Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dark energy is in error

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by AnimalMuppet on Monday January 06, 2020 @06:13PM (#21974595)

It is my impression that dark energy is generally accepted in cosmology. Whether that counts as "proceeding as if dark energy is well evidenced" is perhaps a different question. If everyone believes it's there, but nobody knows what it is, well... there was still something that convinced them that it was there. That something should be evidence. Is it enough to count as "well evidenced"? Perhaps not, especially if this new study is correct that one piece of the evidence does not actually support dark energy.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by ncmncm on Monday January 06, 2020 @08:05PM (#21975603)

I don't know of any other evidence for dark energy, other than that mathematical physicists think the equations would be prettier with some, although they sort of wish there was more. It is quite embarrassing that the value was so close to zero without being zero, so that might be one embarrassment less.

We already knew there was likely to be something fishy about the most distant supernovas, because we have two divergent values for the Hubble constant, one of them based on these same supernovas.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by ailideex on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @02:23AM (#21977790)

> I don't know of any other evidence for dark energy, other than that mathematical physicists think the equations would be prettier with some, although they sort of wish there was more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existe...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by AnimalMuppet on Monday January 06, 2020 @08:15PM (#21975691)

Hmm. Is this new result in the right direction to solve the Hubble Constant problem?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by ncmncm on Monday January 06, 2020 @08:21PM (#21975737)

Haha, it would be fun if we now have three Hubble constants.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by trhway on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @02:30AM (#21977833)

my personal favorite value for the Hubble constant is the "c" divided by the age of Universe, it results in 70.8 km/s/Mpc, right in the middle of the other 2 established Hubble constant's values, a very nice coincidence that the objects at the Universe age distance are running away exactly with "c".

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday January 07, 2020 @07:19PM (#21986827)

A coincidence? I think it might be an identity.

But that would mean that disputes about the value of the Hubble Constant are also disputes about the age of the universe, and vice versa.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by ncmncm on Wednesday January 08, 2020 @04:56PM (#21996221)

Right, and that has been revised a few times recently.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by mindcrime on Monday January 06, 2020 @08:32PM (#21975797)

https://xkcd.com/927/

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Evidence that the key assumption made in discovery of dar... by StanislavPetrov on Monday January 06, 2020 @09:50PM (#21976315)

>If everyone believes it's there, but nobody knows what it is, well... there was still something that convinced them that it was there.

The article stipulates what convinced these people that it was there, namely that they rested their conclusions on an assumption that turned out to be wrong.

This result is based on the assumption that the corrected luminosity of SN Ia through the empirical standardization would not evolve with redshift.

Which is another good reason not to make conclusive judgements based on unproven assumptions (not that everyone that "dark energy" must exist, but many did, and some people still cling to it even if the face of this study). It is also a good example of why one should never give credence to a theory or a supposition based on how many other people give it credence - stick to what you can prove.

[ Parent | on HN ]