New, Higher Measurement of Universe's Expansion May Lead To a 'New Physics' (space.com)

doug141 writes: Astronomers have measured the universe's current expansion rate (a value known as the Hubble constant) at about 44.7 miles (71.9 kilometers) per second per megaparsec (3.26 million light-years). This is consistent with a calculation that was announced last year by a research team, but it's considerably higher than the rate that was estimated by the European Space Agency's Planck satellite mission in 2015 -- about 41.6 miles (66.9 km) per second per megaparsec. The cause of this discrepancy is unclear. "The expansion rate of the universe is now starting to be measured in different ways with such high precision that actual discrepancies may possibly point towards new physics beyond our current knowledge of the universe," a researcher said. Mike Wall writes via Space.com: "The differences in the Hubble constant estimates may reflect something that astronomers don't understand about the early universe, or something that has changed since that long-ago epoch, scientists have said. For example, it's possible that dark energy -- the mysterious force that's thought to be driving the universe's accelerating expansion -- has grown in strength over the eons, members of Riess' team said last year. The discrepancy could also indicate that dark matter -- the strange, invisible stuff that astronomers think vastly outweighs 'normal' matter throughout the universe -- has as-yet-unappreciated characteristics, or that Einstein's theory of gravity has some holes, they added."

Comments

10 Shocking Facts New Science....

[locater16]

In other news "new independent measure of hubble constant shows possible difference from previous measurement. Many more measurements and peer review and theory to follow slowly. But this won't give clicks and excitement so we'll exaggerate things as much as possible please click please click please click please..."

Re: 10 Shocking Facts New Science....

[dgatwood]

The price being passed on to consumers is largely a myth. Prices are already set at what the market will bear. If they could charge more, they would already be doing so.

And the taxes will raise those prices, creating a shift in the entire curve. Most of the cost will still end up getting paid by Americans. However, as a consequence, the American poor won't be able to afford fresh produce anymore, and Mexico will sell their excess in other countries, who will have better access to fresh produce as a result.

Then, if the goods made in the country are selling, as opposed to the imports, then there will be increased tax revenue.

Maybe. The trade imbalance with Mexico isn't really that big. They import about 78% as much from us as we do from them. So if we tax imports and they tax imports, the resulting loss of jobs from export reduction would be about 78% of the gain in jobs from import reduction if all things are equal. So even at first glance, you might assume that we would come out only slightly ahead.

Unfortunately, most of our imports from Mexico are things like parts for automobiles, fresh produce, etc., whereas our exports are mostly finished goods. The parts manufacturing jobs would either move to China or would be automated in the U.S., because our labor costs are too high relative to other countries. So there would either be no new jobs or far fewer new jobs than you might expect, and probably fewer jobs than those lost as a result of the export reduction.

As for agriculture, although many Mexicans would love it if we grew more produce (particularly the migrant workers who went back to Mexico because of poor pay during our last economic downturn), these are not the jobs you're looking for, and a trade war would make our illegal immigration problems worse as those migrant workers came back to the U.S. en masse in response to higher demand for workers.

Moreover, foreign companies would be able to build their finished goods in other countries and then ship complete cars to America, thus avoiding the tariffs. This would result in a significant cost advantage over American companies, which would make the economic damage to America even worse than it otherwise would be.

So the bottom line is that when you add it all up, a trade war with Mexico would likely result in a net loss of jobs and taxes, rather than a net gain. Trade wars almost invariably hurt the countries involved far more than they help, which is why most sane countries avoid them at all costs.

Re: Higher measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

Marijuana makes women vote for a pussy grabbing.

Re: Higher measurement

[Anonymous Coward]

There's not enough marijuana in the world to make you funny.

Re: 99% likely a math error, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The speed of light is constant, everywhere and everywhen.

Variable Speed of Light theories, around for 20-30 years. Investigated in cds.cern.ch/record/618057/files/0305457.pdf
Current observations put very very very tight bounds on dc/dt.

2) The gravitational constant is the same, everywhere and everywhen.

Jordan-Brans-Dicke theories. Hundreds of papers, dating back to Dirac's large number hypothesis. See http://www.scholarpedia.org/ar...

3) The shape of space is uniformly flat, everywhere and everywhen.

No. Space-time is a curved manifold. Not only in the cosmological (isotropic+homogeneous limit) with limiting spaces of three-spheres or hyperbolic spaces, but also across huge perturbations on them. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.038... for tests of homogeneity and isotropy, for example.

4) Please don't get me started about standard candles.

OK, I won't. They conform with observations, match the fine-stucture constant and Lyman forest predictions incredibly well, vast literature that exists on these matches cosmic helium and hydrogen observations, matches with galactic rotations etc.

5) Or cosmological inflation.

Producing effects as predicted. See https://arxiv.org/abs/1311.165... for an in depth probability test of cosmological parameters including the spectral tilt and scalar to tensor ratio of perturbations (CMB) predicted by inflation.

6) Or the (luminiferous) aether. Sorry, the Higgs field/particle/whatever.

Predicted, observed, behaving exactly as predicted at 5 sigma significance in the mass.

Just because YOU don't know about it, doesn't mean that we haven't investigated it. But of course, feel free to keep having a reckon without looking stuff up first.

Shockingly close, actually

[necro81]

The thing that blows my mind is not that one measurement is higher and another lower, it's just how closely they agree: to less than 10%. This despite the fact that they were arrived at from different instruments and lines of inquiry. The earlier measurement from Planck satellite measurements is derived from measurements of cosmic background radiation. The newer measurement comes from images of gravitational lensing of distant quasars, from the Hubble and Spitzer telescopes. For such a tricky measurements, and such an abstruse topic, I wouldn't have been surprised if they differed by an order of magnitude.* And yet, the agree pretty closely.

Science is really freaking awesome. Sure, assuming that the expansion is universal and constant (i.e., there is only one value for the Hubble Constant, which is hardly a sure thing), you ought to be able to measure the same answer by any experiment designed to measure it, within the experimental error. I ought to arrive at the same value for the gravitational constant, too, whether I experiment using a precision pendulum, or dropping a cannonball from the tower of Pisa (accounting for air friction, of course), or analyze the tides, or by successfully putting a man on the Moon. It doesn't matter who I am, or where I live, or under which government, or what language(s) I speak - it all still works.

* Hubble's own initial estimate was about 10x the current values. For those that are interested, here's a graph of the value of H0, with error bars, through history. [source]