Confused, are they saying that different parts of the universe are expanding at different rates? Or are they saying two methods give different results for the same parts?
This result confirms that the "hubble tension" is real. In other words, two methods for measuring the expansion of the universe disagree, but we can't figure out why and have new and really strong evidence that the "cosmic ladder" method is correct. (The other method is based on the cosmic microwave background radiation and our best theories of physics, so we're caught between a rock and a hard place here: strong experimental evidence one way, and throwing out a ton of what we think we know about the universe with no obvious replacement the other way.)
Comments
Confused, are they saying that different parts of the universe are expanding at different rates? Or are they saying two methods give different results for the same parts?
The second one.
This result confirms that the "hubble tension" is real. In other words, two methods for measuring the expansion of the universe disagree, but we can't figure out why and have new and really strong evidence that the "cosmic ladder" method is correct. (The other method is based on the cosmic microwave background radiation and our best theories of physics, so we're caught between a rock and a hard place here: strong experimental evidence one way, and throwing out a ton of what we think we know about the universe with no obvious replacement the other way.)
Is this a discrepancy a MOND variant could account for?
Two different methods give different results for the same parts. Very poorly phrased article.