The Laws Of Cosmology May Need A Re-Write?

There were very interesting articles about discrepancy in Hubble constant measurements:
http://www.universetoday.com/128367/laws-cosmology-may-need-re-write/

http://www.nature.com/news/measurem...sion-rate-creates-cosmological-puzzle-1.19715

This could point to some major discrepancy in cosmology models vs reality, but to my surprise, there is only a little media coverage and limited discussions to this topic. I wonder what is your opinion? Is it just a measurement error or a sign for need of major rewrite of physics theory?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It's just clickbait. We live in a time of rapidly advancing knowledge, so textbooks are constantly being re-written. This particular issue isn't new and "Scientists Tighten Error Bars" just doesn't have the same impact as a title, even if it is more on point.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nice little article. I think it's the latter myself. I've read the Einstein digital papers, and combining that with other information makes me think there's more wrong with the standard model of cosmology than people appreciate. I'm not saying there was no big bang or that the universe isn't expanding, but I do think inflation is totally superfluous, and I do think the standard model of cosmology is going to change at some future date.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I find the concept of inflation difficult to accept but at the moment that is what fits.

Alex

 

Sure, it most probably will as our technology and instruments improve, enabling us to see further and make more precise and all encompassing observations. More light in time will certainly be shed on Inflation in whatever form, or yes, even possibly to invalidate it: [Although whatever gets to invalidate it [if anything] will need to explain the isotropic and homegenious nature of our universe just as Inflation does.

 

It is nice to hear from you

 

Thank you. As you know, I'll contribute to the best of my ability when I chose to.
I hope my contribution does not clash or in anyway interfere with your agenda.

 

Exactly it is one thing for some to be critical but do they have something better (a better model) will it be a member of this forum who presents the new model.
Another Noble up for grabs who will bag it from the critics here?

Alex

 

Bingo! on both counts!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Alex, Pl do understand, that absence or lack of new model does not mean we continue with questionable models..

Your argument from the start hinges on this misunderstanding only, that as long as the critic is not able to come up with a better model, he has no right to criticize...this is bad argument. We can live without model; but living with questionable models, nope.

 

Major rewrite !!

 

Who knows! But what we do know, is that any rewriting will be based on data achieved from observations, and experiments, by expert professionals.
Not by the participants of a science forum.

 

No not really, The only thing that prevents any critic from criticising, is when that critic has an agenda, and is not qualified and does it from a science forum open to any Tom, Dick or Harry.

 

doesn't matter!!

 

And of course some cosmological theories are so near certain, that even a future validated QGT, will not invalidate them, just add to and extend the existing parameters. eg: GR being a classical theory in that near certain class, will probably most certainly maintain its superiority within present parameters.

 

I think we are doing OK at this stage of proceedings>...
We have overwhelmingly supported theories and facts such as the BB, SR, GR, expansion of spacetime, stellar nucleosynthesis, that all highly compliment each other.
We are able to ascertain with reasonable confidence and logic, how the BB evolved spacetime and matter/energy into what we see today, from that tiniest of moments just t+10-43 seconds post BB.
We can ascertain with the same sort of confidence and logic, how the universe will look in a million years, 10 million years, a 10 billion years, and on into the trillions of years even.
Yep. we're doing OK, I reckon.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Well what you say sounds most reasonable and indeed your view would seem to make sence but I am pretty sure it works the way I suggest.

I could be wrong on this and if I am others may agree with you.

Now I do not like the idea of inflation to use as an example... and I could rant that it does not make sence and perhaps find something in the theory that is clearly inconsistent.

That unfortunately will not take me anywhere.

Upon my understanding I need a better model which explains the sameness etc and does not have the inconsistences I point out in the old "current" model.

And for icing on the cake I should be able to predict something as a result of applying my new model.
If I can predict when the next five super nova "go off" and my prediction is confirmed by observation my model has a good chance to replace the old model.

Being critical is not ok in my understanding on how science works.

Now I can see you find stuff that does not sit well with you.. I do to occassionally.. But that is stuff you chat with mates about over a coffee.

I do think you need a new model if you are doing real science.

So you find something you want to pick at..
Maybe present it as an "idea" or a hypothisis which may be a better way to handle the problems you percieve.

Respect comes into it. Respect for those who built the current model and respect for those who have learned the detail.

Again inflation I dont like it.

I dont put forward a "theory" I put forward an idea as to a possible alternative if I have one.

It is useless to rant and critisize the current model because it is accepted and mainstream science there is no start here... It is the accepted model replace it or remain silent.

We can discuss ideas but we really cant discuss shortcomings of the current model, it is after all the current model and it will be that until a new model is established.

Thats how I think it goes but it is a view and may well be wrong.

Alex

 

My personal opinion is that GR needs major update and have to be extended to explain anomalies in rotation of galaxies, increasing speed of expansion and to make it compatible with quantum physics. Unexplained observations connected with gravity are piling up in last 15 years. Giving it a name like for example Dark energy is not really a solution. Sure, the new updated GR needs to be in line with past experiments, but there is obvious need for new extended version.

 

GR is a classical theory and was never meant to be applied at the quantum/Planck level.
The name DE was applied simply because they were/are unaware of what it is in actual fact. We have ideas but no real hard evidence as yet.
GW's and BH's have been theorised and predicted for a 100 years. Even Einstein at one time had his doubts.
They are both confirmed now with the recent aLIGO experiment.
DM was originally a fudge factor to compensate for the anomalies rotation of galaxies.....It is now generally accepted due to the evidence that supports it.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/06_releases/press_082106.html
NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter
For Release: August 21, 2006

NASA RELEASE 06-297

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Your misgivings re GR are unfounded. Many experiments confirm the near certainty of GR, including LIGO and GP-B.

 

Your misgivings re GR are unfounded. Many experiments confirm the near certainty of GR, including LIGO and GP-B.

There seems to be a misunderstanding. Im not saying that GR is wrong. It is incomplete.
In the same way you cant say that Newtons theory is wrong. Compared to GR it is incomplete and in some situations is GR producing better results, but Newtons theory is still used to calculate navigation for space probes within Solar system.