- New ultra-precise measurements suggest the universe’s expansion rate is higher than standard theory predicts, deepening the ‘Hubble tension’ phys.org space.com.
- Astronomers measured the distance to the Coma galaxy cluster via Type Ia supernova “standard candles,” finding it about 38 million light-years closer than expected space.com space.com.
- The resulting Hubble constant (~75–77 km/s/Mpc) far exceeds the ~67 km/s/Mpc value from Planck satellite’s early-universe data space.com space.com.
- This mismatch has grown so significant (~5σ) that researchers call it a “crisis” in cosmology, potentially pointing to new physics phys.org phys.org.
- Competing teams are debating whether the discrepancy is real: some Webb Telescope data show no tension sci.news sci.news, but others insist the conflict remains unresolved space.com.
- Resolving this mystery could revolutionize our understanding of dark energy, cosmic history, and the fate of the universe phys.org phys.org.
A Surprise in the Stars: New Study Measures Faster Expansion
Recent observations have delivered a startling message: the universe appears to be expanding even faster than our standard cosmological model predicts phys.org. In a new high-precision study, a team led by Dan Scolnic of Duke University used the cosmic distance ladder method to measure how quickly space is stretching. They focused on the Coma Cluster of galaxies (one of the nearest big clusters) and analyzed 12 Type Ia supernovae within it—exploding stars that serve as reliable “standard candles” because their true brightness is known phys.org. By comparing their known luminosity to how dim they appear from Earth, the team calculated the cluster’s distance with unprecedented accuracy: about 320–321 million light-years away phys.org space.com. That’s roughly 38 million light-years closer than what the reigning theory (the ΛCDM standard model of cosmology) would predict for Coma’s distance space.com space.com. In practical terms, galaxies in Coma are receding faster than expected—clear evidence that the local universe’s expansion rate is higher than theory anticipates.
Using the Coma Cluster as a new anchor point (the “bottom rung” of their distance ladder), Scolnic’s team re-calibrated the Hubble constant (H₀), which is the cosmic expansion rate phys.org. They derived H₀ ≈ 76.5 km/s per Mpc (meaning every 3.26 million light-years adds ~76.5 km/s to galaxies’ recession speeds) phys.org. This value is on the high end of recent “direct” measurements in the local universe and significantly above the ~67.4 km/s/Mpc that the Planck satellite’s early-universe observations predict space.com space.com. “The universe really seems to be expanding fast. Too fast, even,” the Phys.org article notes, confirming earlier hints that something in our cosmic accounting doesn’t add up phys.org. As Scolnic put it, “The tension now turns into a crisis” if these results hold, suggesting “our model of cosmology might be broken” phys.org phys.org. In other words, either there’s a subtle flaw in how we’re measuring cosmic expansion, or new physics is waiting to be discovered.
How These Measurements Were Made (and Why They’re Different)
Determining the universe’s expansion rate is notoriously challenging. Scolnic’s team employed the “distance ladder” approach – a chain of interdependent steps astronomers use to gauge ever-greater cosmic distances phys.org phys.org. It starts with nearby objects whose distances can be measured directly (e.g. by parallax, a slight shift in apparent position as Earth orbits the Sun) phys.org. These calibrate slightly farther “standard candles” like Cepheid variable stars – pulsating stars whose brightness oscillations reveal their true luminosity phys.org space.com. Cepheids in turn calibrate even more distant markers like Type Ia supernovae (exploding white dwarfs), which shine with uniform peak brightness space.com. By leapfrogging outward with overlapping measurements – from parallax, to Cepheids, to supernovae – astronomers extend the ladder to tens of millions of light years and beyond space.com phys.org. The final step is relating those distances to galaxies’ redshifts (how much their light is stretched to redder wavelengths by recession) phys.org space.com. The proportionality between distance and recession speed yields the Hubble constant via the Hubble–Lemaître law (more distant galaxies recede faster) space.com space.com.
What’s special about the new study is the precision and placement of the first “rung.” Instead of relying on very nearby Cepheids alone, Scolnic’s team took advantage of data from the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) survey, which had constructed a distance ladder reaching out to galaxy clusters phys.org phys.org. However, the DESI ladder lacked a close-by anchor with minimal uncertainty. Scolnic realized that the Coma Cluster – being relatively near on cosmic scales – could serve as that anchor if its distance were pinned down more sharply phys.org space.com. By analyzing a dozen Type Ia supernova light curves in Coma observed by the Hubble Space Telescope, they nailed the cluster’s distance to within ~2% (±7 million ly) space.com. That 320 million light-year distance is smack in the middle of four decades’ worth of previous Coma measurements, lending confidence to its accuracy phys.org phys.org. With this as the foundation (the new first rung), the team re-calibrated the farther rungs and obtained one of the most precise H₀ values to date phys.org.
Crucially, this method is independent of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) analyses that underpin the standard model’s prediction. The CMB approach involves “rewinding” the universe to just 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the CMB light was emitted, and using a physics model to project how fast the universe should be expanding today phys.org space.com. The Planck spacecraft measured tiny fluctuations in the CMB across the sky with exquisite precision. Plugging those data into the standard ΛCDM model (which includes dark matter and dark energy) yields H₀ ≈ 67.4 km/s/Mpc phys.org space.com. By contrast, direct distance-ladder methods like Scolnic’s observe galaxies in the present-day universe (z ~ 0) and consistently find higher H₀ values in the 72–77 km/s/Mpc range space.com space.com. Both methods are extremely rigorous – each claiming only ~1–2% uncertainty – yet their results diverge by nearly 10% space.com phys.org. Statistically, that gap is far beyond a fluke. “Even though these two measurements are within 10% of each other, the difference is huge compared with the percent-level precision of each… above the 5-sigma threshold,” one explainer notes phys.org phys.org. In science, a ≥5σ discrepancy means it’s very unlikely to be chance – something fundamental is probably off.
Hubble, Planck, and the Growing “Hubble Tension”
This standoff between cosmic measurement methods has been dubbed the “Hubble tension.” It boils down to a single number – H₀ – not matching between “near” and “far” universe measurements. Legendary astronomer Edwin Hubble (and Georges Lemaître) first discovered in 1929 that the universe is expanding, and ever since, pinning down the exact expansion rate has been a Holy Grail of cosmology phys.org phys.org. Thanks to the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and other observatories, local-universe teams (like the SH0ES collaboration led by Adam Riess) have refined H₀ to about 73 km/s/Mpc in recent years phys.org. Meanwhile, the Planck satellite (run by the European Space Agency) produced a stringent CMB-based H₀ of 67.4 ± 0.7 km/s/Mpc in 2018 phys.org. The two values differ by ~5–6 km/s/Mpc, which sounds small but is far outside any overlapping error bars phys.org phys.org. Essentially, the universe seems to be expanding ~8–10% faster in the local observations than predicted from its baby-picture in the CMB space.com space.com. This poses a serious puzzle: both methods are trusted and tested, and in principle they are measuring the same cosmological parameter in two different ways.
For a while, scientists hoped the tension might evaporate with more data or improved methods – often, discrepancies shrink once errors are accounted for. But here, as each side improved precision, the disagreement persisted and even sharpened scientificamerican.com space.com. “Usually it disappears under closer scrutiny… but the disagreement has, if anything, hardened year after year,” Scientific American observed of this “dispute over a single number” scientificamerican.com scientificamerican.com. Many now regard the Hubble tension as a full-blown crisis in cosmology, because it suggests our standard model might be incomplete phys.org scientificamerican.com. “This is saying, to some respect, that our model of cosmology might be broken,” Scolnic warned after his new results strengthened the case for a faster expansion phys.org. At a January 2025 conference, he analogized that we have a “baby picture” of the universe (the CMB) and a “current adult photo” (today’s galaxy measurements), but “it doesn’t match the prediction… things don’t connect” in the growth chart space.com space.com. If both measurements are accurate, some new ingredient or change in the cosmological model may be needed to bridge the gap. As Nobel laureate Adam Riess put it, “With two NASA flagship telescopes now confirming each other’s findings, we must take this [Hubble tension] problem very seriously—it’s a challenge but also an incredible opportunity to learn more about our universe” phys.org.
Not everyone, however, is convinced that a crisis truly exists. A minority of researchers suspect that subtle measurement systematics could be skewing the local distance ladder results. For example, one has to account for cosmic dust, variations in star populations, and instrumental calibration when standard candles are used sci.news sci.news. Wendy Freedman of the University of Chicago – a pioneer of H₀ measurements – has led an alternative campaign using Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TRGB) stars instead of Cepheids to calibrate supernova distances phys.org. In mid-2023, Freedman’s team reported H₀ values around 69–70 km/s/Mpc, smack in between Planck and SH0ES, suggesting the conflict might not be as severe as thought phys.org phys.org. Then in 2025, Freedman’s group published new measurements using the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) and found H₀ ≈ 70.4 km/s/Mpc (±3%), which overlaps within uncertainties with Planck’s 67.4 sci.news. If that result holds, there may be “no evidence of tension” at all – implying the standard ΛCDM model can still accommodate all data sci.news sci.news. “This new evidence is suggesting that our Standard Model of the universe is holding up… at the moment the Hubble Constant doesn’t seem to be [the problem],” Prof. Freedman said sci.news. Essentially, her team argues that improved data (thanks to JWST’s sharp infrared vision) resolve previous discrepancies by correcting for things like dust and misidentified stars sci.news sci.news. JWST can see individual red giant stars even in distant galaxies and peer through dust to recalibrate distance indicators more accurately sci.news sci.news. In fact, Freedman’s recent work doubled the sample of calibrator galaxies and significantly tightened the uncertainties, bringing the local H₀ down closer to the CMB value news.uchicago.edu sci.news.
So is the Hubble tension a false alarm or a sign of new physics? Right now, the community is split. Scolnic and colleagues remain skeptical of the “no tension” claim. They point out that Freedman’s JWST result relied on just 10 galaxies and a particular method, whereas multiple other studies (including the new Coma Cluster measurement) consistently find higher H₀ space.com. Scolnic notes that previous distance estimates of the Coma Cluster – many done before anyone was concerned about Hubble tension – all came out much closer to the new high value than to the Planck prediction space.com. “None of them ever came close to what the prediction would be if the standard model was correct. They all show that the standard model with the Planck measurement isn’t right,” he said space.com. In his view, the latest “backyard” evidence (from a nearby galaxy cluster) should put to rest the idea that the Hubble tension isn’t real” space.com space.com. Indeed, the Coma result brings the conundrum literally close to home, eliminating the notion that the tension might only appear at very large distances.
Freedman, on the other hand, contends that one major rung of the distance ladder – Cepheid variable stars – might have slight biases. Her team found hints of a discrepancy between distances derived from Cepheids vs. red giant stars in the same galaxies using JWST phys.org. If Cepheids (used by Riess’s SH0ES team) are systematically off by a few percent due to dust or calibration issues, it could explain the inflated local H₀ measurements. This subtlety could reconcile the data without invoking exotic new physics. As she noted, researchers have published “well over 1,000 papers” on possible theoretical fixes, but “the Hubble Constant increasingly seems not to be the place to look” for cracks in the standard model news.uchicago.edu news.uchicago.edu. For now, both viewpoints coexist. The tension debate has spurred numerous conferences and even tongue-in-cheek terms like “Hubble Trouble” or “Hubble Trauma.” Some experts quip that it keeps them up at night, while others think it will all shake out with better measurements. No definitive “smoking gun” error has been found in either the SH0ES or Planck analyses after years of scrutiny phys.org, which is why the issue is taken so seriously. The stage is set for a resolution, one way or the other, in the coming years as new data pour in.
Dark Energy, Standard Candles, and Cosmic Clues
Why does this all matter? Because the Hubble constant is more than just a number—it’s a lynchpin for our understanding of the cosmos. It sets the scale and age of the universe (a faster expansion means a younger universe, all else equal) space.com. It also relates to the properties of dark energy, the mysterious force accelerating cosmic expansion. Dark energy was first inferred in 1998 when astronomers observed that distant Type Ia supernovae were dimmer (farther away) than expected in a decelerating universe phys.org. The surprising conclusion was that expansion is speeding up, driven by something akin to Einstein’s cosmological constant – what we now call dark energy phys.org. In the current standard model (ΛCDM), dark energy is treated as a constant vacuum energy (Lambda) that makes up ~70% of the universe today scientificamerican.com scientificamerican.com. The Hubble tension might be a clue that this picture isn’t complete. If the universe is expanding faster than ΛCDM predicts, one possibility is that dark energy’s strength or behavior has evolved over time, or there’s an extra injection of energy in the early universe.
Cosmologists have indeed proposed a host of creative solutions. One leading idea is “early dark energy” – a brief boost of accelerated expansion shortly after the Big Bang (well before the CMB era) that could raise the predicted H₀ value phys.org. Essentially, if the young universe expanded more (or sooner) than expected, the CMB-based calculations of today’s expansion might be undershooting. This concept can be tuned to resolve the tension, but it must be carefully balanced so as not to mess up the otherwise excellent fit of ΛCDM to the CMB and other observations phys.org. Other speculative fixes include exotic new particles (like an extra type of relativistic particle or a change in neutrino physics), unusual dark matter properties, or primordial magnetic fields affecting the early plasma phys.org phys.org. There’s even the suggestion that maybe we live in a slightly underdense local region (sometimes called a “Hubble bubble” or void) that makes expansion appear faster here than average phys.org. So far, none of these new-physics proposals has emerged as a clear winner—each tends to create as many questions as it solves phys.org. But they illustrate how profound a real Hubble tension resolution could be: it might force a “paradigm shift” in cosmology phys.org.
On the flip side, if the tension dissipates with better measurements, it would reaffirm the standard cosmological model (with dark energy as a simple cosmological constant). Freedman’s findings, for instance, suggest that ΛCDM can still accommodate all data if one accounts for subtle biases. “The new evidence is suggesting our Standard Model is holding up,” she said, which in a way is equally fascinating sci.news. It means our current theory of the universe – a mix of 5% normal matter, 25% dark matter, 70% dark energy – might be remarkably on-point scientificamerican.com. Yet even then, big mysteries would remain: what exactly is dark energy (cosmological constant or something dynamic)? Why is its density so small, and will it stay constant forever? The Hubble constant debate is entwined with these questions. A precise H₀ helps nail down the amount and properties of dark energy needed to explain cosmic history phys.org phys.org. For example, if dark energy were increasing or changing over time, we might see hints in how H₀ measured from different eras diverges. So far, aside from the H₀ tension, the ΛCDM model has passed other tests with flying colors (from element abundances to large-scale galaxy clustering) phys.org. That makes any call to overhaul it a very high bar – as some wryly note, cosmologists won’t toss out a model that explains 95% of the universe just to fix a 5% discrepancy, unless they absolutely must scientificamerican.com. This is why so much effort is going into both tightening the measurements and exploring new physics that might subtly adjust the expansion rate without wrecking the rest of cosmology.
What the Experts Are Saying
The new results have certainly grabbed cosmologists’ attention. In the Phys.org article, Dan Scolnic emphasized that their Coma Cluster measurement provides “tremendous support” to the view that the problem lies in our models, not in mis-measurement phys.org phys.org. “It matches the expansion rate as other teams have recently measured it, but not as our current understanding of physics predicts it,” the article notes phys.org. This strengthens the case that the standard model’s prediction is what’s off. Scolnic flatly stated, “the Hubble tension is not gone,” implicitly pushing back on claims it was resolved space.com. He also remarked, “You can see in all those previous [distance] measurements… none of them ever came close to [the Planck prediction] if the standard model was correct” space.com. In his view, we’re seeing a consistent pattern that points to new physics.
On the other side, Wendy Freedman and collaborators are urging caution about declaring a crisis. She suggests that once James Webb’s superior data are incorporated, the local vs. early-universe measurements may yet converge within uncertainties sci.news. “We’ve more than doubled our sample of galaxies… The statistical improvement is significant. This considerably strengthens the result,” Freedman said of her JWST work sci.news sci.news. Her colleague Dr. Barry Madore noted how Webb’s infrared detectors cut through dust and pinpoint individual stars, eliminating some sources of error that plagued earlier Hubble measurements sci.news sci.news. Freedman’s takeaway is optimistic: “I am optimistic about resolving this in the next few years, as we boost the accuracy to make these measurements” news.uchicago.edu. In her eyes, the Hubble constant may no longer be the harbinger of new physics, and we should look elsewhere for cracks in the model (like the nature of dark matter or other cosmic anomalies) news.uchicago.edu.
Nobel laureate Adam Riess – who has a foot in both camps as co-leader of HST distance-ladder studies and a user of JWST – highlighted the silver lining of the tension. “The discrepancy… suggests that our understanding of the universe may be incomplete,” he said, “It’s a challenge but also an incredible opportunity to learn more about our universe” phys.org. Under Riess’s guidance, JWST’s “high definition” observations have confirmed Hubble’s earlier distance measurements rather than exposing any big mistakes phys.org. In late 2024, Riess’s team used Webb to measure dozens of Cepheids and red giant stars, finding H₀ ≈ 72.6 km/s/Mpc, virtually identical to Hubble’s 72.8 for the same galaxies phys.org. This cross-check ruled out the hope that the tension was due to a systematic error by HST phys.org. “With two flagship telescopes now confirming each other, we must take this problem very seriously,” Riess stressed phys.org. Another expert, Marc Kamionkowski (a theoretical cosmologist not involved in the new measurements), commented on the stakes of this problem. The standard model has been tremendously successful, but it “does not fully explain the nature of dark matter and dark energy, [which are] 96% of the universe’s makeup” phys.org. In light of the H₀ impasse, Kamionkowski mused, “One possible explanation… would be if there was something missing in our understanding of the early universe, such as a new component of matter—‘early dark energy’—that gave the universe an unexpected kick after the Big Bang. And there are other ideas, like funny dark matter properties, exotic particles, changing electron mass, or primordial magnetic fields that may do the trick. Theorists have license to get pretty creative.” phys.org His point is that while nobody wants to overhaul the standard model without cause, this tension is exactly the sort of crack that could herald new discoveries if it holds up.
What’s Next: New Telescopes, New Data, New Ideas
Whether the Hubble tension signals new physics or not, the coming years promise to be decisive. Upcoming observatories and surveys will further refine the cosmic expansion rate from multiple angles. For instance, the European Space Agency’s Euclid space telescope (launched 2023) has begun mapping billions of galaxies to measure baryon acoustic oscillations (BAO) – basically “frozen” sound wave patterns from the early universe imprinted on galaxy clustering space.com. BAO observations, in combination with CMB data, offer another way to infer H₀ with high precision space.com. The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI), mentioned earlier, is midway through a massive 5-year galaxy survey that will provide both early-universe (BAO) and late-universe (supernova) measurements of H₀ space.com space.com. In fact, DESI’s initial results already mirror the tension: using BAO (an early-universe method) DESI gets H₀ ≈ 68.5, but using supernovae observed in the same survey, DESI finds H₀ ≈ 76 (with larger uncertainties) space.com. As DESI accumulates 30 million galaxy redshifts, it should tighten those uncertainties and test if the discrepancy persists space.com space.com.
Meanwhile, NASA’s Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope (scheduled for late 2025 launch) will perform an extensive survey of distant supernovae and galaxies. Roman’s data could vastly improve distance ladder calibrations (it will observe Cepheids and supernovae across many galaxies with HST-like resolution but a far larger field of view). The Vera C. Rubin Observatory on Earth will also play a role by discovering thousands of new Type Ia supernovae and variable stars through its wide-field Legacy Survey of Space and Time (LSST). More supernovae spread across different environments will help average out potential quirks and reduce statistical errors in H₀. Every new distance measurement – if consistent – adds confidence that we haven’t been misled by an “odd” subset of galaxies. Scolnic’s Coma Cluster approach could be extended to other nearby clusters, and Freedman noted her team plans to use JWST next on the Coma cluster itself (interesting symmetry) to obtain a direct JWST distance with red giants alone news.uchicago.edu. “These measurements will allow us to measure the Hubble constant directly, without the additional step of needing the supernovae,” she said, referring to using Webb to calibrate distances via red giants in Coma and bypass some rungs news.uchicago.edu. Results from that project, expected in the next year or two, will be watched closely – will JWST’s Coma distance agree with Scolnic’s HST+supernova value?
Another exciting avenue is gravitational-wave “standard sirens.” When neutron stars or black holes merge, they release gravitational waves that can be measured by detectors like LIGO. If the same event is also seen with telescopes (like a neutron star merger producing a visible explosion), astronomers can get both an absolute distance (from the gravitational wave signal’s amplitude) and a redshift (from the galaxy hosting the merger). This completely independent method can determine H₀ without any cosmic ladder or CMB assumptions – essentially a direct “ringing” of spacetime as a yardstick. The first such standard siren in 2017 gave an H₀ around 70 km/s/Mpc (with large uncertainty), but future runs aim for much higher precision phys.org. A network of next-generation detectors in the 2030s could measure enough of these events to pin down H₀ to a few percent and hopefully arbitrate the tension from a fresh perspective phys.org. As one article noted, “The quality of H₀ measurements will inevitably improve with new data from JWST, new samples of supernovae, and innovative techniques such as using gravitational waves… But whether these efforts will resolve the Hubble tension, or worsen it, remains to be seen.” phys.org
On the theoretical front, cosmologists are eagerly awaiting what the data will say. If all the new observations continue to show a real mismatch, then by late this decade the case for new physics will be much stronger. We might see a shift toward more exotic models – for example, incorporating a phase of early dark energy, or other tweaks to the standard model – being seriously considered in textbooks. Already, workshops are being held on possible extensions to ΛCDM specifically to address the H₀ issue phys.org phys.org. Conversely, if JWST, Roman, and others bring the direct measurements down closer to 67 km/s/Mpc, the tension could melt away. In that scenario, cosmologists would breathe a sigh of relief that the Concordance Model survives intact, but they would still be left pondering why the initial discrepancy arose and what subtle factors corrected it. As Freedman commented, discovering that the standard model was right all along (for H₀) would refocus the hunt on other cosmic mysteries – like the true nature of dark energy and dark matter, which remain unknown news.uchicago.edu phys.org.
Either outcome promises new insights. If a solution requires new physics, it could revolutionize our understanding of fundamental forces or particles. If instead the solution is improved measurement, it will demonstrate the incredible power of next-gen technology (like JWST’s optics) to resolve cosmic mysteries. “For now, our understanding of the universe continues to be dogged by disagreement in measurements of the expansion rate,” wrote one scientist, “One hundred years after its conception, the Hubble constant continues to confound us.” phys.org phys.org. But the consensus is that we won’t remain confounded forever. As more data roll in, answers will emerge. “I am optimistic about resolving this,” Freedman said, expressing a view shared by many, “in the next few years, as we boost the accuracy….” news.uchicago.edu. Whether the resolution upholds the standard cosmology or shatters it, the mere fact that a single cosmic number has led to such excitement shows how dynamic and self-correcting science can be. The universe might be telling us something new – and now it’s up to us to listen, measure, and understand.
Sources:
- Chelini, M.C. (2025). Phys.org: New measurement confirms universe’s faster-than-expected expansion phys.org phys.org.
- Cooper, K. (2025). Space.com: Coma Cluster findings deepen the Hubble constant crisis space.com space.com.
- Johns Hopkins Univ. (2024). Phys.org: Webb telescope data confirm Hubble’s accuracy, tension remains phys.org phys.org.
- The Conversation (2024). Phys.org: Background on Hubble tension and measurement methods phys.org phys.org.
- Lerner, L. (2025). UChicago News: Freedman’s Webb Telescope study finds no H₀ tension news.uchicago.edu news.uchicago.edu.
- Sci.News (2025). Astronomy: Wendy Freedman on resolving the Hubble Constant conflict sci.news sci.news.
- Kamionkowski, M. (2024). Phys.org: Commentary on possible new physics behind Hubble tension phys.org phys.org.
