Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Edwin Hubble
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
===Redshift increases with distance=== Hubble went on to estimate the distances to 24 extra-galactic nebulae, using a variety of methods. In 1929, Hubble examined the relationship between these distances and their [[Radial velocity|radial velocities]] as determined from their [[redshift]]s. All of his estimated distances are now known to be too small, by up to a factor of about 7. This was due to factors such as the fact that there are two kinds of Cepheid variables or confusing bright gas clouds with bright stars.<ref name=Kirshner/> However, his distances were more or less proportional to the true distances, and combining his distances with measurements of the redshifts of the galaxies by [[Vesto Slipher]], and by his assistant [[Milton L. Humason]], he found a roughly linear relationship between the distances of the galaxies and their radial velocities (corrected for solar motion),<ref name="Hubbles Law" /> a discovery that later became known as Hubble's law. This meant that the greater the distance between any two galaxies, the greater their relative speed of separation. When interpreted that way, Hubble's measurements on 46 galaxies lead to a value for the [[Hubble's law|Hubble constant]] of 500 km/s/Mpc, which is much higher than the currently accepted values of 74 km/s/Mpc<ref name="gaiariess2018">{{cite journal |last1=Riess |first1=Adam G. |last2=Casertano |first2=Stefano |last3=Yuan |first3=Wenlong |last4=Macri |first4=Lucas |last5=Bucciarelli |first5=Beatrice |last6=Lattanzi |first6=Mario G. |last7=MacKenty |first7=John W. |last8=Bowers |first8=J. Bradley |last9=Zheng |first9=WeiKang |last10=Filippenko |first10=Alexei V. |last11=Huang |first11=Caroline |last12=Anderson |first12=Richard I. |title=Milky Way Cepheid Standards for Measuring Cosmic Distances and Application to Gaia DR2: Implications for the Hubble Constant |arxiv=1804.10655|journal=The Astrophysical Journal |date=2018 |volume=861 |issue=2 |pages=126 |doi=10.3847/1538-4357/aac82e |language=en |issn=0004-637X|bibcode=2018ApJ...861..126R |s2cid=55643027 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="guardianhubbleconstant">{{cite news|last1=Devlin|first1=Hannah|title=The answer to life, the universe and everything might be 73. Or 67|url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/10/the-answer-to-life-the-universe-and-everything-might-be-73-or-67|access-date=May 13, 2018|work=the Guardian|date=May 10, 2018|language=en}}</ref> (cosmic distance ladder method) or 68 km/s/Mpc<ref name="2018planckcosmos">{{cite journal |title=Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters |url=https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications#Planck2018 |journal=Astronomy and Astrophysics |access-date=July 18, 2018|bibcode=2020A&A...641A...6P |author1=Planck Collaboration |last2=Aghanim |first2=N.|author2-link=Nabila Aghanim |last3=Akrami |first3=Y. |last4=Ashdown |first4=M. |last5=Aumont |first5=J. |last6=Baccigalupi |first6=C. |last7=Ballardini |first7=M. |last8=Banday |first8=A. J. |last9=Barreiro |first9=R. B. |last10=Bartolo |first10=N. |last11=Basak |first11=S. |last12=Battye |first12=R. |last13=Benabed |first13=K. |last14=Bernard |first14=J. -P. |last15=Bersanelli |first15=M. |last16=Bielewicz |first16=P. |last17=Bock |first17=J. J. |last18=Bond |first18=J. R. |last19=Borrill |first19=J. |last20=Bouchet |first20=F. R. |last21=Boulanger |first21=F. |last22=Bucher |first22=M. |last23=Burigana |first23=C. |last24=Butler |first24=R. C. |last25=Calabrese |first25=E. |last26=Cardoso |first26=J. -F. |last27=Carron |first27=J. |last28=Challinor |first28=A. |last29=Chiang |first29=H. C. |last30=Chluba |first30=J. |display-authors=29 |year=2020 |volume=641 |pages=A6 |doi=10.1051/0004-6361/201833910 |arxiv=1807.06209 |s2cid=119335614 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|title=Large Magellanic Cloud Cepheid Standards Provide a 1% Foundation for the Determination of the Hubble Constant and Stronger Evidence for Physics Beyond LambdaCDM|journal = The Astrophysical Journal|volume = 876|issue = 1|pages = 85|first1=Dan|last1=Scolnic|first2=Lucas M.|last2=Macri|first3=Wenlong|last3=Yuan|first4=Stefano|last4=Casertano|first5=Adam G.|last5=Riess|date=March 18, 2019|arxiv = 1903.07603|doi = 10.3847/1538-4357/ab1422|bibcode = 2019ApJ...876...85R|s2cid = 85528549 | doi-access=free }}</ref> ([[Cosmic microwave background|CMB method]]) due to errors in their distance calibrations. Yet the reason for the redshift remained unclear. Georges Lemaรฎtre predicted on theoretical grounds based on Einstein's equations for [[general relativity]] the [[redshift]]-distance relation, and published observational support for it, two years before the discovery of Hubble's law.<ref name="nature.com">{{cite journal| title = Lost in translation: Mystery of the missing text solved Mario Livio ''Nature'' 479, 171โ173 (10 November 2011)| journal = Nature| date = November 2011| volume = 479| issue = 7372| pages = 171โ173| doi = 10.1038/479171a| last1 = Livio| first1 = Mario| pmid = 22071745| s2cid = 203468083| doi-access = free}}</ref> Although he used the term "velocities" in his paper (and "apparent radial velocities" in the introduction), he later expressed doubt about interpreting these as real velocities. In 1931, he wrote a letter to the Dutch cosmologist [[Willem de Sitter]] expressing his opinion on the theoretical interpretation of the redshift-distance relation:<ref name="Kirshner">{{Cite journal |author=Kirshner |first=Robert P. |date=January 6, 2004 |title=Hubble's diagram and cosmic expansion |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=101 |issue=1 |pages=8โ13 |bibcode=2004PNAS..101....8K |doi=10.1073/pnas.2536799100 |pmc=314128 |pmid=14695886 |doi-access=free}}</ref> {{blockquote|Mr. Humason and I are both deeply sensible of your gracious appreciation of the papers on velocities and distances of nebulae. We use the term 'apparent' velocities to emphasize the empirical features of the correlation. The interpretation, we feel, should be left to you and the very few others who are competent to discuss the matter with authority.}} Today, the "apparent velocities" in question are usually thought of as an increase in [[Comoving and proper distances|proper distance]] that occurs due to the [[expansion of the universe]]. Light traveling through an expanding metric will experience a Hubble-type redshift, a mechanism somewhat different from the [[Doppler effect]], although the two mechanisms become equivalent descriptions related by a [[Coordinate system#Transformations|coordinate transformation]] for nearby galaxies. In the 1930s, Hubble was involved in determining the distribution of galaxies and [[shape of the universe|spatial curvature]]. These data seemed to indicate that the universe was [[Euclidean geometry|flat]] and homogeneous, but there was a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. According to [[Allan Sandage]], {{blockquote|Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings, he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature."<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Sandage | first1 = Allan | year = 1989 | title = Edwin Hubble 1889โ1953 | url = http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html| journal = The Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada | volume = 83 | issue = 6 }}</ref>}} There were methodological problems with Hubble's survey technique that showed a deviation from flatness at large redshifts. In particular, the technique did not account for changes in luminosity of galaxies due to [[Galaxy formation and evolution|galaxy evolution]]. Earlier, in 1917, [[Albert Einstein]] had found that his newly developed theory of general relativity indicated that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. Unable to believe what his own equations were telling him, Einstein introduced a [[cosmological constant]] (a "[[Wiktionary:fudge factor|fudge factor]]") to the equations to avoid this "problem". When Einstein learned of Hubble's redshifts, he immediately realized that the expansion predicted by general relativity must be real, and in later life, he said that changing his equations was "the biggest blunder of [his] life".<ref>{{cite web|title=Cosmological Constant|author=Public Broadcasting Station (PBS)|publisher=PBS.org|access-date=May 29, 2011|url=https://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/strange_cosmo.html|archive-date=June 4, 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110604145438/http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/strange/html/strange_cosmo.html|url-status=dead}}</ref> In fact, Einstein apparently once visited Hubble and tried to convince him that the universe was expanding.{{Citation_needed|date=November 2024}} Hubble also discovered the [[asteroid]] [[1373 Cincinnati]] on August 30, 1935. In 1936 he wrote ''The Observational Approach to Cosmology'' and ''The Realm of the Nebulae'' which explained his approaches to extra-galactic astronomy and his view of the subject's history. In December 1941, Hubble reported to the [[American Association for the Advancement of Science]] that results from a six-year survey with the Mount Wilson telescope did not support the expanding universe theory. According to a ''Los Angeles Times'' article reporting on Hubble's remarks, "The nebulae could not be uniformly distributed, as the telescope shows they are, and still fit the explosion idea. Explanations which try to get around what the great telescope sees, he said, fail to stand up. The explosion, for example, would have had to start long after the earth was created, and possibly even after the first life appeared here."<ref name="LATimes">{{cite journal|title=Savant Refutes Theory of Exploding Universe โ Mt. Wilson Astronomer Reports Results of Long Searching With 100-Inch Telescope|journal=The Los Angeles Times |date=December 31, 1941 |page=10|url=https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/160887084/}}</ref><ref name="Harnisch">{{cite web |author=Harnisch |first=Larry |date=December 31, 2011 |title=Hubble: No Evidence of 'Big Bang' Theory |url=https://ladailymirror.com/2011/12/31/hubble-no-evidence-of-big-bang-theory/ |website=Los Angeles Daily Mirror ([[WP:NEWSBLOG]])}} (Shows legible photo of the article.)</ref> (Hubble's estimate of what we now call the Hubble constant would put the Big Bang only 2 billion years ago.)
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)