Topic: Hubble constant is wrong? Universe bigger and older than thought? (Read 1249 times)

Nemesis · « **on:** August 07, 2006, 04:05:02 pm »

Quote

The finding, which will be detailed in an upcoming issue of Astrophysical Journal, suggests that the Hubble constant, a number that measures the expansion rate and age of the universe, is actually 15 percent smaller than other studies have found.

Currently, most astronomers agree that the value of the Hubble constant is about 71 kilometers per second per megaparsec (a megaparsec is 3.2 million light-years). If this value were smaller by 15 percent, then the universe would be older and bigger by this amount as well.

Scientists now estimate the universe to be about 13.7 billion years old (a figure that has seemed firm since 2003, based on measurements of radiation leftover from the Big Bang) and about 156 billion light-years wide.

The new finding implies that the universe is instead about 15.8 billion years old and about 180 billion light-years wide.

Change the age and size of the universe and you may need to make major changes to cosmology, including the big bang theory.

Dash Jones · « **Reply #1 on:** August 07, 2006, 04:14:28 pm »

Something seems wrong with their math. If you reduce the constant by 15% that doesn't mean the whole increases by 15%...no that just means measurement would be lower by 15% meaning the whole would be higher...but not the same amount.

A quick check of the math seems to show in actuality that it is in fact (if the Hubble Constant is 15% smaller than it should be) only 12.75% bigger...

And no I'm not trying to be humorous, just saying they're math sounds a little funny.

Addendum: Now this was REALLY QUICK math on my part and so may be prone to mistakes, but doing the mathematics would indicate I'm on the right track even if I'm not exactly correct (though a quick glance I would say I'm pretty accurate or at least pretty darn close if not spot on).

Sirgod · « **Reply #2 on:** August 07, 2006, 09:22:43 pm »

Hmm. I'm getting 60.35 KM / Second. of 71 minus 15%. Is that what you got Dash?

Stephen.

Iceman · « **Reply #3 on:** August 08, 2006, 10:28:25 pm »

I'm gonna guess there's a lot more to this calculation than most people here (I'd say any, but I'm constantly surprised by the people on here) can deal with.

News: