New measurements of the rate of expansion of the universe give more different results. Discrepancies seem to become more and more significant. Is there something wrong with the way we measure the Hubble’s Constant or is there something wrong with the way we conceive the Universe and the dynamics of the cosmos?

Maybe both. But I think the second question is more true and more relevant to try to explain why the current measured values of this important natural constant are so far apart.

The Hubble’s Constant describes the expansion of the universe (in kilometers per second per megaparsec) and give us the possibility to make hypotheses about the size and age of the universe and estimate distances between objects in the cosmos.

That Hubble’s Constant is not constant in time is a science fact since the observation of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. But I think that its (supposed) constancy in space is not a scientific fact, and it comes from a profound misconception about the true nature of the the (derived) field we call space-time, or, even more, from a incorrect comprehension of the nature of the entire Physical Reality.

Hubble’s law tell us that the recessional velocity is proportional to the distance to distant bodies. As we can see in a medium subject to uniform expansion. This conception implies uniformity, homogeneity, isotropy, at least when viewed on a large enough scale. No special places, both for the parts of the cosmos that we see in expansion and for the part that include the observer. This is the Cosmological Principle. It implies that the forces act uniformly throughout the Universe. But, this its true only if we consider the Fundamental Force acting of the Elementary Field. All the derived forces (as gravity) don’t act uniformly. They (always) relative intensities are determined by the shape of the organization of the Elementary Field itself, in other words, the derived fields associated to those derived forces.

In my opinion, Hubble constant is not constant also in space dimensions, so it cannot be considered a support to the Big Bang model. The polarization of the dispute on cosmological models between static and Big Bang, for me, is one of the most destructive errors in cosmology. It has addressed all the further researches in a theoretical cul de sac that has produced inflation, the standard cosmological model, and a full series of theories father and farther from the observation. I thing that even the observation, of better, the way we observe the Universe has been deeply influenced by that wrong ideas.

So, let’s go. No static Universe, no Big Bang. To explain what we see in the Universe, a third way is needed. Let’s call it: the Evolutionary Cosmological Model (ECM). In this model we can “easily” accomodate phenomena like the expansion of the cosmos and its acceleration in time, the inconstancy of Hubble’s Constant in space, as well as in time, the strange super homogeneity of CMB, the existence of well formed cosmic structures in the early Universe, just a few hundred millions years from the supposed birth date on the Universe. And it is not enough. There are rooms for a dark matter not made of particles, that does not need to reject of modify gravity, and the strange stuff we call dark energy, theoretically required to account for the acceleration of the cosmic expansion.

In conclusion, even if – by definition – we postulate that it is absolutely flat as a whole in all its infinite extension, space-time is not uniform. It does not have a uni-form, a unique form, the same shape in all places, even at the largest scales. It appears to us as uniform, because we can span a sufficiently large portion of the (for me, infinite) Universe. So, at medium and small scales, we clearly see that space-time is not uniform. We see immense cosmic structures, super-clusters, cluster, galaxies, stars and planets…

At these scales, a lack of uniformity is the cause and, at the same time, the effect of the presence of those cosmic structures.

At the larger scales, a more slight non-uniformity is the cause and the effect of the existence of extremely large structures and the entire dynamics of the (infinite and unlimited) Universe as a whole.

Image description: Bright arcs: Hubble Stace Telescope image of a distant quasar that has been gravitationally lensed. This image was part of this latest study. (Credits: ESA/Hubble/NASA/Suyu et al)
Image credits: Nasa

Let us take a look at the main problems that modern physics and cosmology are facing. After a wonderfull period of discovery and development of ever wider and deeper models, is this a real crisis? Why the theoretical research is not able to keep up with the ever more numerous and strange observations of Nature and with the increasingly contrasting and surprising data coming from our instruments? Is there anything fundamental that does not work in scientific research?

Beyond standard models – When a standard becomes a stumbling block

Standard models are great results and great resources to guide thought and experimental research. But they can become conceptual prisons that prevent people from seeing new paths to knowledge. Moreover, they can determine a ghettoization of research, a polarization that pushes to the extreme the need to differentiate alternative research lines. In this scenario, the research has polarized, on the one hand, on orthodox positions that are not innovative enough to go beyond those standard models and, on the other, on research very far from physical reality and with little possibility of being subjected to experimental verification.

Too many stuffs we don’t understand

The emergence of the dark side of the Universe, as in the famous Star Wars saga, casts a sinister shadow on the current scientific scene. We are obviously talking about the two phantom entities / phenomena, Dark Matter and Dark Energy, which, according to the most reliable hypotheses, should together constitute about 95% of the energy content of the Universe. We call them “dark entities” because we cannot observe them through light, our main source of information on the Universe. But also, or rather, above all, “dark” because we do not understand their nature, their dynamics, their true role in the past and future evolution of the cosmos. It is still discussed whether these hypothetical entities really exist, or whether, by changing the laws we currently use to analyze and explain the physical behavior of Reality, it is possible to do without them. In short, we know very little about such important things.

Too much fantastic math

Mathematics is a very powerful language. It is the language of science. Since advanced tools allow us to carry out experimentation and observation of nature, so math has provided and increasingly provides more important tools for theoretical research and for the fundamental analysis and interpretation of collected data. But, in science, we can’t let mathematics drive. Mathematics must necessarily follow ideas, observations, facts. Therefore, it is very good to develop good mathematics. But let us not confuse good mathematics with scientific research, which, in short, is observation, hypothesis formulation, falsification, and so on, in an endless iterative process.

The surrender of the possibility of explaining Nature

The victory of Quantum Mechanics, which has produced many very important scientific results, has in a certain way led to the rejection of the possibility of understanding the world (at least the world of the infinitely small, the basis of our Physical Reality). And, while representing the best scientific theory ever developed by man, it has produced a fundamental split in the vision of the physical world (continuity vs quantization, relativity vs quanta, certainty vs probability and so on). While it allows us to interpret much of physical reality and to predict the results of experiments, QM has led us to a partial vision and to renounce the possibility of truly knowing Nature. In some interpretations of QM, for example that of the “many worlds”, not only can we no longer imagine knowing the facts of the world, but we can also hypothesize (without any possibility of falsification, in my humble opinion) that there is NOT a knowable reality, though there is an infinite number of them. Chaos in chaos … hopeless …

Is it a question of machines (and money)?

I do not believe that the current difficulty in going beyond what is known, explaining what we see in the Universe and what we cannot find in the colliders, is due to the lack of ability of our machines, of our instruments, to reach a new level in fundamental physics research (particles). I think it’s not a question of technology or money. I think it’s a matter of ideas. We must (re) open our minds. But this requires that some distorting aspects of the current academic system, which too often push research into comfortable places, in a short-term perspective, are modified. We need courage. The courage to think differently, to invest in a different way, to grant in a different way, to reward differently.

No more particles

I absolutely do not want to say that high energy research is not useful or appropriate. But I don’t think that in the present moment, in this crisis, this could represent the turning point. I do not believe that it will be a new particle to pave the way for the new physics that everyone is waiting with so much anxiety and interest. I don’t think that measuring Higgs in more detail, reaching more energy, will make us better understand the world. Perhaps we must accept that the Standard Model of particles is a fundamental piece of the puzzle, but it is not the only one, and perhaps not even the most important. I don’t think we can shed light on the dark side of the cosmos, on dark matter and dark energy, and on all the other weird things we are observing in the Universe, searching for new particles. I don’t think we can better understand the fundamental nature of Reality by smashing particles.