Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:44PM   Printer-friendly
from the not-your-momma's-chevy-nova dept.

Science Daily has an intriguing article, "Accelerating universe? Not so fast", which notes the discovery that type Ia supernovae, which are used as a 'standard candle' for measuring distances in the universe, actually come in two different subtypes. Though nearly indistinguishable in normal optical frequencies, the differences became apparent when examined in the ultraviolet. The significance is two type IA supernovae having the same luminosity may actually be located at different distances from us. This, in turn, calls into question how fast the universe is expanding.

So, if I measured the brightness of a "100-watt bulb" at 1km, and then measure another "100-watt bulb" and find it to have the same brightness, I would assume that it, too, was 1km away. Apparently some "100-watt bulbs" are dimmer than others — and, according to the inverse square law, would be closer to me than 1 km.

I've been unable to determine how much a difference this would cause in our estimation of the rate of the expansion of the universe. Also, I suspect this might affect our 3-D maps of the universe and what is located where. How will it affect the current thinking about "dark energy"? How much of an impact are we looking at here? What else might be affected?

[Continued after the break]

From the article:

The team, led by UA (University of Arizona) astronomer Peter A. Milne, discovered that type Ia supernovae, which have been considered so uniform that cosmologists have used them as cosmic "beacons" to plumb the depths of the universe, actually fall into different populations. The findings are analogous to sampling a selection of 100-watt light bulbs at the hardware store and discovering that they vary in brightness.

"We found that the differences are not random, but lead to separating Ia supernovae into two groups, where the group that is in the minority near us are in the majority at large distances -- and thus when the universe was younger," said Milne, an associate astronomer with the UA's Department of Astronomy and Steward Observatory. "There are different populations out there, and they have not been recognized. The big assumption has been that as you go from near to far, type Ia supernovae are the same. That doesn't appear to be the case."

The discovery casts new light on the currently accepted view of the universe expanding at a faster and faster rate, pulled apart by a poorly understood force called dark energy.

[...] "The idea behind this reasoning," Milne explained, "is that type Ia supernovae happen to be the same brightness -- they all end up pretty similar when they explode. Once people knew why, they started using them as mileposts for the far side of the universe.

"The faraway supernovae should be like the ones nearby because they look like them, but because they're fainter than expected, it led people to conclude they're farther away than expected, and this in turn has led to the conclusion that the universe is expanding faster than it did in the past."

An abstract is available, article is paywalled.

Because of the slightly different colors for these groups, NUV-red SNe will have their extinction underestimated using common techniques. This, in turn, leads to underestimation of the optical luminosity of the NUV-blue SNe Ia, in particular, for the high-redshift cosmological sample. Not accounting for this effect should thus produce a distance bias that increases with redshift and could significantly bias measurements of cosmological parameters.

 
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: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:42PM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:42PM (#171190) Homepage
    Unfortunately his school is tainted by having one too many loons (the "motion is impossible" ones). He has quite a mathematical approach, and it's not particularly new, it's just like the phase spaces from way back. Minkowski's space-time can easily be viewed that way. I can't understand how he gets what we know about General Relativity to work in his system, but that's because I've not looked into either it or GR deeply enough. However, http://www.gravity-and-light.org/lectures/ is in a browser tab, and I shall at least brush up on that side of things.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:37AM

    by Gaaark (41) on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:37AM (#171259) Journal

    Wow... he lost me in lecture one when he started talking about 'curly O's', and monsters, sub-sets of a set, and etc. (http://www.gravity-and-light.org/lectures/)

    Will stick with it a bit longer, but it may be quite beyond me. :(

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:20AM

      by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:20AM (#171433) Homepage
      I was lucky in that I'd done all of that stuff, even though it was 25 years ago and in a different order and with different connections (I had epsilon-balls and metrics before I had topologies, which made his approach seem at first quirky, but to be honest simpler - as he said, you want the theory based on the fewest assumptions). I'm sure I'll hit the wall before too long, though.
      --
      Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves