Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Any comments on this? Doesn't seem to have been covered here previously
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/cos ... s-thought/
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/cos ... s-thought/
- alter-ego
- Serendipitous Sleuthhound
- Posts: 1123
- Joined: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:51 am
- Location: Redmond, WA
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
I have a few comments:Jim Leff wrote:Any comments on this? Doesn't seem to have been covered here previously
http://www.sciencerecorder.com/news/cos ... s-thought/
1) I haven't researched the sources and details of this claim and I've always thought that the community had some doubt that supernovae might have some uncertainty in their luminosities mostly because of local environment (e.g. absorption) differences, but not so much from as-yet-undiscovered significant variations from a standard candle.
2) Not putting all the expansion eggs in the supernovae basket has been an ongoing parallel effort to build confidence in the acceleration claim. There are many independent observations that support both expansion rate and acceleration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energ ... background describes several Dark Energy supporting observations. I'm particularly drawn to the BAO validation of rate and acceleration. It is quite convincing in its own right.
Outside of statistical error bars, I believe there's still a discrepancy between the WMAP and Hubble in determining the Hubble Constant. However, the importance of this difference is not the magnitude difference in expansion as the error is a few percent at most I think. The importance of the difference is understanding why the two methods don't statistically converge to the same answer. So even though there'll likely be tweaks to expansion and acceleration rates as observation techniques and diagnostics improve, I'm dubious that there'll be any surprises leading to significant changes in the collective observational results and conclusions so far. I'm always interested in seeing how these "recent discoveries" turn out.Accelerating Universe wrote:Peaks have been found in the correlation function (the probability that two galaxies will be a certain distance apart) at 100h^{-1} Mpc,[9] indicating that this is the size of the sound horizon today, and by comparing this to the sound horizon at the time of decoupling (using the CMB), we can confirm that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.[15]
A pessimist is nothing more than an experienced optimist
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
I saw this article tossed around a few times earlier. As always, the ones which claim there is a chance that we have something hugely wrong are hugely popular. Also as always, I'll let the scientists hash it out for me, if there is actually anything to hash out. Maybe Brian Koberlein will do a blog post on it. He often has something to say about these sorts of things. I'll link it here if that happens.
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
My impression, as I read the summary of the article, is that the Type Ia supernovas are more unreliable as standard candles than astronomers used to think. That in itself doesn't necessariliy imply that the universe is expanding more slowly than expected.
Ann
Ann
Color Commentator
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Thanks, all. I have a chemist friend who I keep forwarding articles to, asking if they're real or hyped. They're almost never not hype! Guess it's the same for astro-physics articles....
UAz: Accelerating Universe? Not So Fast
Accelerating Universe? Not So Fast
University of Arizona | Steward Observatory | 2015 Apr 10
The Changing Fractions of Type Ia Supernova NUV-Optical Subclasses with Redshift - Peter A. Milne et al
The article states two papers in ApJ. This is the only one I found.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=34594
University of Arizona | Steward Observatory | 2015 Apr 10
A UA-led team of astronomers found that the type of supernovae commonly used to measure distances in the universe fall into distinct populations not recognized before. The findings have implications for our understanding of how fast the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang.[attachment=0]M82_uvot_after_SN_large_labeled.jpg[/attachment]
Certain types of supernovae, or exploding stars, are more diverse than previously thought, a University of Arizona-led team of astronomers has discovered. The results, reported in two papers published in the Astrophysical Journal, have implications for big cosmological questions, such as how fast the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang.
Most importantly, the findings hint at the possibility that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe might not be quite as fast as textbooks say.
The team, led by UA 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. ...
The Changing Fractions of Type Ia Supernova NUV-Optical Subclasses with Redshift - Peter A. Milne et al
- Astrophysical Journal 803(1) 20 (2015 Apr 10) DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/803/1/20
arXiv.org > astro-ph > arXiv:1408.1706 > 07 Aug 2014
The article states two papers in ApJ. This is the only one I found.
http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php?t=34594
- Attachments
-
- Swift's UVOT captured the new supernova (circled) in three exposures taken on
Jan. 22, 2014. Mid-ultraviolet light is shown in blue, near-UV light in green and
visible light in red. Thick dust in M82 scatters much of the highest-energy light,
which is why the supernova appears yellowish here. The image is 17 arcminutes
across, or slightly more than half the apparent diameter of a full moon.
(Credit: NASA/Swift/P. Brown, TAMU)
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
You could go through almost any article and cross out any words like "surprising" and "baffled" and it would come much closer to the truth. The variations in Type Ia supernovas has been mulled over for quite some time now. It's a clickbait world out there.Jim Leff wrote:Thanks, all. I have a chemist friend who I keep forwarding articles to, asking if they're real or hyped. They're almost never not hype! Guess it's the same for astro-physics articles....
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Yipes.
That's going to cause some upsets. If I recall correctly, the guy who did the initial Supernova 1A work got the Nobel Prize for it.
It will be extremely embarassing if it proves incorrect.
Now, I have to wonder about the mechanism for variability.
The Type 1A supernova is thought to be caused when a binary star system, one star leeches off just enough mass and that
triggers the explosion. We're going to have to revise the models for how it explodes if we're seeing variabilty.
On the other hand, it's always kind of neat when we learn there's more going on in the universe than what we thought.
Scott Kellogg
That's going to cause some upsets. If I recall correctly, the guy who did the initial Supernova 1A work got the Nobel Prize for it.
It will be extremely embarassing if it proves incorrect.
Now, I have to wonder about the mechanism for variability.
The Type 1A supernova is thought to be caused when a binary star system, one star leeches off just enough mass and that
triggers the explosion. We're going to have to revise the models for how it explodes if we're seeing variabilty.
On the other hand, it's always kind of neat when we learn there's more going on in the universe than what we thought.
Scott Kellogg
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
I think I need to read up on Type 1A Supernovae.
Anybody got a good source?
Thanks,
Scott Kellogg
PS. How do you get to upload an avatar on here? I can't even find an option to do it.
Anybody got a good source?
Thanks,
Scott Kellogg
PS. How do you get to upload an avatar on here? I can't even find an option to do it.
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
I'd suggest the Wikipedia article, and then follow any references from there to primary sources as you feel useful. Wikipedia should almost always be the first place you go for science information.kellogg wrote:I think I need to read up on Type 1A Supernovae.
Anybody got a good source?
Go to you User Control Panel up top. Profile tab, Edit avatar.PS. How do you get to upload an avatar on here? I can't even find an option to do it.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Chris Peterson wrote: Wikipedia should almost always be the first place you go for science information.
Wow, how tides have turned....
- Chris Peterson
- Abominable Snowman
- Posts: 18490
- Joined: Wed Jan 31, 2007 11:13 pm
- Location: Guffey, Colorado, USA
- Contact:
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Have they? Studies for the last ten years have shown that almost all Wikipedia articles are as accurate as reviewed papers and edited sources like Encyclopedia Britannica. This is especially true for science articles. About the only area where you're likely to have accuracy issues is hotly debated social topics, and occasionally current biographies. Of course, you won't find those things in more traditional sources at all.Jim Leff wrote:Wow, how tides have turned....Chris Peterson wrote: Wikipedia should almost always be the first place you go for science information.
Google the subject and you'll find lots of information. This is a nice summary from a reliable source. Sounds a bit odd, but the Wikipedia article on the subject is also excellent, and will point you to many primary sources.
Chris
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
*****************************************
Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
https://www.cloudbait.com
- geckzilla
- Ocular Digitator
- Posts: 9180
- Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 12:42 pm
- Location: Modesto, CA
- Contact:
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
Just call me "geck" because "zilla" is like a last name.
-
- Science Officer
- Posts: 228
- Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:55 am
- Location: Germany
Re: Universe not expanding as quickly as believed
I second that!geckzilla wrote:You could go through almost any article and cross out any words like "surprising" and "baffled" and it would come much closer to the truth. The variations in Type Ia supernovas has been mulled over for quite some time now. It's a clickbait world out there.Jim Leff wrote:Thanks, all. I have a chemist friend who I keep forwarding articles to, asking if they're real or hyped. They're almost never not hype! Guess it's the same for astro-physics articles....
The way science is supposed to work, is that scientists discovering something new first think about it critically by themselves, then publish and discuss with their peers. In most cases, a mistake will be found. Some result stand the test of time and made it into review articles and eventually textbooks. Press releases are issued only after a result is confirmed.
Nowadays, the trend is to release a press release as soon as you have your first result. This decreases the signal to noise ratio. But to be fair, most scientific articles on which these press releases are based on are more careful in what they say and claim. I don't know who is responsible for a press release. Do the scientists whose result is covered have something to say?