•  

    pokaż komentarz

    A jak mówiłem, że im się coś pomyliło z tą ciemną energią to mnie minusowali. Ach ta ciemna masa.

  •  

    pokaż komentarz

    Może być, a może nie być. Potrzebne byłoby trochę więcej "dowodów", żeby obalić hipotezę dotyczącą ciemnej energii, tudzież przyspieszającej ekspansji wszechświata. Ciekawy komentarz odnośnie wyników tych obserwacji znalazłem na reddicie:

    In the 1990s, observations of distant supernovae led to the conclusion that the Universe expansion is accelerating, instead of e.g. expanding at a constant rate with time. The cause of this acceleration was named Dark Energy, and is a major component of current popular models of cosmology (the "Standard model" of cosmology, ΛCDM).

    This discovery led to a Nobel Prize.

    Dark Energy is often mentioned in popular sciences as well, e.g. when cosmologist say that baryonic matter is only 5% of the content of the Universe. This figures takes into account a 70-75% content of Dark Energy.

    However the DE hypothesis is still a bit controversial. And indeed, the OP is a result that seem to directly contradict the original measurement that led to DE.

    The gist of it is that the original 1990s measurement assumed that a specific type of supernovae had a constant luminosity, and so could be used as a "standard candle", a way of measuring very long distances in the cosmos. So far, the assumption seemed to be reasonably well backed up by observations. However the OP results are in contradiction with that assumption. They measured a change in luminosity, and then argue that if taking this change into account, observations are consistent with a non-accelerating universe. The authors then question whether DE is real or not.

    However, there have been since then other, independent measurements suggesting that dark energy is a thing. The standard model, ΛCDM, agrees well with quite a variety of cosmological observations in the past 20-30 years. The OP seemingly refutes the historically first measurement but not the others. In the press release, they quote two other papers that examine the cosmic microwave background (CMB) and the baryon acoustic oscillation (BAO) and also suggest that DE is not needed. In my opinion, these papers will also need to be confirmed with further, more accurate measurements.

    Probably a lot of ink is going to be spent on this debate. Grab your popcorns.

  •  

    pokaż komentarz

    Wreszcie się pozbędziemy eteru ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

  •  

    pokaż komentarz

    Jeśli to się potwierdzi (a koreańskie bracia stwierdzili wprost że at a 99.5% confidence level ) to będzie prawdziwa BOMBA!

  •  

    pokaż komentarz

    Chyba z góry wiadomo że założenia mogą być błędne