Why is Hubble's Constant Measurement Different Today?

AI Thread Summary
The modern value of Hubble's constant differs significantly from earlier measurements due to advancements in astronomical instrumentation and a deeper understanding of stellar phenomena. Improved optical telescopes, such as the Hubble Space Telescope, and enhanced capabilities in radio and infrared observations have allowed for more accurate data collection across the electromagnetic spectrum. Additionally, the understanding of Cepheid variable stars has evolved, recognizing that they were previously thought to be a single type, which has implications for distance measurements. The cumulative effect of these improvements has led to more precise calculations of cosmic expansion. Overall, the discrepancies in Hubble's constant reflect both technological progress and refined astrophysical models.
s3a
Messages
814
Reaction score
8
Why is the modern value of Hubble's constant so different from today's measured value? At first I thought it was because the Hubble constant is related to density via:

ρ_c = 3H^2/(8*π*G)

but in the past 2011 - 1921 = 90 years, I don't think the density could have changed that much since it's a negligible amount of time in cosmological scales.

So this means, it boils down to measurement improvements but what specifically?

I would REALLY appreciate it if someone could explain and elaborate on this for me!
Thanks in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Why is the value that Hubble originally calculated different than the one today.
for starters:
Improved instumentation.
A better understanding of stars - originally Cephoid stars were thought to be of one type
 


Thank you for your answer!

Just to say though, the "Improved instrumentation" is the typical vague answer I got (which I wasn't satisfied with) but fortunately for me, I found the answer to that after extensive research.

As for "originally [Cepheid] stars were thought to be of one type," I didn't know that and found that informative.

Thanks again!
 


Thank you for your answer!

Just to say though, the "Improved instrumentation" is the typical vague answer I got (which I wasn't satisfied with) but fortunately for me, I found the answer to that after extensive research.

As for "originally [Cepheid] stars were thought to be of one type," I didn't know that and found that informative.

Thanks again!
 


Just to say though, the "Improved instrumentation" is the typical vague answer I got (which I wasn't satisfied with) but fortunately for me, I found the answer to that after extensive research.

You are right, that is pretty vague.
The list could be several pages long.

Optical telescopes in space - example Hubble, Cobe
Radio arrays.
Infrared instrumentation.
Since more of the electromagnetic spectrum received from space can be recorded and analyzed nowadays, the data from radio waves, to visible light, to x-rays from an object, can be compared for agreement.

Better understanding of mass/luminosity for stars, supper novas.
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top