• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    1019 months ago

    Except it’s not that they are finding the expansion rate is different in some directions. Instead they have two completely different ways of calculating the rate of expansion. One uses the cosmic microwave background radiation left over from the Big Bang. The other uses Cepheid stars.

    The problem is that the Cepheid calculation is much higher than the CMB one. Both show the universe is expanding, but both give radically different number for that rate of expansion.

    So, it’s not that the expansion’s not spherical. It’s that we fundamentally don’t understand something to be able to nail down what that expansion rate is.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      It’s because CMB stopped for coffee, obviously.

      (That was a great explanation, btw.)

    • @TingoTenga
      link
      109 months ago

      It just wraps around, like a videogame. Duh…

    • @Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In
      link
      39 months ago

      Just to confirm, the expansion is the same in different directions under both methods of measuring?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        Under the CMB method, it sounds like the calculation gives the same expansion rate everywhere. Under the Cepheid method, they get a different expansion rate, but it’s the same in every direction. Apparently, this isn’t the first time it’s been seen. What’s new here is that they did the calculation for 1000 Cepheid variable stars. So, they’ve confirmed an already known discrepancy isn’t down to something weird on the few they’ve looked at in the past.

        So, the conflict here is likely down to our understanding of ether the CMB or Cepheid variables.