Coffee House Musing

Now you're just being silly. Grow up.

Thank God for that!!

Yes. Exactly.

"The heavens declare the glory of God;
the firmament proclaims the works of his hands." (Psalm 19:2-3)

quote:

---

Splendid and majestic is His work.
  —Psalm 111:3

---

--Percy

Better yet, imagine what data already exists about what we have not even seen yet. Call it the cosmic database.

As Cronkite might say, "And dust the way it is"!

A long while back I read a science fiction novel where the theory of searches featured in one chapter. Apparently such a thing exists now, but back then I think it was made up. The idea was that because of the effect of the theory of searches on the theory of searches that the best way to find someone was to stay in one place and eventually everyone you knew would happen by. Does this sound familiar to anyone?Reading about the 2022 Nobel prize in physics for developments in quantum theory made me recall this.—Percy

Percy recalls: maybe it was "everyone you knew who was important to you"?the Carole King song, "So Far Away", comes to mind, "...doesn't anybody stay in one place anymore?"

Interesting. Googling on a laptop is easier than Googling on a phone, so I found it this morning. It was Mindswap by Robert Sheckley. I have a copy, but there are audiobook and hardcopy versions at Amazon. There weren't many hardcopy books I kept when I cleaned house a few years ago, but that was one of them. I would have read it around 1970. I don't remember very much about it now, except that it was excellent and one I always intended to reread.--Percy

With this group you’ve probably heard of this. An update for those who may be interested.The universe is broken. We know the universe is expanding. Astronomers think it would be a good idea to know how fast that expansion is, the Hubble constant. Seems reasonable. They have come up with two different ways to make this measurement so to verify each other.Except they don’t. There is tension in the Hubble constant.I won’t get into the details of the 2 methods. If you want details, please ask.One is supernova distance studies and gives us an expansion rate (Hubble constant) of 73 ± 1 kilometers per second per megaparsec (km/s/Mpc), with 1 Megaparsec representing around 3.26 million light-years. The 73 ± 1 is the important part. The other method is analysis of the super-fine structures of the CMB. When astronomers measure these tiny variations in this fossil radiation, it predicts a modern-day value for the Hubble constant of around 67.5 ± 0.5 km/s/Mpc.If you’re familiar with error bars then the problem is glaring. 73 ± 1 and 67.5 ± 0.5 mean these are two totally distinct different numbers. They cannot both be the Hubble constant. The last years have seen tech improvements, new math models, many refinements in both methods and all that happens is the error bars get less and less. By refining our accuracy, we have only confirmed a major disconnect.I want to emphasize this part because I think it is vital and overlooked. There have been 2 major teams leading these studies but there is an army of cosmologists that pokes and prods over every graph, number, equation. This has been under a microscope for years. No one has found the problem. It is that deep.Both methods used appear solid and accurate from our knowledge of the cosmos. That means something is missing in our understanding of the universe.If the error is in our understanding of the CMB then we have errors in a lot of cosmology based on this. If the problem is with the supernova analysis, then we have real problems with our understanding of stellar physics and QFT.The hunt is on. The fun continues. There is something out there, there is knowledge we missed. Solving this can have a major impact on our world view.Some may ask why this post in a forum about gods and evolution. I submit this post shows this universe also works in strange and mysterious ways as well as demonstrates the evolution of human knowledge.R'amenAlso, want to play with our new toy. I like the new toy.

They both cannot be measuring the same thing. So, that means that there are hidden features in the Universe affecting the measurements of one or both supernovae and CMB.I think i understand how the super novae measurements work, but I don't see how the Hubble Constant is derived from CMB data. I am not sure what the data in the CMB measurements represents. We have all seen the CMB maps, but how they get from that to the Hubble Constant is not clear at all.I don't think this problem of 2 HC values is going to be solved until we understand both dark matter and dark energy.BTW, MrID claims to have the answers. Just couldn't resist could you?

It's spinning the wrong direction!! No wonder the HC is screwed up!

Fixed it.

Math. Lots of math.We can see where certain particle horizons existed in the CMB. One of those being the horizon size at the time of matter and radiation equality. That leads to an extrapolation of H₀.This is an abstract. The PDF is downloadable.Observation of the Cosmic Microwave Background Anisotropy | Highlights of Astronomy | Cambridge Core

quote:

---

The next scale of interest is the horizon size at the time of matter and radiation
equality. That corresponds to a current physical size of approximately 13(fl0h ) ~ Mpc,
where h = Ho/100kms~ Mpc and H0 is the current value of the Hubble constant
and Q. is the ratio of the density of the universe to the critical density. This physical size
corresponds to an angle of approximately 8h arcminutes. This is the natural scale of
structure formation.
This angular scale also happens to be about the range of one optical depth
for Thompson scattering at a redshift of 1100. Thus objects smaller than about 8
arcminutes (0.1 degrees) are blurred by the finite thickness of the surface of last scattering.
Anisotropies on much smaller scale are expected to arise from foreground effects rather
than at the surface of last scattering.

---