The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought,

from
https://www.thisisinsider.com/univer...physics-2019-4

The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found — and we may need new physics as a result
Sinéad Baker 9h
Universe
Scientists are working to calculate how fast the universe is expanding. BI

A new study led by a Nobel Prize winner found that the universe is
younger and expanding faster than scientists thought.
Astronomer Adam Riess used measurements from NASA's Hubble Space
Telescope to conclude that the universe is expanding 9% faster than
previous calculations said.
Reiss and other scientists think that both calculations could be right,
which means that the rate of the universe's expansion has increased
They think that "new physics" may be necessary to explain the difference.

Riess also calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13
billion years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6
billion and 13.8 billion years old.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories/
The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found, scientists think we may have to work on new physics as a
result.

A new study lead by Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Adam Riess, found
that the universe is expanding 9% faster than previous calcultions that
were based on studying the aftermath of the Big Bang.

The study by Riess, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University, was
published in Astrophysical Journal this week, and used new measurements
from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to calculate the new expansion rate,
which scientist have theorized for years.


But Reiss, and other scientists, think that the expansion rates
concluded by both studies could be correct, which means that the rate of
the universe's expansion has increased — and they say that "new physics"
may be necessary to explain the discrepancy.

Reiss said that the universe "is outpacing all our expectations in its
expansion, and that is very puzzling."

Read mo NASA has discovered that meteoroids are causing water to leak
off the moon

NASA astrophysicist John Mather, who has also won a Nobel Prize, said
that the two different expansion rates could be down to two things, The
Associated Press reported: "1. We're making mistakes we can't find yet.
2. Nature has something we can't find yet."


But Reiss downplayed the idea that the results could be the result of
human error. He said that the "mismatch" between the two rates "has been
growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss
as a fluke," he said. "This is not what we expected."

Riess said: "This is not just two experiments disagreeing."
Hubble Space Telescope NASA
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. NASA/Getty Images
"We are measuring something fundamentally different. 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."

Read mo A photographer recorded Saturn 'touching' the moon with his
smartphone, and the pictures are stunning

"It's looking more and more like we're going to need something new to
explain this," he said.
One theory suggested by Reiss is that the mysterious "dark energy"
substance could have sped up the expansion of the universe.
University of Chicago astrophysicist Wendy Freedman also said that both
calculations seem valid, and that "nobody can find anything wrong at
this point" with either of the studies or their results.


Using measurements captured though the Hubble telescope, Riess also
calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13 billion
years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6 billion
and 13.8 billion years old.

MORE FROM BUSINESS INSIDER:

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
from
https://www.thisisinsider.com/univer...physics-2019-4

The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found — and we may need new physics as a result
Sinéad Baker 9h
Universe
Scientists are working to calculate how fast the universe is expanding. BI

A new study led by a Nobel Prize winner found that the universe is
younger and expanding faster than scientists thought.
Astronomer Adam Riess used measurements from NASA's Hubble Space
Telescope to conclude that the universe is expanding 9% faster than
previous calculations said.
Reiss and other scientists think that both calculations could be right,
which means that the rate of the universe's expansion has increased
They think that "new physics" may be necessary to explain the difference.

Riess also calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13
billion years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6
billion and 13.8 billion years old.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories/
The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found, scientists think we may have to work on new physics as a
result.

A new study lead by Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Adam Riess, found
that the universe is expanding 9% faster than previous calcultions that
were based on studying the aftermath of the Big Bang.

The study by Riess, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University, was
published in Astrophysical Journal this week, and used new measurements
from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to calculate the new expansion rate,
which scientist have theorized for years.


But Reiss, and other scientists, think that the expansion rates
concluded by both studies could be correct, which means that the rate of
the universe's expansion has increased — and they say that "new physics"
may be necessary to explain the discrepancy.

Reiss said that the universe "is outpacing all our expectations in its
expansion, and that is very puzzling."

Read mo NASA has discovered that meteoroids are causing water to leak
off the moon

NASA astrophysicist John Mather, who has also won a Nobel Prize, said
that the two different expansion rates could be down to two things, The
Associated Press reported: "1. We're making mistakes we can't find yet.
2. Nature has something we can't find yet."


But Reiss downplayed the idea that the results could be the result of
human error. He said that the "mismatch" between the two rates "has been
growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss
as a fluke," he said. "This is not what we expected."

Riess said: "This is not just two experiments disagreeing."
Hubble Space Telescope NASA
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. NASA/Getty Images
"We are measuring something fundamentally different. 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."

Read mo A photographer recorded Saturn 'touching' the moon with his
smartphone, and the pictures are stunning

"It's looking more and more like we're going to need something new to
explain this," he said.
One theory suggested by Reiss is that the mysterious "dark energy"
substance could have sped up the expansion of the universe.
University of Chicago astrophysicist Wendy Freedman also said that both
calculations seem valid, and that "nobody can find anything wrong at
this point" with either of the studies or their results.


Using measurements captured though the Hubble telescope, Riess also
calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13 billion
years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6 billion
and 13.8 billion years old.

MORE FROM BUSINESS INSIDER:

A very interesting read, but keep in mind that seemingly 'new' information may, or may not, survive the onslaught of attacks from other scientists who will scour these new observations for errors in their attempt to maintain the status quo. There is nothing wrong with this, this is just how science works. You need to have thick skin to do cutting-edge research because all of your peers are out to prove you wrong. In the end, however, we are all better off because the theories that survive this deluge will become the 'new' standard going forward...

Some=20very=20incorrect=20common=20beliefs=20about =20the=20univers=
e=20:

That=20it=20somehow=20all=20sprang=20into=20being= 20from=20a=20poi=
nt=20about=2013=20billion=20years=20ago.=20This=20 is=20based=20on=
=20the=20apparent=20seperation=20of=20local=20gala xies=20and=20ext=
rapolating=20back=20in=20time.

That=20it=20has=20some=20boundary=20or=20limit=20t hat=20is=20expan=
ding.=20If=20there=20was=20such=20a=20boundary,=20 then=20what's=20=
that=20just=20beyond=20?=20Since=20the=20universe= 20is=20everythin=
g,=20then=20that's=20also=20a=20part,=20so=20no=20 boundary=20is=20=
possible.

A=20God.

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:37:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Some very incorrect common beliefs about the universe :

That it somehow all sprang into being from a point about 13 billion years ago. This is based on the apparent seperation of local galaxies and extrapolating back in time.


Sounds a lot like the cosmic egg myth of the Eskimos.

Double-A

On Tuesday, April 30, 2019 at 10:37:57 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Some very incorrect common beliefs about the universe :

That it somehow all sprang into being from a point about 13 billion years ago. This is based on the apparent seperation of local galaxies and extrapolating back in time.

And exactly how do you know that this concept is incorrect? Do you know something that no one else knows?

That it has some boundary or limit that is expanding. If there was such a boundary, then what's that just beyond ? Since the universe is everything, then that's also a part, so no boundary is possible.

Same question...

A God.

Same question.

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 6:13:24 PM UTC-7, palsing wrote:
On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 7:51:49 AM UTC-7, a425couple wrote:
from
https://www.thisisinsider.com/univer...physics-2019-4

The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found — and we may need new physics as a result
Sinéad Baker 9h
Universe
Scientists are working to calculate how fast the universe is expanding. BI

A new study led by a Nobel Prize winner found that the universe is
younger and expanding faster than scientists thought.
Astronomer Adam Riess used measurements from NASA's Hubble Space
Telescope to conclude that the universe is expanding 9% faster than
previous calculations said.
Reiss and other scientists think that both calculations could be right,
which means that the rate of the universe's expansion has increased
They think that "new physics" may be necessary to explain the difference.

Riess also calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13
billion years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6
billion and 13.8 billion years old.
Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories/
The universe is younger and expanding faster than we thought, a new
study found, scientists think we may have to work on new physics as a
result.

A new study lead by Nobel Prize-winning scientist, Adam Riess, found
that the universe is expanding 9% faster than previous calcultions that
were based on studying the aftermath of the Big Bang.

The study by Riess, an astronomer at Johns Hopkins University, was
published in Astrophysical Journal this week, and used new measurements
from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope to calculate the new expansion rate,
which scientist have theorized for years.


But Reiss, and other scientists, think that the expansion rates
concluded by both studies could be correct, which means that the rate of
the universe's expansion has increased — and they say that "new physics"
may be necessary to explain the discrepancy.

Reiss said that the universe "is outpacing all our expectations in its
expansion, and that is very puzzling."

Read mo NASA has discovered that meteoroids are causing water to leak
off the moon

NASA astrophysicist John Mather, who has also won a Nobel Prize, said
that the two different expansion rates could be down to two things, The
Associated Press reported: "1. We're making mistakes we can't find yet.
2. Nature has something we can't find yet."


But Reiss downplayed the idea that the results could be the result of
human error. He said that the "mismatch" between the two rates "has been
growing and has now reached a point that is really impossible to dismiss
as a fluke," he said. "This is not what we expected."

Riess said: "This is not just two experiments disagreeing."
Hubble Space Telescope NASA
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope. NASA/Getty Images
"We are measuring something fundamentally different. 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."

Read mo A photographer recorded Saturn 'touching' the moon with his
smartphone, and the pictures are stunning

"It's looking more and more like we're going to need something new to
explain this," he said.
One theory suggested by Reiss is that the mysterious "dark energy"
substance could have sped up the expansion of the universe.
University of Chicago astrophysicist Wendy Freedman also said that both
calculations seem valid, and that "nobody can find anything wrong at
this point" with either of the studies or their results.


Using measurements captured though the Hubble telescope, Riess also
calculated that the universe is between 12.5 billion and 13 billion
years old — younger than the previous estimates of between 13.6 billion
and 13.8 billion years old.

MORE FROM BUSINESS INSIDER:

A very interesting read, but keep in mind that seemingly 'new' information may, or may not, survive the onslaught of attacks from other scientists who will scour these new observations for errors in their attempt to maintain the status quo. There is nothing wrong with this, this is just how science works. You need to have thick skin to do cutting-edge research because all of your peers are out to prove you wrong. In the end, however, we are all better off because the theories that survive this deluge will become the 'new' standard going forward...

If the whole universe is accelerating it fits with acceleration creates the force of gravity.No missing mass,we are not adding acceleration for answrring the missing gravity.OK its another Nobel worthy answer to one of the great question how gravity is needed to keep galaxies from swirling apart.Bert