Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday October 27 2016, @02:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the slow-down dept.

A newly published analysis of Type Ia supernovae calls into question the accelerating expansion of the universe and the existence of dark energy:

Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace. Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae – the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars – picked up by the Hubble space telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named 'dark energy' that drives this accelerating expansion.

Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University's Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set – a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size – the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.

Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae (open, DOI: 10.1038/srep35596) (DX)


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by RedBear on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:39AM

    by RedBear (1734) on Thursday October 27 2016, @06:39AM (#419308)

    I'm so far from being a theoretical physicist or astrophysicist it's not even funny. But of course like most people I like to ponder such things. Someone else pointed out this interesting blog [blogspot.com] by an actual physics professor(?) in the UK, Mike McCulloch, who espouses the idea of something called MiHsC or Quantum Inertia, wherein objects that come very close to achieving zero inertia end up getting pushed along at a certain minimum speed by encountering Unruh radiation waves with extremely long wavelengths. Like, the "horizon of the observable universe" long. If I'm understanding the gist of the theory correctly.

    Anywho, seems like a universe that's plodding along pushing itself apart at a steady, constant pace would jive much better with his theory than a universe being pushed apart at a constantly accelerating pace due to "dark energy". Because according to the MiHsC theory objects simply can't come to a complete standstill, but the Unruh radiation only accelerates objects to a certain (very small) maximum velocity, which wouldn't seem to jive well with a constantly increasing rate of expansion. Again, that's if I'm understanding things in layman's terms correctly.

    The blog is really interesting because he purports to explain something like 29 different unexplained cosmic and subatomic phenomena without the use of either dark energy or dark matter "fudging". All with what seems to be a remarkably simple equation. I'd love to see a few people here with more experience in the field weigh in on how rational the theory seems to be.

    --
    ¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
    ... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:46PM

    by Justin Case (4239) on Thursday October 27 2016, @01:46PM (#419401) Journal

    objects that come very close to achieving zero inertia

    So, nearly-massless objects?

    objects simply can't come to a complete standstill

    In relation to what?

    objects to a certain (very small) maximum velocity

    In relation to what? There isn't a zero-point in the universe against which all other positions and velocities can be measured.

    What you're saying may be entirely correct, and my understanding of this stuff is pretty limited. But I'm not following your reasoning here.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:41PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 27 2016, @08:41PM (#419557)

    Not sayin', but just sayin'.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html [ucr.edu]