What is the current status of the Hubble-tension?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter eaglechief
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Current
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the current status of the Hubble tension, exploring various theories and models that attempt to explain the discrepancies in the measured values of the Hubble constant. Participants reference recent studies, observational evidence, and differing interpretations within the cosmological community.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants mention recent studies suggesting that the Hubble tension may be explained by the Earth being located in a sub-average density void, which could challenge the standard model of cosmology.
  • Others argue that this void hypothesis is supported by MOND (Modified Newtonian Dynamics) theories, which they claim have gained traction due to new observational evidence.
  • A participant cautions against accepting any single model as definitive, emphasizing that the discrepancies could arise from multiple potential causes and that the area remains an open field of research.
  • There is a reference to a significant amount of observational data from 2020 that purportedly supports MOND and related theories, raising questions about the current crisis in cosmology.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the validity of claims regarding the confirmation of MOND theories, highlighting the need for caution in interpreting the evidence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the Hubble tension and the validity of various models, including the void hypothesis and MOND theories.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions underlying the proposed models, the dependence on specific definitions of cosmological terms, and the unresolved nature of the mathematical frameworks involved.

eaglechief
Messages
26
Reaction score
1
TL;DR
Different Hubble-parameters occur by obtaining and comparing a) light from the beginning of the universe and b) light from universes mid-age. The discrepancy of the Hubble-parameters is about 15 %
What is the current state of the discussion ? If I understood correctly, a methodical error can be excluded.

Thanks in advance
Carlo
 
Space news on Phys.org
thank you
 
Olorin said:
Hi, there is a recent study that explains the Hubble tension by invoking we are sitting inside a sub- average density void. It also claims that such a void falsifies the standard model of cosmology with a 7 sigma confidence interval, but it is readily explained by MONDian kind of modified gravity cosmology. Here are the links:
paper: https://academic.oup.com/mnras/artic...2/2845/5939857
explanatory video:
further insights: https://tritonstation.com/2020/10/23/big-trouble-in-a-deep-void

There are many many theories...This is just one of them
 
Arman777 said:
There are many many theories...This is just one of them
Sure, but one that is getting more and more traction as it is being confirmed by a lot of observational evidence coming from a lot of independent studies. 2020 has without any doubt been the year of MOND with a wealth of new data: CMB fit with nuHDM, confirmation of the missing plane of satellites for new host galaxies, External Field Effect demonstration for a large set of galaxies that points towards GR strong equivalence principle violations and the study on the local void. Is the crisis in cosmology now catastrophic?

https://darkmattercrisis.wordpress.com/2020/11/10/the-crisis-in-cosmology-is-now-catastrophic/
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy and Arman777
Confirmation does not mean what you seem think it means, Ilorin.

The fundamental problem is that this kind of discrepancy has many possible causes. Latching onto one idea to the exclusion of all others to try to explain every new discrepancy that pops up is just bad science. Especially when that model is on extremely shaky theoretical foundations.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Arman777
Olorin said:
one that is getting more and more traction

Your opinion, or MOND enthusiasts' opinion, is not the same as established fact. The current state of the discussion, which is what the OP asked about, is that this is still an open area of research and there is no generally accepted resolution to the issue.
 
This video is well explained

Olorin said:
explanatory video:

1614363612992.png

Thank you I will save it

[thread edited by a Mentor to remove an extra link]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
7K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
7K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
Replies
18
Views
2K