The article is suggesting that the number we get is either wrong or there is something about it we do not know. We use the same basic physics to detect exoplanets. Both the Doppler spectroscopy and the photometry method are based on our knowledge of the same physical phenomenon.
Mine was an example, though. If the article is true, it would have the same impact as saying that
- Beautifully stated. The gravitational constant, “big G” is wrong. 100% wrong. It has always been wrong. It’s no surprise that, because every 21st century scientist thinks it’s correct, this shit blows up. TFA isn’t the first example of this, it’s just the latest in a long line of examples. Oy. I’ve been railing against it all for so long. Look at the history of G, look at how it has never been measured accurately, and not to bust on Cavendish, per se, but a torsion balance measurement can never be as accura
So for us luddites, can you point out how it is wrong? A link will do.
- I can’t get it all in one post, but…take the inverse of the currently accepted value for “G”, divide it by 16*Pi, and you get c, the speed of light. You’re welcome.
- Units need changing, obviously – have corrected that, as well. Mind. Blown.
I can’t get it all in one post, but…take the inverse of the currently accepted value for “G”, divide it by 16*Pi, and you get c, the speed of light. You’re welcome.
That’s numberwang!
- Oh, and 16*Pi is because 4*Pi/3 (volume) and the Archimedes correction that all density is in water=1 units. So, divide all density by 12…ugh, see? It’s more than I can explain, in a goofy post. I *could* post a link to my 10 year old wordpress, but that would be self-serving, and logically circular. Work it out for yourself, tho. It’s pretty easy, honestly.
… of half?
The measurements on this list:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… [wikipedia.org]deviate by less than 0.25% from each other, that’s somewhat less than 100%.
Also for G*M_earth and G*M_sun we have much more precise values (up to 9 and 10 digits) due to measurements of g and celestial mechanics.
So maybe instead of vague, unsubstantiated claims that “big G is 100% wrong” maybe you should tell the world exactly what the correct value of “G” is (or the correct description of the gravitational force), how it came to be
- Did exactly what you’ve asked. Please read my other posts. Thank for playing. (also, you’re parroting, fyi)
When there is an article about some distant exo-planet being earth-like, being capable of sustaining life-forms different than on Earth or similar “science”, you know that the uncertainty is so large that it is all meaningless wishful thinking. Get the basic physics right before start fantasizing.
Actually, either way it’s rather meaningless. For some unknown reason, we get all excited about some discovered earth-like exo-planet that’s “mere” light years away, without even considering the fact that we humans can measure our space travel in light seconds still, with no viable solutions for traveling at or near the speed of light. And a rounding error in physics isn’t going to make an impact when discussing fantasy. We might as well be arguing about gravitational pull in a video game battling moon d
You cannot get the basic Physics right without speculating and then seeing what pans out and what does not. The problem here is mostly the press that has no clue how Science works and reports things that are hypotheses and potential models as facts.
- I do agree with this. Science reporting is abysmal, generally. It has fallen prey to the same problem that all reporting has, though. Click-bait better than accuracy. I just tell those I love to be careful, don’t believe what you read, and source your shit. Learn it. Even quantum mechanics, on the face of it all, is 6th grade learning. You’re being told you are stupid, if you think you are. It’s pretty sad and depressing, tbh.
Indeed. And always make sure to find out what kind of agenda your sources have.
exciting?
I’m just thrilled (Score:5, Insightful)
by idji ( 984038 ) on Thursday September 05, 2019 @03:28AM (#59160576)All my life Hubble’s constant has been a bit fuzzy and vague – we are coming to a point of greater precision. It is awesome what we will discover.2nd that, both science and scifi could get rather dull if we new everything about how the universe worked, long live ignorance!!!
- This stuff always has my curiosity piqued… the more we learn, the more we realize we don’t even understand the very basics yet… and may never. Quantum physics is almost like magic, and just think of how much of that we haven’t even discovered yet.
Quantum Physics is pretty much something that, if this were a game, was artificially constructed to be exceptionally convoluted and unhelpful. The whole thing is kind of like a hint saying “Are you actually willing to believe this crap?”. I would not be surprised if it turns out the whole thing is actually a lot simpler and the complexity is mostly generated by the minds of Quantum Physicists. Of course, this _would_ need a bit of yet unknown “magic”, but there is ample room for that.
- It is like software, when you find a bug you must smile, you are about to learn something and make your product more true and thereby more good, We are about to make great scientific discoveries and now have clues pointing the path. We just need AI to help us figure stuff out.
when you find a bug you must smile
Not if you’re an user affected by it.
It is like software, when you find a bug you must smile, you are about to learn something and make your product more true and thereby more good,
… and then it turns out there is a space instead of a tab in your makefile, and you were inadvertently linking with a stale object file.
There are bugs at different scales. Often a bug can be patched with local change in code. Less often a more expensive fix is needed. Sometimes you’re patching stuff but become increasingly aware that to get things right you need a major rewrite of a functionality. The question asked here is whether we have something similar to that last category
We just need AI to help us figure stuff out.
If we “need” AI, then we are doomed. There is no AI. There will not be any AI anytime soon. There may never be AI that deserves the name.
There may never be AI that deserves the name.
Okay, I’ll bite – how do you know that?
There may never be AI that deserves the name.
Okay, I’ll bite – how do you know that?
Absolutely no indicators that intelligence (in the human sense, so I am talking about AGI here, obviously) can be implemented artificially. I have been following the field for 30 years now and they have noting. What gets called “AI” these days is about as smart as a piece of paper, i.e. not at all and it is all basically old tech that just got massively larger hardware to run on. At this time, there is not even a credible theory how to go beyond that. With all the effort invested, we should at least have so
- by PolygamousRanchKid ( 1290638 ) on Thursday September 05, 2019 @03:40AM (#59160600)
. . . 42 . . . ?
Actually, the first calculations looked fine, 42.000000 , but now they’re at 42.0000000003485 and they don’t know exactly how to interpret that.
It’s corrected to 41.5926
We should admit that this contradicts the predictions related to the Big Bang hypothesis, and maybe the Universe is a different age.
Or maybe our lack of ability to measure long distances in space means that all the explanations explaining 14 billion year old red-shift are wrong. Maybe photons just die after that long. Then we don’t even need a creation event to explain why we can’t see forever.
- /me pulls letters from a scrabble bag… “What do you get if you multiply six by nine”
- by ledow ( 319597 )
And when any of those hypotheses fits the data closer (not perfectly, because no theory would even be perfect) than the existing model, they can be considered.
Every alternative has glaring holes in certain circumstances where it just doesn’t fit observation at all, whatsoever, in any way. You can’t just brush over it and pretend that it works differently and thus we shouldn’t use that hypothesis when measuring “X”… that’s just the same situation as we have now (i.e. quantum physics is different to Newton
scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years
Or 0.069 light-year per billion light-years.
scientists estimate the rate to be 46,200 mph per million light-years
Or 0.069 light-year per billion light-years.
Or not.
Your units don’t match – the scientists are using units of length/time/length, you’re using length/length….
- Indeed, that was per second.
That’s exactly how it is supposed to be!
New measurements, new facts and you adapt your theory and move on.
- Well here’s your problem, right here…
Named for American astronomer Edwin Hubble, this unit describes how fast the universe is expanding at different distances from Earth.
We keep telling you that Earth isn’t the center of the universe. This just proves it.
We keep telling you that Earth isn’t the center of the universe. This just proves it.
Which means that General Relativity is wrong, since General Relativity implies that ANY point can be taken as the center of the Universe, and you’ll get the same results….
The idea that we’re missing something important seems completely reasonable. The stretch of universe over which we are making measurements is vast. The level of detail is _poor_. and we extrapolate wildly from the limited detail to understand and to predict the observations for more and more of the array of the universal. It would be _shocking_ if there weren’t surprises in the process.
It is interesting that there is a possibility of some system errors in our measurements, errors which when corrected avoid
- I’m obviously not an expert, but why should universe expansion be a constant? Why can’t expansion speed change, or why should it be the same speed in all directions? If there is this dark matter we can’t measure exists, it could be distributed unevenly as regular matter is and slow expansion in places where there is more of it. I guess this is all about big bang maths I’ll never understand…
Of course some scientific “authorities” will see it as a crisis, since it may well invalidate their results. That makes them bad scientists though. The whole thing is pretty interesting and any good scientist will see it as an exciting opportunity, not as a problem.
- Leave it to humans to define what the universe “ought” to do. We humans do not know how long we have existed on this planet with any resenblance to accuracy and yet we will define the age of the universe with that same level of accuracy. And when the results do not add up, we confabulate to explain why the universe doesn’t play along. Maybe when we have 10,000 years of data, then, maybe we will start to understand what is going on.
- ….. no problem in physics so great that it can’t be solved with a liberal application of plutonium nyborg.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
- 733 commentsStephen Hawking Warns That AI and ‘Superhumans’ Could Wipe Humanity; Says There’s No God in Posthumous Book
- 646 commentsBill Nye: We Are Not Going To Live on Mars, Let Alone Turn It Into Earth
- 629 commentsHuge Reduction in Meat-Eating ‘Essential’ To Avoid Climate Breakdown
- 606 commentsAt a Workshop Last Week, a CERN Scientist Said ‘Physics Was Invented and Built by Men — Not By Invitation’; CERN Has Suspended the Scientist
- 600 commentsTrump Offered NASA Unlimited Funding To Put People on Mars by 2020, Report Says
Slashdot Top Deals
- Get more comments
- 57 of 57 loaded
The world is no nursery. – Sigmund Freud
