Rate of the expansion of the Universe and the Big Bang

[HankDorsett]

TL;DR

Recent study that updated the rate of University expansion and its impact on The Big Bang Theory.

Disclaimer:
I am parroting the information in this from articles that I've read. This post is to try to get a better understanding of what they are talking about and if any of it is relevant.

I came across an article regarding the Big Bang while looking into the current rate of universe expansion, before the recent release that updated this rate. This article suggested that science was able to "rewind" the Big Bang based off of one of the earlier rates to a point very near the beginning while staying within relativity.

I've recently came across an article regarding the study that updated the rate of universe expansion and its impact to the Big Bang Theory. This article stated that we were no longer able to rewind the universe using the increased rate while staying with in relativity and that science needs to re-evaluate various understandings.Is there any relevance, truth or ...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where is this article?

 

[pinball1970]

Where is this article?

I found this from last Thurs but cannot find the specific point in the OP
https://phys.org/news/2019-08-dark-older-big.html
Links to PF articles on there too which is cool

 

[HankDorsett]

Where is this article?

I'll try to find them but unfortunately it maybe difficult. I came across the original article 3 or 4 months ago and the newer one about a month ago. the release of the recent study has spawned a great deal of articles on the internet.

 

[pinball1970]

I'll try to find them but unfortunately it maybe difficult. I came across the original article 3 or 4 months ago and the newer one about a month ago. the release of the recent study has spawned a great deal of articles on the internet.

This one?
https://www.space.com/universe-expanding-fast-new-physics.htmlI think this was discussed on pf in April EDIT: this one

https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...-discrepancy-vs-accelerated-expansion.970997/

 

[Vanadium 50]

I'll try to find them but unfortunately it maybe difficult.

Sorry, but that's not acceptable. How are we to explain something (including possibly how you misunderstood it) if we can't see it?

 

[DrClaude]

No point in speculating about this. Thread is closed. @HankDorsett: if you find the article, PM me and I'll reopen the thread with the proper source.

Edit: The OP gave this as a lead:

https://www.businessinsider.com/uni...an-thought-study-new-physics-2019-4?r=US&IR=T
Original paper referenced in that article:
Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics beyond ΛCDM
https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422
(article is open access)

 

[Vanadium 50]

This article stated that we were no longer able to rewind the universe using the increased rate while staying with in relativity and that science needs to re-evaluate various understandings.

Where does it say this?

 

[HankDorsett]

Sorry, but that's not acceptable. How are we to explain something (including possibly how you misunderstood it) if we can't see it.

I gave up on trying to find the articles. Using what I posted and a bit of deductive reasoning I was able figure enough of it out allowing me to narrow my search. I ask myself what changes using the new rate of expansion. Does this higher rate result in a younger universe, which is why I asked about it on my previous post. If the universe is younger due to this higher rate of expansion why would it cause the laws of physics to break down?

Basing a search on this train of thought I was able to find an article that partially explained my initial post. Unfortunately it only says the laws of physics breaks down without going into any detail.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.bu...-faster-than-thought-study-new-physics-2019-4

 

[PeterDonis]

we were no longer able to rewind the universe using the increased rate while staying with in relativity

"no longer able while staying within relativity" is nonsense. What certain cosmologists are saying is that we might have to modify our current best-fit model of the universe to include new physical effects that it doesn't currently include. But any such new model will still be based on General Relativity.

it only says the laws of physics breaks down

That's not what the actual scientific papers are saying. They are saying that we might have to add some new physical effects to our model of the universe (something like, for example, dark energy density being able to change with time instead of being constant, or adding some new field like a scalar field). But these physical effects would still be modeled using the same basic framework of physical laws we have now--General Relativity and quantum field theory. And all of the current physical laws we have would still be there; they don't go away.

 

[HankDorsett]

"no longer able while staying within relativity" is nonsense. What certain cosmologists are saying is that we might have to modify our current best-fit model of the universe to include new physical effects that it doesn't currently include. But any such new model will still be based on General Relativity.
That's not what the actual scientific papers are saying. They are saying that we might have to add some new physical effects to our model of the universe (something like, for example, dark energy density being able to change with time instead of being constant, or adding some new field like a scalar field). But these physical effects would still be modeled using the same basic framework of physical laws we have now--General Relativity and quantum field theory. And all of the current physical laws we have would still be there; they don't go away.

I agree with your statement about being nonsense. you only need to see that they describe computer modeling as rewinding the universe.

I am curious on where things start to break down. it should be easy to see I have limited knowledge on this subject. after my last post I tried to think about where things might break down. the only thing I could come up with is early critical events didn't have enough time to complete do to a younger universe.

please let me know if you know what they are talking about. at my level of understanding this is actually a fun subject to think about.

 

[HankDorsett]

"no longer able while staying within relativity" is nonsense. What certain cosmologists are saying is that we might have to modify our current best-fit model of the universe to include new physical effects that it doesn't currently include. But any such new model will still be based on General Relativity.
That's not what the actual scientific papers are saying. They are saying that we might have to add some new physical effects to our model of the universe (something like, for example, dark energy density being able to change with time instead of being constant, or adding some new field like a scalar field). But these physical effects would still be modeled using the same basic framework of physical laws we have now--General Relativity and quantum field theory. And all of the current physical laws we have would still be there; they don't go away.

please disregard most of what I just posted. I just now realized email notifications don't include all of a response, unfortunately I didn't read all of your response.