…there are two different ways to measure this cosmic expansion rate, and they don’t agree. One method looks deep into the past by analyzing cosmic microwave background radiation, the faint afterglow of the Big Bang. The other studies Cepheid variable stars in nearby galaxies, whose brightness allows astronomers to map more recent expansion.
You’d expect both methods to give the same answer. Instead, they disagree—by a lot. And this mismatch is what scientists call the Hubble tension…Webb’s data agrees with Hubble’s and completely rules out measurement error as the cause of the discrepancy. It’s now harder than ever to explain away the tension as a statistical fluke. This inconsistency suggests something big might be missing from our understanding of the universe - something beyond current theories involving dark matter, dark energy, or even gravity itself. When the same universe appears to expand at different rates depending on how and where you look, it raises the possibility that our entire cosmological model may need rethinking.
Am I missing something or is there just no source given in this article? I would really like to be able to read more but I can’t find anything in the recent press releases from the JWST team or through a quick search. It doesn’t even say who the “researchers” are.
Also why is every other sentence bolded? It made it really hard to read.
Edit: It seems that the article is mostly taken from this 2023 NASA blog post. The raisin bread analogy is on Wikipedia.
Even if this isn’t AI slop this is a lazy article.
I was a bit confused too as I was pretty sure this was old news. Here’s a NASA article from 2023 with more information.
Is it related to this finding?
https://webbtelescope.org/contents/news-releases/2025/news-2025-116?n=\L4%40&news=true
Maybe, although I think that’s a separate mystery that the JWST has found. It’s quite possible that when they solve one of these riddles it’ll crack the other too, that’s the joy of science. We kniw our models of the universe and how it works are wrong, but they’ve been useful so far. We’ll keep on refining them and making them even more useful.
Yeah, fair, the NASA article is better. I’m not mad about it, though; I’d rather talk about the JWST, cosmology, and the Hubble tension than more political shit.