SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the expanding-like-a-waistline-on-Thanksgiving dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Reproduceability is key to science. A one-time “eureka!” could be the first step in a paradigm shift — or it could be a fluke. It’s the second, third, and hundredth measurements that put theories to the test.
That’s why recent measurements of the universe’s expansion have piqued interest. Even though astronomers have applied multiple methods relying on completely different physics, they’re still getting similar results: Today’s universe appears to be expanding faster than what’s expected based on measurements of the early universe. Can systematic errors explain this discrepancy? Or are new physics required?
Now Wendy Freedman (University of Chicago) and colleagues have posted a new, "middle-of-the-road" measurement on the astronomy preprint arXiv, adding a twist to the ongoing debate. The study will appear in the Astrophysical Journal.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday September 19 2019, @04:42PM
Being consistent with the prevailing consensus isn't the same as being explained by the current consensus.
The problem is that different means of measurement appear to give contradictory answers. I suspect that the solution is that supernovae of class 1a are not all of the same intrinsic brightness, and I think that there's evidence that they fall into two sub-classes (though I only saw one report of that a year or two ago). If this is true is means that some of the historical measurements are uncertain...and others remain valid ... but it may be impossible to separate them.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.