…there are two different ways to measure this cosmic expansion rate, and they don’t agree. One method looks deep into the past by analyzing cosmic microwave background radiation, the faint afterglow of the Big Bang. The other studies Cepheid variable stars in nearby galaxies, whose brightness allows astronomers to map more recent expansion.
You’d expect both methods to give the same answer. Instead, they disagree—by a lot. And this mismatch is what scientists call the Hubble tension…Webb’s data agrees with Hubble’s and completely rules out measurement error as the cause of the discrepancy. It’s now harder than ever to explain away the tension as a statistical fluke. This inconsistency suggests something big might be missing from our understanding of the universe - something beyond current theories involving dark matter, dark energy, or even gravity itself. When the same universe appears to expand at different rates depending on how and where you look, it raises the possibility that our entire cosmological model may need rethinking.
You’re absolutely right that the Hubble tension exposes a deep inconsistency in our cosmological model. But in the book: The Death of the Dark Energy Idea, I argue that the tension isn’t a mystery at all once you look at the underlying assumption both methods rely on: the standard model’s interpretation of photons and the CMBR.
The book points out that the so-called Hubble tension arises because early-universe methods (Planck’s CMBR measurements giving ~67 km/s/Mpc) and late-universe methods (Cepheid variables + Type Ia supernovae giving ~72–74 km/s/Mpc) should agree if they are tracing the same phenomenon. Instead, they differ by 5–6 km/s/Mpc — a discrepancy large enough that cosmologists now call it “one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics.”
But it’s only unsolved if you assume the CMBR really is a relic from a recombination event 380,000 years after a Big Bang. My argument is: that event never happened.
The CMBR interpretation is built on the model that photons are transverse electromagnetic waves whose redshift is produced by an expanding spacetime. If that assumption is wrong, then building an entire early-universe framework on it guarantees contradictions later on.
In my book I explain that the apparent expansion — the inferred recession speeds of distant galaxies — is a misinterpretation of photon behavior, not evidence of the universe stretching. If photons are instead modeled as longitudinal compression waves, their density and inertial components naturally map onto what we perceive as a transverse EM profile. In that framework, redshift is a built-in dispersive property of the wave, not a geometric stretching of space.
Once you correct the photon model, the Hubble tension vanishes — the two methods disagree because they are solving two different problems. One is trying to extract cosmic expansion from a phenomenon that has nothing to do with expansion, and the other is measuring real astrophysical distances. The mismatch isn’t a crisis; it’s a clue that the foundation was wrong.
That’s why I argue the Hubble tension isn’t a window into new physics — it’s a symptom of an old mistake.
JWST doing exactly what it was supposed to do ! That’s both exciting and terrifying !
What’s terrifying about learning more about his the universe works?
That’s just how all of science works.
It’s not kind JWST detected a black hole barreling towards us or anything.
… yet!
I wouldn’t be too terrified
But that’s my resting state!
.
Maybe when they were coding the CMB, the simulation designers made a slight error in factoring in the effects of universal expansion. Maybe they even realized the error, but thought, “who is going to build a billion dollar telescope and have it spend years investigating the details of the skybox?”
At this rate intelligent life will never have the time to evolve, you can bet on it!
To be fair, there’s always been something deeply wrong with how most people understand the universe.
James Webb didn’t do shit. The man is dead.
…Is it unclear that “James Webb” in this context refers to the telescope by the same name? Or are you just shitposting?
He’s providing giant shoulders on which to stand.
It’s the damn Sophons isn’t it?
I’m with the aboriginals. We’re just an overdeveloped ant hive on a floating rock who accidentally found oil for a brief period. I think what’s over the horizon is meant to be there. Why would a species who barely ever watch the stars anymore, deserve to know what secrets they hold?
Sorry for the off topic rant, it’s one of those cold evenings
Why would a species who barely ever watch the stars anymore
This article is literally about the star-watching done with the enormous telescope that we built and sent to space specifically so that we could watch the stars better
deleted by creator
Hey, this is me being dramatic about stars. I’m just doing it in the opposite direction because I think it’s amazing that so many people solved so many problems solely because we looked up and wanted to understand
deleted by creator
You’re too kind. May the stars be kind upon you.
How do you say r/wooosh on Lemmy?
Maybe it’s the observer and the universe is in superposition, unfolding in every moment. Playing a little game with us as we try to win by understanding it.
Exactly what I said it was most of my life. I never accepted that absurd theory that defied logic.
Isn’t this what has been attributed as evidence supporting the timescape model? It’s an alternative explanation for dark energy, in which it argues time is not the same in all places of universe.
The timescape model is fascinating - it basically suggests that the uneven distribution of matter creates different rates of cosmic time flow in different regions, so the “Hubble tension” might just be us measuring diffrent parts of the universe that are literally expereincing time differently!
I don’t think this is considered evidence supporting Timescape yet, but it could be and it is being investigated.
Most rational people will completely ignore this theory, but what if it’s just God fucking with us?
I could’ve sworn there was a thought experiment for an omnipotent being modifying the universe but only when we are intentionally trying to study it, but this is all I could find. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon
This concept is stuck in my mind as “Cartesian demon” but that only leads to the above which is more about the idea that we could be in a simulated reality. It’s possible I’m getting an xkcd comic mixed in but I couldn’t find it either based on a quick search.
Edit: The comic was something like a sliding scale (or maybe a flow chart) of different views of reality. On one end was everything is fake, even self, and the other end was that everything is real and measureable. Somewhere in the middle was the idea that reality exists but we can’t measure it properly or objectively. Something like that. But it’s also possible this comic was unrelated to whatever I’m remembering as “Cartesian demon” and I’m getting mixed up.
Dont start with all this. Please. There are still people out there that are adamant the earth is flat. We aren’t ready as a species, to understand the universe yet.
Come back in a few 100,000 years
Edit: Wow, sorry, this was a joke. About flat earthers. Although i can see reading it back how that can be misconstrued.
That’s like saying 1 kid in the school hadn’t learnt the alphabet, none of the other kids may progress past Peter and Jane (kid’s alphabet book series)
Hey, yeah, of course. I was joking. It wasn’t obvious. I see that reading it back.
The telescope or the dead homophobe?
This website is slop even if it overlaps with reality at times.
