Prior to Hubble’s launch in 1990, observations from ground-based telescopes yielded huge uncertainties. Depending on the values deduced for the expansion rate, the Universe could be anywhere between 10 and 20 billion years old. Over the past 34 years Hubble has shrunk this measurement to an accuracy of less than one percent, splitting the difference with an age value of 13.8 billion years. This has been accomplished by refining the so-called ‘cosmic distance ladder’ by measuring important milepost markers known as Cepheid variable stars.
However, the Hubble value does not agree with other measurements that imply that the Universe was expanding faster after the Big Bang. These observations were made by the ESA Planck satellite’s mapping of the cosmic microwave background radiation – a blueprint for how the Universe would evolve structure after it cooled down from the Big Bang.
The simple solution to the dilemma would be to say that maybe the Hubble observations are wrong, as a result of some inaccuracy creeping into its measurements of the deep-space yardsticks. Then along came the James Webb Space Telescope, enabling astronomers to crosscheck Hubble’s results. Webb’s infrared views of Cepheids agreed with Hubble’s optical-light data. Webb confirmed that the Hubble telescope’s keen eye was right all along, erasing any lingering doubt about Hubble’s measurements.
...
“With measurement errors negated, what remains is the real and exciting possibility that we have misunderstood the Universe,” said Adam Riess, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. Adam holds a Nobel Prize for co-discovering the fact that the Universe’s expansion is accelerating, owing to a mysterious phenomenon now called ‘dark energy’.
Nice article. Even before JWST, the consensus in the community was moving towards this being a real tension between measurements as opposed to some systematic error. On the CMB side, systematics...
Nice article. Even before JWST, the consensus in the community was moving towards this being a real tension between measurements as opposed to some systematic error. On the CMB side, systematics are pretty well understood, and in fact the tension between the early-universe inferred expansion rate and the direct measurement by Riess and others persists even if you switch out all the data sets for other ones. You can even infer the early universe expansion rate without using the CMB at all and you get something in tension with local measurements.
From the article:
...
Nice article. Even before JWST, the consensus in the community was moving towards this being a real tension between measurements as opposed to some systematic error. On the CMB side, systematics are pretty well understood, and in fact the tension between the early-universe inferred expansion rate and the direct measurement by Riess and others persists even if you switch out all the data sets for other ones. You can even infer the early universe expansion rate without using the CMB at all and you get something in tension with local measurements.