/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.11293005]

Why is nobody talking about this?

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Can somebody smarter than me explain why this might be disproving dark energy?

[Anonymous No.11293113]

>>11293005
Ware rotation to relativity counted in unfunctional model which was to deduce dark energy?

[Anonymous No.11293300]

>>11293005

Nothing terribly complex in principle, as stated in the article the effects of dark energy are most readily observed in more distant galaxies, the ones with higher redshift. Apparently the methods that are typically used for corrected luminosity (I assume they mean correcting in the sense of accounting for electromagnetic radiation outside the observed frequencies) are inaccurate for these high redshift galaxies and the error in these calculations may account for some or all of the irregular effects that are attributed to dark energy.

As to the actual claim it's very interesting and at least on the surface seems to be backed by legitimate data, but even if their results are sound and can be reproduced it seems much to early to rule out dark energy entirely. There certainly are other sources of evidence for dark energy which would have to be thoroughly addressed.

[Anonymous No.11293355]

>>11293005
>tl;dr
The concordance cosmological model is bullshit
Dark energy is bullshit
Jesus loves you

[Anonymous No.11293635]

>>11293355
>god of the gaps

[Anonymous No.11294608]

>>11293005
>>11293300
This. Type Ia supernovae and their light curves are only a piece of the evidence; they're suggested to have a definite luminosity curve universal to all supernovae of their type, meaning that measuring one of them can give us both redshift and distance. Redshift and distance can be used to measure how quickly objects are moving away at a given time (distance to the object gives us the time at which we're seeing it). Previously this data suggested that objects were moving away faster than they were in the past, i.e. the universe's expansion is accelerating and not constant (which was not expected, as far as I can tell).

The paper (https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903)), though I haven't read it in full, suggests that the statistics done to get the Ia supernova light curve were done based on false assumptions. I don't know if the paper claims their new interpretation implies linear expansion.

HOWEVER: type Ia supernovae are not the only evidence for dark energy, since measurements of cosmic background radiation and baryon acoustic oscillations have also been used to the same effect.

Note: Just an undergrad repeating what I know from a presentation and skimming the abstract; I also asked a cosmologist and he seemed unconcerned.

[Anonymous No.11294611]

>>11294608
This is the presentation I'm using as reference: www.physics.mcgill.ca/~jcline/dark-energy.pdf.

[Anonymous No.11296271]

>>11293005
>Why is nobody talking about this?
Perhaps because this will kill the career of about a thousand researchers.

[Anonymous No.11296276]

It basically proves God exists

[Anonymous No.11296277]

>>11293005
Ah, further developments in clamp energy.

[Anonymous No.11296295]

[Anonymous No.11296298]

>>11296276
Voila. Someone gets it.

[Anonymous No.11296300]

>>11296298
>voila
I think you mean *Wahla