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]
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.
(Score: 5, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:12PM
But they're just reassessing the amount of dark energy, not rather a large unknown variable affects the expansion of the universe.
This isn't a complete unwind of important core discoveries, but just a concern that some numbers need to be recalculated.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:23PM
I will admit that I personally have never been particularly convinced, which is why I like it being challenged. The Nobel prize was also awarded way too soon, the theory was far too young - it even spoilt the notion of the Nobels for me to see them flinging out an award almost wantonly. (Compare the multi-decade gap between Higg's theory and the LHC validation.) If the theory can withstand all assaults, then that is only good for it theory, so believers should welcome such attacks as much as us non-believers.
Game on...
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:57PM
believers ? we're talking science here, not religion.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:09PM
Science is impartial, scientists aren't.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:35PM
For example, did Kepler not, after making his measurements and calculations, believe that planets orbited the sun in ellipses? His belief was based on evidence - his fastideously-obtained measurements, and some solid mathematical theorems - but it's still belief. And he was correct in that belief... until he was wrong. And that's science. Anyone who does science with absolute unshakeable certainty, is not doing science.
Please learn some metaphysics.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:52PM
What do you think of the ideas of Julian Barbour, trying to remove time from space in a more Machian way?
According to an article in
https://edge.org/conversation/the-end-of-time/ [edge.org],
'Stephen Hawking "might be quite sympathetic, because he's been basically working along those lines for many years now"'
I like Barbour's work, because it has an Occam's razor aspect for me: it is more believable for me that 'time' and space are separate and that time is only an aspect of the movement of 'things' through space, than that there are (26?) imaginary dimensions in space and that "we'll find them some day".
Any thoughts about that? (truly interested in hearing pros and cons).
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:42PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:37AM
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. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:20AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:49PM
Epistemology will suffice.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @07:35AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday April 16 2015, @11:33AM
In my understanding, you are wrong:
While the last two branches may be coerced to accept idealist positions (George Berkeley managed to spectacularly rape them). most of their successful applications are nested into the realist philosophical views.
https://www.youtube.com/@ProfSteveKeen https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:21PM
Which, given the wide disparity in philosophical texts, is not a huge surprise - it's a field that thrives off different interpretations of things. (Which is why I don't care to too deeply dable, the history I find more interesting than the philosophising itself.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:57PM
All of mathematics, and thus most of science, is built on faith - faith that, because theorems correlate well to reality, that they will always do so. Its easy to test 2+2, and its relatively easy to find out something's area, but its not possible to physically test much of mathematics, so we can only have faith that the correlations will always hold.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:37PM
The problem isn't testing the math, it's finding the areas where it maps onto the universe. You can add 2 marbles + 2 marbles and get four marbles, but if you add 2 clouds and 2 clouds you may get any number between 1 and 4...and that's assuming you didn't need to move them in the process of adding them, but just did a superposition (perhaps by observing at different wavelengths).
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:31PM
> I'm very glad to see that some scientists are prepared to put now-"standard" theories to the test.
Caveat - I am an accelerator physicist and it is a while since I studied cosmology.
There is an implication in this statement that "scientists" don't tend to question the standard models. I believe that the entire field is attempting to define tests that can address the standard cosmological model, either to confirm it or find cracks. But I don't know of any evidence right now that refutes the standard cosmological model or any other models that support the experimental data, while there is plenty of evidence that supports it.
It is true that science is "lazy" in that it chooses the simplest model that fits available data...
> I will admit that I personally have never been particularly convinced, which is why I like it being challenged.
Why not - specifically what data is there that does not fit the model?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:02PM
A theory based on a few blinking lights having certain brightnesses at certain red-shifts, and some assumptions that this new paper calls into question, I consider pretty scant evidence, compared to some of the really solid theories out there. If the new paper is correct, the nobel laureats have assumed a spherical cow.
Something testably predictive in the theory would be nice. That way, we can go hunting for corroborating evidence. You can't balance a single card - but two cards will support each other nicely.
Dark Energy is so ill-defined at the moment, I'm not sure that it even warrants being considered a "model". We haven't even worked out the attractive forces holding the universe together yet (hence having to introduce Dark Matter as a Deus Ex Machina), to layer some additional repulsive forces on top of that is doubly-shaky.
I just think we need more experiments, and more data. Keep doing science, basically.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:24PM
To quote wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy, [wikipedia.org] few pieces of evidence:
* Supernovae - your standard candles argument holds here; although there are other standard candles that are not Type Ia supernovae
* Cosmic microwave background - nothing to do with standard candles, relies on assumption that general relativity is correct
* Large-scale structure - relies on assumption that special relativity is correct (i.e. light cones happen)
* Late-time integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect: no comment, don't really understand this
* Observational Hubble constant data: relies on standard candles again
So of 5 quoted evidences, only 2 depend on standard candles, and one is really basic and comes from assuming that special relativity is correct. I think it is reasonable to say the model is pretty good.
Nb: On the topic of spherical cows, one of my best triumphs was assuming that stars are square to get the light profile for occluding binaries. I got the answer correct to ~ 30 %, no one else in the class got even close. I was appalled that my physics teacher thought it was "wrong" .
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:33PM
So your teacher thought that stars are one-sided? :-)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @09:31PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Thursday April 16 2015, @08:16AM
> Note that "relies on assumption that general relativity is correct" implies "relies on Dark Matter",
Yes, that is true at this scale. Of course, general relativity has been shown to be a nice model at scales of e.g. solar system without need for dark matter (e.g. explains orbital precession). Dark Matter is required at >= galactic scales
> which we're nowhere near.
Well, not sure about that, but that is off-topic
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:28PM
You can find the full article on arXiv [arxiv.org] without access restrictions.
Note however that, as of now, the authors seem not to have updated the arXiv version after publication, so the version on arXiv might not be completely identical to the journal version.
(Score: 2, Informative) by PiMuNu on Wednesday April 15 2015, @03:33PM
The standard publication route is to put a final draft on arxiv to meet freedom of publication rules; and then to hand over copyright of the edited version to the journal to meet their copyright restrictions. This is standard practice in physics.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:37PM
Except that the version on arXiv is about 8 months older than the article, which makes it likely that it is not the final version.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:39PM
You are ignoring the delay in the publishers publication cycle. They are likely to be essentially the same article modulo some grammatical and spelling changes which may either improve or degrade the published article.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:22PM
I was one of a handful of people to "discover" a type 1a through the Snapshot Supernova [zooniverse.org] project. I was on telly talking to Brian Cox and everything.
Now I find out it was all for nothing!
KHAAAAAAAN!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:26PM
"Identify" (without the quotes) would have been a better word to use than "discover" (with or without quotes).
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @05:58PM
http://www.astronomerstelegram.org/?read=7261 [astronomerstelegram.org]
^ did they get your name wrong?
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday April 15 2015, @06:33PM
Yeah, they did :(
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday April 15 2015, @07:35PM
> KHAAAAAAAN!
-- Jarvis Cocker
FTFY