Currently, there is a large mismatch between calculations of the rate of expansion of the universe using different methods. This questions asks whether this mismatch will become better or worse with data from James Webb Telescope
Resolves whenever the first peer-reviewed study that uses James Webb data to estimate the Hubble constant using the distance ladder and Cepheids is released. Will extend the close date if needed. When such a study is released, if it's estimate is more at odds (has a smaller probability of being different by random chance) with Planck's estimate of the Hubble constant than the latest large study that estimated Hubble's constant based on Gaia and Hubble data, then this questions resolves YES. Otherwise, resolves NO.
1,000
1.00There is a preprint paper by Wendy Freedman Et Al which could resolve this to NO, due to the error bars being bigger. However, after a quick change of mind, I will keep this closed to avoid a situation where traders race to adjust this market after reopening.
We are waiting for the paper to pass peer review. Estimates could change
Update: The crisis in cosmology might actually get solved, after all. There were a few papers since this market opened that used Cepheids to recalculate part of the cosmic distance ladder and confirmed the Hubble results, but that doesn't count as those papers stopped there and did arrive at a new estimate for H0. There is currently a paper in the works that seems to have arrived at a new estimate for H0 that actually solves the crisis in cosmology. The paper has not been published and did not yet pass peer review. I will clarify that if the paper passes peer review and gets released as is, this market will resolve NO, despite any opposition from other researchers. The resolution of this market does not require scientific consensus, it only looks at the next released paper. More info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKmPJmaeP8A