Improved Hubble data provide fresh evidence for new physics
hub.jhu.edu
hub.jhu.edu
https://don-beaver.livejournal.com/196412.html
Mix of Russian explanation + paper in English published in MNRAS (closer to the end of post).
The theory's main premise is that "gravitational waves don't have gravitational mass", and spewed quite a lot of debate.
I wish I'd know physics better to check their math.
Unsettling?! This is the stuff that makes science exciting.
There are a ton of researchers who are only waiting to see data that's not consistent with the current models. From what I have read it's disappointing for many how well the standard model and relativity are holding up.
And since these tune-ables aren't inherit properties of any kind, just numbers (or other kinds of values) you can plug in, there's very little predictive power in the theory. You can just always re-tune the whole thing to any observation, and make a nearly infinite number of predictions from it still. There's no way to try to select for anything that looks like a fundamental property of the universe.
The problem really is that string theory provides a language for discussing phenomena we can't probe directly (due to the extreme energies involved), and so theoreticians are stuck conducting thought experiments until new experimental options are developed/discovered for testing particular models making use of string theory. Until then, there's no real path forward for applying that framework to expand or amend the Standard Model, because of how successful quantum field theories have been at explaining the phenomena we have access to currently.
Because we will never be able to build a galactic-scale particle accelerator required for doing scattering experiments at planckian energies, astronomical observations offer one of the best hopes for getting access to contradictory data. The study of holographic duality offers another possibility, if we can devise lower energy systems within our experimental grasp that are dual to high energy systems that aren't.
Now since we've found ways to correlate the distance and velocity that things are traveling on large scales in the universe, we can actually figure out about how far away the objects we can see should be from us, after traveling 13.8 billion years. This is where the 93 billion light year figure comes from, how far away those "edges" have traveled since they emitted the light we see today.
In 13.8 billion years, light crawled 13.8 billion light years. However the point where it started is now roughly 45.5 billion light years away. Making the diameter of the visible universe 93 billion years.
(In general relativity there are complications about what "now" means between distant points. But suffice it to say that there is a reasonable way that sensible people can agree on to make sense of it, and those are the answers that we arrive at.)
IF this red shift is interpreted as Doppler shift, then we can calculate corresponding velocity and then calculate position of a star at today date, and we will see that visible Universe is expanding. However, we need to point to source of energy for that expanding (with acceleration!). Nobody able to find that source yet.
IF this red shift is interpreted as something else (e.g. loses due to friction), then visible Universe is still.
This is a pretty interesting idea, I wonder if a consistent model of EM frequency damping with distance traveled could be built.
This is not someone in backyard presenting a random set of equations that are not interlinked as a theory. Not epicycles.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.02711
Just reading the titles of Riess' other papers on arXiv gives an interesting peek at the clever work that went into getting this H0 measurement.
Thanks for sharing!