21–30 of 295 posts
Not so fast. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. There are good reasons to suspect that there are errors made in this analysis. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191 [2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosm...
"...Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."" Is he implying that other cosmologists…
>> Is he implying that other cosmologists have proceeded as if dark energy is well evidenced? As a non-cosmologist just reading HN I would say yes. Not quite as extensively as Dark matter though. I personally think that's a mistake too based on my limited research on the topic. If these are both overturned it will be a huge blow to "scientists" credibility in the eyes of the public. That's how invested they are.
Not so fast. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. There are good reasons to suspect that there are errors made in this analysis. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191 [2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosm...
Read more about the Primer Fields.
No, really. Rather than tell us to go read something (just a term, not even a link) that has a name that might, just possibly, be relevant to the topic at hand (or might be some obscure abstract mathematical thing, or something about painting), maybe you could tell us why you think we should read more about them, and where you recommend we go to do so.
Not so fast. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. There are good reasons to suspect that there are errors made in this analysis. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191 [2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosm...
"...Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."" Is he implying that other cosmologists…
I thought dark matter and dark energy are simply placeholders for a discrepancy we see between our models of the universe and our observations. No?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Is he implying that other cosmologists have proceeded as if dark energy is well evidenced? As a non-cosmologist just reading HN I would say yes. Not quite as extensively as Dark matter though. I personally think that's a mistake too based on my limited research on the topic. If these are both overturned it will be a huge blow to "scientists" credibility in the eyes of the public. That's how invested they are.
> If these are both overturned it will be a huge blow to "scientists" credibility This is nonsense. Scientists have been wrong in several occasions, it is just part of the profession. For example, in the years leading to the discovery of relativity, many physicists believed there was something called "ether" that worked to fix the speed of light that they had evidence to be the same in all directions.
Feynman warned about this specific phenomenon: basing new physics on the points at the extreme end of your graph, where the measurements are least reliable.
In this case, these points correspond to demolition of the most distant and youngest stars in the sample, which could differ in many ways from the common, much more recent events. Low metallicity is a difference that is obvious to every AP, but there is no reason to assume it is the only one. We just don't get to study any young-universe stars that haven't blown up.
Did anybody even discuss metallicity and possible effects on brightness of t1a sn's, when DE was first proclaimed? If not, why not?
Read more about the Primer Fields.