Space

7287 readers

1 users here now

News and findings about our cosmos.

Subcommunity of Science

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

Gaywallet@beehaw.org

wintrparkgrl@beehaw.org

remington@beehaw.org

245

James Webb telescope confirms there is something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe (www.livescience.com)

submitted 7 months ago by rimu@piefed.social to c/space@beehaw.org

73 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Astronomers have used the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes to confirm one of the most troubling conundrums in all of physics — that the universe appears to be expanding at bafflingly different speeds depending on where we look.

This problem, known as the Hubble Tension, has the potential to alter or even upend cosmology altogether. In 2019, measurements by the Hubble Space Telescope confirmed the puzzle was real; in 2023, even more precise measurements from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) cemented the discrepancy.

Now, a triple-check by both telescopes working together appears to have put the possibility of any measurement error to bed for good. The study, published February 6 in the Astrophysical Journal Letters, suggests that there may be something seriously wrong with our understanding of the universe.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 6 points 7 months ago (11 children)

With the universe is not being locally real

What do you mean by this?

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago (10 children)

This can explain it better than I'm able to:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 11 points 7 months ago (9 children)

Sometimes popular science goes a bit too far. Entanglement of particles and the fact that hidden variables don't exist does not mean that stuff is not "real". At least I feel that is abusing the word "real".

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Not following you. That's literally what they awarded the Nobel for.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well the link you just posted says they got the prize "for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science". They didn't get the prize for showing that "the universe is not locally real". That's just something the article makes up in the headline to draw readers in.

I mean I get it, it's hard to make science exciting and you need a bit of flair but I feel sometimes it goes a bit too far and kinda gives people the wrong idea.

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The magazine did not make up locality lol.

In theoretical physics, quantum nonlocality refers to the phenomenon by which the measurement statistics of a multipartite quantum system do not allow an interpretation with local realism.

They literally did prove, and was awarded for, showing that the universe is not locally real.

Edit. To be clearer, realism means

the assumption that measurement outcomes are well defined prior to and independent of the measurements.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

The word "real" and "locality" is not the same. The "lol" is unnecessary btw, there's no need to try to ridicule me.

The magazine is taking a very technical term like "realism", which means something specific in physics literature, and uses it in a headline and even just makes it "real". The word "real" and "realism" is not the same. This goes into philosophy and not so much science.

Most people will read that as if reality is an illusion or some other nonsense like that. You can't get to "the universe is not real" from what is actually said in the contents of the article.

A Wikipedia quote is not an argument btw.

EDIT to address your edit: you've hit the crux of the issue. That definition is not what most people think when they hear the word "real".

[–] WarmSoda@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I'm sorry you seem to be refusing to understand it. The science is real, well documented, and proven. Regardless of your opinion on it. I recommend reading more into it on your own time.

[–] SorteKanin@feddit.dk 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I don't think it's my opinion that the article is using misleading terms in its headline. It doesn't say "realism" or "locality", it says "real", and this is misleading. Of course it wouldn't get as many views or clicks if it used the more technical terms.

I'm not a physicist but I've read and learned a lot even so and I find the article goes a little too far in the headline.

The science is real

This word choice here is very ironic gotta say 😅.

To be clear, I am not questioning the science, the contents of the article is fine. I'm saying the headline is misleading and makes people say stuff like "the universe isn't real" when that doesn't really make sense. Physicists mean something very specific and technical when they say "local realism" and this is lost in that headline.

load more comments (7 replies)