• I Cast Fist@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    From my limited understanding, the discrepancy comes from the two ways to measure the universe’s expansion: calculation from cosmic microwave background and calculating a cepheid variable, which uses pulsating stars (pulsars?)

    Isn’t it more likely that one, or both, ways of measuring are wrong? As in, they’re not useful for measuring the universe’s rate of expansion?

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Isn’t it more likely that one, or both, ways of measuring are wrong? As in, they’re not useful for measuring the universe’s rate of expansion?

      Now, scientists using the James Webb and Hubble space telescopes have confirmed that the observation is not down to a measurement error.

      I’m trying to understand the distinction you are making. Could you elaborate?

      • mildlyusedbrain@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not a scientist but the article seems to mean that they checked that the tools themselves had no defects giving incorrect measurements.

        This comment seems to be questioning the methodology of how we measure the rate of expansion so tackles a different aspect of the conversation.

        But that’s about as much as I can contribute haha