- Posts: 1208
Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
21 Oct 2016 21:11 #262223
by Loudzoo
Universe expanding at an accelerating rate? was created by Loudzoo
This is interesting . . . if you're into cosmology. A new paper using a data set 10 times larger than the original data set used in the late '90's to 'prove' that the universe is expanding at a an accelerating rate, is much less statistically significant than the original analysis. So the evidence still suggests that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate but now the collected evidence is less compelling than it previously was.
Article: https://astronomynow.com/2016/10/21/the-universe-is-expanding-at-an-accelerating-rate-or-is-it/
Paper [for Gisteron ]: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596
Article: https://astronomynow.com/2016/10/21/the-universe-is-expanding-at-an-accelerating-rate-or-is-it/
Paper [for Gisteron ]: http://www.nature.com/articles/srep35596
Warning: Spoiler!
Five years ago, the Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded to three astronomers for their discovery, in the late 1990s, that the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace.
Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae — the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars — picked up by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named ‘dark energy’ that drives this accelerating expansion.
Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set — a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size — the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: “The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by ‘dark energy’ that behaves like a cosmological constant — this is now the ‘standard model’ of cosmology.
“However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae — over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based — and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call ‘3 sigma’. This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
“An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance — 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year — and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data shows that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.”
There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background — the faint afterglow of the Big Bang — from ESA’s Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: “All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.
“So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model — one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas — two key assumptions of standard cosmology — may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.”
Professor Sarkar added: “Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully, this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive ‘laser comb’ to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.”
Their conclusions were based on analysis of Type Ia supernovae — the spectacular thermonuclear explosions of dying stars — picked up by the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope and large ground-based telescopes. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by a mysterious substance named ‘dark energy’ that drives this accelerating expansion.
Now, a team of scientists led by Professor Subir Sarkar of Oxford University’s Department of Physics has cast doubt on this standard cosmological concept. Making use of a vastly increased data set — a catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae, more than ten times the original sample size — the researchers have found that the evidence for acceleration may be flimsier than previously thought, with the data being consistent with a constant rate of expansion.
The study is published in the Nature journal Scientific Reports.
Professor Sarkar, who also holds a position at the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, said: “The discovery of the accelerating expansion of the universe won the Nobel Prize, the Gruber Cosmology Prize, and the Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics. It led to the widespread acceptance of the idea that the universe is dominated by ‘dark energy’ that behaves like a cosmological constant — this is now the ‘standard model’ of cosmology.
“However, there now exists a much bigger database of supernovae on which to perform rigorous and detailed statistical analyses. We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae — over ten times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was based — and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at most, what physicists call ‘3 sigma’. This is far short of the 5 sigma standard required to claim a discovery of fundamental significance.
“An analogous example in this context would be the recent suggestion for a new particle weighing 750 GeV based on data from the Large Hadron Collider at CERN. It initially had even higher significance — 3.9 and 3.4 sigma in December last year — and stimulated over 500 theoretical papers. However, it was announced in August that new data shows that the significance has dropped to less than 1 sigma. It was just a statistical fluctuation, and there is no such particle.”
There is other data available that appears to support the idea of an accelerating universe, such as information on the cosmic microwave background — the faint afterglow of the Big Bang — from ESA’s Planck satellite. However, Professor Sarkar said: “All of these tests are indirect, carried out in the framework of an assumed model, and the cosmic microwave background is not directly affected by dark energy. Actually, there is indeed a subtle effect, the late-integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect, but this has not been convincingly detected.
“So it is quite possible that we are being misled and that the apparent manifestation of dark energy is a consequence of analysing the data in an oversimplified theoretical model — one that was in fact constructed in the 1930s, long before there was any real data. A more sophisticated theoretical framework accounting for the observation that the universe is not exactly homogeneous and that its matter content may not behave as an ideal gas — two key assumptions of standard cosmology — may well be able to account for all observations without requiring dark energy. Indeed, vacuum energy is something of which we have absolutely no understanding in fundamental theory.”
Professor Sarkar added: “Naturally, a lot of work will be necessary to convince the physics community of this, but our work serves to demonstrate that a key pillar of the standard cosmological model is rather shaky. Hopefully, this will motivate better analyses of cosmological data, as well as inspiring theorists to investigate more nuanced cosmological models. Significant progress will be made when the European Extremely Large Telescope makes observations with an ultrasensitive ‘laser comb’ to directly measure over a ten to 15-year period whether the expansion rate is indeed accelerating.”
The Librarian
Knight of TOTJO: Initiate Journal , Apprentice Journal , Knight Journal , Loudzoo's Scrapbook
TM: Proteus
Knighted Apprentices: Tellahane , Skryym
Apprentices: Squint , REBender
Master's Thesis: The Jedi Book of Life
If peace cannot be maintained with honour, it is no longer peace . . .
Knight of TOTJO: Initiate Journal , Apprentice Journal , Knight Journal , Loudzoo's Scrapbook
TM: Proteus
Knighted Apprentices: Tellahane , Skryym
Apprentices: Squint , REBender
Master's Thesis: The Jedi Book of Life
If peace cannot be maintained with honour, it is no longer peace . . .
The following user(s) said Thank You: Alexandre Orion, Lykeios Little Raven
Please Log in to join the conversation.
19 Mar 2017 17:25 #278661
by
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
Interesting article. I like the idea of moving away from the dark energy requirement (not a Star Wars joke!)... it just sits wrong with me and i think we are creating ideas too easily to explain observations that are themselves tenuous... No dark energy and a constant rate of expansion and I'll sleep a lot better!
Please Log in to join the conversation.
19 Mar 2017 18:08 #278663
by
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
I have absolutely disagreed with the accelerated expansion and dark energy theory. The assumptions were too grand from not enough knowledge. We have no real clue as to most of the workings of the universe.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
06 Jan 2018 21:19 #311291
by
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
I'm pretty sure that like gravity (which pulls things together) there is expansion, which does the opposite of gravity. I think they are in a constant war with each other, pulling on each other until one wins and the universe rapidly expands or becomes smaller and smaller.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
06 Jan 2018 22:26 #311297
by
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
There is no gravity in space unless it is by a star or planet.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
06 Jan 2018 22:35 #311299
by
Well, that would mean gravity permeates space. Gravity is everywhere. Even those aboard the ISS aren't free of gravity, they're falling constantly, falling faster than gravity's 9.8 meters per second, making them achieve the illusion of floating.
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
Thanasis wrote: There is no gravity in space unless it is by a star or planet.
Well, that would mean gravity permeates space. Gravity is everywhere. Even those aboard the ISS aren't free of gravity, they're falling constantly, falling faster than gravity's 9.8 meters per second, making them achieve the illusion of floating.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
08 Jan 2018 07:39 - 08 Jan 2018 07:42 #311477
by Adder
Replied by Adder on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
I think gravity tends to be just the interaction of energies, the more dense energy having the greater power to influence neighbours, see
Hill Sphere
and the
Interplanetary Transport Network
for interesting non-math bits!
Dunno why they call it falling, as I'd think its more accurate to say its not falling (not going down) - rather just moving fast enough perpendicular to gravity that the gravity has no net effect on its radial distance AFAIK. So I think its taking some liberties with language to associate weightlessness to the phenomena of orbit - but instead just basically meaning the object is still being impacted by the gravity field
Else they might as well be saying anything influenced by gravity is falling, in which case being flung out by gravity could be 'falling away' I guess :S
Arisaig wrote:
Thanasis wrote: There is no gravity in space unless it is by a star or planet.
Well, that would mean gravity permeates space. Gravity is everywhere. Even those aboard the ISS aren't free of gravity, they're falling constantly, falling faster than gravity's 9.8 meters per second, making them achieve the illusion of floating.
Dunno why they call it falling, as I'd think its more accurate to say its not falling (not going down) - rather just moving fast enough perpendicular to gravity that the gravity has no net effect on its radial distance AFAIK. So I think its taking some liberties with language to associate weightlessness to the phenomena of orbit - but instead just basically meaning the object is still being impacted by the gravity field
Else they might as well be saying anything influenced by gravity is falling, in which case being flung out by gravity could be 'falling away' I guess :S
Last edit: 08 Jan 2018 07:42 by Adder.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
- Lykeios Little Raven
- Offline
- User
- Question everything lest you know nothing.
08 Jan 2018 12:32 - 08 Jan 2018 12:44 #311485
by Lykeios Little Raven
“Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.” -Zhuangzi
“Though, as the crusade presses on, I find myself altogether incapable of staying here in saftey while others shed their blood for such a noble and just cause. For surely must the Almighty be with us even in the sundering of our nation. Our fight is for freedom, for liberty, and for all the principles upon which that aforementioned nation was built.” - Patrick “Madman of Galway” O'Dell
Replied by Lykeios Little Raven on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
Interesting information. Thanks for sharing this, Loudzoo!
On the subject of gravity, I recently started reading an interesting book about dark matter and how it can influence gravitational fields and potentially interact with ordinary matter through it's gravity. Book is called "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs" and it was written by Lisa Randall (a physicist) if anyone is interested. I haven't finished the book yet, but I believe her thesis is the theory that dark matter could actually have caused the meteorite shower that killed off the dinosaurs. It's a bold claim, but she backs up her theories with evidence. I love the book because it's written in a way I can understand as a layman and yet doesn't pull any punches when it comes to complex concepts and scientific discoveries.
EDIT: Just read the little section she wrote about this very topic...haha. She wrote the book prior to this new information, so she's operating under the premise that the universe's expansion rate is accelerating.
On the subject of gravity, I recently started reading an interesting book about dark matter and how it can influence gravitational fields and potentially interact with ordinary matter through it's gravity. Book is called "Dark Matter and the Dinosaurs" and it was written by Lisa Randall (a physicist) if anyone is interested. I haven't finished the book yet, but I believe her thesis is the theory that dark matter could actually have caused the meteorite shower that killed off the dinosaurs. It's a bold claim, but she backs up her theories with evidence. I love the book because it's written in a way I can understand as a layman and yet doesn't pull any punches when it comes to complex concepts and scientific discoveries.
EDIT: Just read the little section she wrote about this very topic...haha. She wrote the book prior to this new information, so she's operating under the premise that the universe's expansion rate is accelerating.
“Now I do not know whether I was then a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.” -Zhuangzi
“Though, as the crusade presses on, I find myself altogether incapable of staying here in saftey while others shed their blood for such a noble and just cause. For surely must the Almighty be with us even in the sundering of our nation. Our fight is for freedom, for liberty, and for all the principles upon which that aforementioned nation was built.” - Patrick “Madman of Galway” O'Dell
Last edit: 08 Jan 2018 12:44 by Lykeios Little Raven.
Please Log in to join the conversation.
08 Jan 2018 13:28 #311489
by
Replied by on topic Universe expanding at an accelerating rate?
Vert interesting! The universe is still going towards the big freeze though is it not?
Please Log in to join the conversation.