JWST Confirms the Hubble Constant, But There’s a Catch

The universe is expanding, but how fast? And why does it matter? In this episode, we will talk about the Hubble constant, which is the rate of expansion of the universe, and the Hubble tension, which is the discrepancy between different methods of measuring it. We will also discuss the latest results from NASA’s James Webb Space Telescope, which confirm the accuracy of one of the methods, but also deepen the mystery of why it differs from another method.

Best Telescopes for beginners:
Celestron 70mm Travel Scope

Celestron 114LCM Computerized Newtonian Telescope

Celestron – StarSense Explorer LT 80AZ

Visit our website for up-to-the-minute updates:

Follow us

Join this channel to get access to these perks:

#NSN #JWST #HubbleTension #HubbleConstant #Cosmology #Astronomy #Space #Universe #Expansion #BigBang #CMB #CosmicDistanceLadder #CepheidVariables #TypeIaSupernovae #RedGiants #Masers #StandardCandles #StandardRulers #GravitationalLensing #DarkMatter #DarkEnergy #GeneralRelativity #NewPhysics #NASA #Telescope #Infrared #Science #Discovery #Mystery #Puzzle #Breakthrough #NASA #Astronomy

[ronaldkemp]

Many years ago I found galaxies are all moving at different velocities regardless of their distance from us. The Hubble constant is not a constant, it's an average.
@ 1:38 Example; Edwin Hubble measured many galaxies that didn't fit the dark energy or Hubble constant postulates, here are just 4. Galaxies A & B were both 16 megaparsecs away while galaxies C & D were both 93 megaparsecs away.

Galaxy A was moving at 500 km/s which equals a velocity of 500 km a second / 16 Mpc receding away from us at 31.2 km/s per megaparsec.
Galaxy B was moving at 6, 500 km/s which equals a velocity of 6, 500 km a second / 16 Mpc receding away from us at 406 km/s per megaparsec.
Galaxy C was moving at 3, 500 km/s which equals a velocity of 3, 500 km a second / 93 Mpc receding away from us at 38 km/s per megaparsec.
Galaxy D was moving at 10, 200 km/s which equals a velocity of 10, 200 km a second / 93 Mpc receding away from us at 110 km/s per megaparsec.
None of those galaxies were receding away from us at the same rate per megaparsec.

The interesting thing is even though galaxy B was much closer than galaxies C and D it's velocity per megaparsec was much higher. This clearly indicates there is no Hubble constant.
The fact that each galaxy recedes at different rates is strong evidence a single cause like dark energy can't be responsible. The Hubble constant is not a constant, it's an average.

[rezadaneshi]

Excellent upload. In short, many factors can cause the tension we see,
for one, assuming expansion in all directions are the same,

two, the slightest miscalculation of the actual focal length of different instruments used for measurement, being even a decimal fraction off,

three, different methods of calculating distances in calculations especially where gravitational lensing might be undetected but present ….

We know what we know, wrong, right or incomplete, and that shapes what we are about to know having to confirm what we think we know… and in jest, scientists who have to have it make sense to layman without giving a physics optics course assuming they themselves have a deeper understanding of general relativity.

Science has always been the best guess based on relative latest observations

[mattpike]

Great video as always. Do you plan to make a video about methane and CO2 being found on K2-18b? That's a hugely interesting topic IMO. Keep up the great work 👍

[walkabout]

In the depths of cosmic night, we gaze,
Through telescopic eyes, we seek to raise,
The veil that hides the universe's rhyme,
JWST, our messenger through time.

It soars through space, a guardian of grace,
A telescope of awe-inspiring embrace,
To confirm the Hubble Constant's hold,
A quest that's worth its weight in gold.

But there's a catch, a cosmic twist,
As we delve into the cosmic mist,
The universe is vast, and it's not still,
Its secrets hide in shadows, ever chill.

For Hubble's constant, a number true,
Reveals the universe's constant brew,
Of expansion, galaxies racing apart,
But mysteries linger, a puzzle at heart.

JWST peers into the ancient night,
With infrared eyes, it seeks the light,
Of distant stars and galaxies far,
To measure distances, a cosmic scar.

Yet, there's a challenge that we face,
In the cosmos, there's an elusive space,
Of dark energy, a force unknown,
That causes the universe to groan.

It pushes galaxies apart with might,
Invisible and shrouded from our sight,
And in this dance of forces, we must find,
The truth of Hubble's constant, intertwined.

So, JWST, with your celestial view,
Unlock the secrets, both old and new,
Confirm the constant, but also unveil,
The mysteries that in the cosmos sail.

For as we journey through the cosmic deep,
The universe's secrets we will keep,
A dance of forces, an endless quest,
To understand the cosmos, we are blessed.

[theeddorian]

One error could simply be the assumption that the frequency shift described by the Hubble Constant has nothing to do with expansion of anything. It could instead be an averaging of an effect of say matter on light across distance. The standard candle method works well, because although its specific "candles" are likely subject to some error, the basic physics of apparent brightness as a function of distance is sound and well tested. It works locally and therefor should across all domains.

[Realnatur]

Thank you for this video. .. 🙏🙏. By the way, I humbly do have a comment with regard redshift measurement for objects travelling faster than light. Because, no matter the objets nearing or furthering the observer; any object travelling faster than light will always redshift. That is because, the light that arrive first to the observer is always the light originated from the nearest post of that object; that's why it always redshift....🙏🙏

[Oliveir]

Is our red shift interpretation in terms of speed only correct ?

[davidruzicka]

Of course a telescope whose construction is based on detecting visual phenomena would corroborate other measures of visual phenomena - though shifted to non-visible wavelengths. I'm sure the radiation detectors would confirm the measurements of the CMB as well. You need either a device that can merge the two, or a different means of detection to measure distance and time.

[paulohadlich]

There's an easy explanation for the Hubble constant! If the big bang origin were from a ball of regular size, the outermost layers would have the highest velocity and go further in the same time than the inner layers! Just like an explosion of a spherical ball into the vacuum! Same thing we see in a quarry explosion. The outer stones have the highest velocity and drop further!

[davidcastle]

Maybe the Hubble constant is the refractive index of space.

[WillieBrooks-gg]

Fantastic! Many Thanks! Multiverse!, 🎈

[physicslover]

Can gupta theory of tired light solve tge mystery of Hubble constant.

[davidhine]

Hubbles Constant is easily calculated to its precise value using this equation:- 2 X oneMpc X C, divided by Pi to the power of 21 = 71k/s/Mpc. David Hine

[farhadfaisal]

How is the role of the accelerated expansion of the universe accounted for while determining the Hubble Constant?

[johnh]

A hypothesis I find mind blowing though I don’t know if it has any bearing on the “Hubble Tension” IS:
This is complexes so bare with me. Hawking radiation states that at the event horizon of a Black Hole one Quantum possibility falls into the Black Hole and an other “possibility”escapes thus creating matter.
We are, it is said, travelling at the speed of light through time. Consider the expansion of the universe. The further away an object is the faster it is moving away from us, so although nothing can travel faster than light the separation speed between us and a part of space say 16 or 18 billion light years away would exceed the speed of light.
That being the case it means, or could mean that the entire Observable Space is merely the part of space whose quantum possibility has managed to keep up with us.

[johnstebbins]

Question: I thought we found out about 20 years ago that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, like a balloon with a person blowing into it ever more forcefully. Wouldn't that mean that the Hubble "Constant" isn't constant at all, but a growing variable?

[oker]

Well, the Hubble constant inferred from the Cosmic Background Radiation has to be the right one. So, one should try to understand why the classical ceipheid variables calculation is off.

[invader_jim]

I have always been suss on the CMB. Something about it doesn't sit right with me.

[fivish]

Perhaps go back to Hoyles interprtation of the CMBR as the black body radiation of the milky way galaxy?

[conniepr]

Knowing what we know with all the variables I don't see how you can ever figure this out.