Why is Hubble's Constant Measurement Different Today?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around the differences in the measured value of Hubble's constant over time, particularly focusing on the reasons behind these discrepancies. Participants explore the implications of measurement improvements and the understanding of astronomical objects, particularly Cepheid stars, within the context of cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between Hubble's constant and density, questioning the extent of changes in density over a relatively short cosmological timescale. They also raise inquiries about the specific improvements in measurement techniques and instrumentation that have led to updated values.

Discussion Status

Some participants express dissatisfaction with vague explanations regarding improved instrumentation, indicating a desire for more detailed insights. Others share findings from their own research, contributing to a deeper understanding of the topic. The conversation reflects a mix of interpretations and ongoing exploration of the subject.

Contextual Notes

There is mention of constraints related to the historical understanding of Cepheid stars and the advancements in technology that have influenced measurements. Participants acknowledge the complexity of the topic and the potential for multiple factors contributing to the differences in Hubble's constant values.

s3a
Messages
828
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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
8K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K