Weird Science! : Dark Energy and Supernovas! (Dark Energy Overturned?)
Dark Energy... That's the theory that most of the mass/energy of the universe is missing right?
In the late 1990s a group of scientists examined a large catalog of Type IA supernovae and they found that not only is the Universe expanding, it's doing so at an accelerating rate!
This meant that something in the universe was causing the expansion and this was attributed to a heretofore unknown energy source that we have been calling Dark Energy every since.
It turns out that interpretation was probably wrong, but the reason why they were wrong is a fascinating story of how real science in action is supposed to work.
Since the 1950s, it's been a well known fact that Type IA supernovae are the result of a specific set of processes. These processes always result in a specific admixture of elements as the end result of the life cycle of the parent star. The net result of knowing all of this is that Type IA supernovae always occur with a specific intensity and thus they can serve as a sort of "standard candle". We can then use the perceived luminosity of the event as seen here on earth to determine how far away the event occurred and we can use the redshift to determine how far back in time the event occurred.
This was all common knowledge circa 1990 when the lambda value (the density of dark energy in the universe) was derived and we were all suddenly faced with the daunting realization that 80% of our universe is just missing!
Now fast forward twenty years. A subtle and unheralded discovery occured that had shocking consequences as I predicted it would. As it turns out, Type Ia supernovae are NOT all the same. There are actually different Type IA supernovae possible. These are based on the mass of the star and the metal content of the star (to astronomers anything heavier than helium is a metal).
As I said back in 2014 when Milne et al was still in preprint...
These supernovae which we thought were the same are actually different. Low metal stars were much more common earlier in the history of the universe. This "standard candle" is anything but. Be prepared to have a paradigm shift about dark energy, the age of the universe and possibly the big bang itself.
In plain English this meant that 20 years of textbooks may need to be revised. What we thought were standard candles were nothing of the sort. If that is true it could mean that the universe isn't as big as we thought and now it looks like it isn't accelerating the way we thought it was.
But to push back 20 years of "everybody knows". Would require going back over ALL of the data...
It's been two years in the making, but in light of Milne et. al Astrophysicists at the University of Copenhagen have finished their analysis and the results are striking.
What they've found is that the theory positing accelerating expansion and has been weakened. If true that would seriously call into question Dark Energy and everything we've built around it. We underwent a similar revolution around 100 years ago when the Aether was found to be incorrect as well.
This finding has more significance than they state in the article on nature. There are only a handful of possible conditions for the universe. Those conditions are
- accelerating expansion
- steady expansion
- decelerating / breaking expansion
- contraction
- steady state
They have now effectively ruled out #1 and #2 is not looking so healthy anymore either.
This leaves 3, 4 and 5 as the most likely candidates, but 4 and 5 are highly unlikely unless we find out Zwicky was somehow correct about light getting tired.
Nevertheless, even if it's only down to 2 or 3, it's HUGELY important that we know which of these is the actual case. It effects lambda (the dark energy constant), but it also effects the gravitational constant.
With these values now effectively up in the air, it brings into play many, many Grand Unified Theory candidates that had been tossed on the dust bin of history because they couldn't explain DE. To my mind this also means the Kaluza-Kline theory that unified Electromagnetism and Gravity way back in the 1940s is back in play. This is one of those breathtaking discoveries that very few people are talking about because no one is seriously considering all the repercussions... Yet!
Even this discovery by itself is just huge in it's direct implications...
Most of the universe may not be missing!
There is still likely to be dark energy of some kind, but it's probably not anywhere near as prevalent as previously thought and every calculation that took it into account, needs to be rethought in light of this new science.
This is great science, it's also very courageous to stand up and say "everything everyone knows about this is wrong". But this is solid and they even made the source code and data available for download for free.
further reading
Milne et. al
Nielsen, J. T. et al. Marginal evidence for cosmic acceleration from Type Ia supernovae
What are your thoughts? Do you feel better knowing that most of the Universe is no longer missing?
image credits...
superbwallpapers.com
pbs.org
NASA
nature.com
Nielsen, Guffanti and and Sarkar are not claiming that the universe is not expanding. They say that the evidence is not as strong as we thought it was. This means: we cannot conclude either in one way or in the other.
My read of the data table included in the linked article is that they have knocked the confidence in accelerating expansion down a couple orders of magnitude and thus brought the theory back on par with steady expansion. Text books, especially at the undegrad level currently take Dark Energy and accelerating expansion for granted, and also claim that all Type Ia supernovae are uniform. The uniformity of standard candles is what DE rests on. One of these can no longer be said to be uniform.
The fact that supernovae are not uniform is what will need to be revised in the textbooks.
God forbid people look closer at our assumptions on Cepheid Variable stars ;)
It also means: more fun for the future!
Got your DM on steemit.chat on my wrist watch (long story)...
My laptop crashed this morning. I have a backup of my keys but I'm not going to be able to edit this to add image credits until this evening at the earliest.
I will add them though. Didn't mean to not add them.
Btw people if you DM me on steemit.chat it goes to my wristwatch right now. Please don't drain my battery unless it's super important because other than my phone it's my only functional electronic device right now.
You are tempting me... (don't worry, am just joking ;) )
Very true!
The guy in the video describes how dark energy works, not that it doesn't exist.
His discussion is interesting, but I don't buy the idea that the energy that is added to the Universe comes from nothing, which he was quite comfortable with. Doesn't it make more sense to say it comes from somewhere else, a higher dimension, perhaps? Could this not rather be an evidence of the multiverse connecting?
This post has been linked to from another place on Steem.
Learn more about and upvote to support linkback bot v0.5. Flag this comment if you don't want the bot to continue posting linkbacks for your posts.
Built by @ontofractal
@williambanks interesting post my friend, valuable information congratulations, thanks for sharing another brilliant post
Thank you very much! It's been awhile since I could run one of these. But the chinese proverb may you live interesting times, has never been more applicable than right now.
I've always loved looking at the stars and wondering what all is out there. I did a lot of star gazing and wondering after my first husband died. I wonder, do we get to visit all the places in the universe after we die?
My understanding is that only a certain sect of Buddhism allows you to do that. The good news is that there are religions that believe we are basically the universe trying to figure itself out. So possibly...
I'm a Christian. I believe God made the universe and everything in it. I also believe when we die we go to live with Him in heaven. What I don't know for sure, though, is if we explore and learn all the things we wanted to learn about earth and the universe from a scientific point of view. Or, maybe we are just so amazed by God's presence that we really don't care?
I believe God loves science and learning. (Yes, I'm a Christian too.) I believe He wants us to know everything... and the best way to know Him is to know all His creations. The best way to worship Him is to be the best us we can be... and that includes learning as much as we can about everything.
There is so much more to heaven than clouds, playing harps, and singing. Learning and growing will not end. This includes exploring and learning anything /everything we want to.
I like that answer, upvoted!
I like this answer as well! :)
That's a good conversation for @casandrarose or @ghostwriter they both love to focus on the junctures of religion and science. My thoughts are if we die, whatever else happens we're just fundamentally a different state of matter. I'm not sure the physical realm matters or even exists beyond the coherent cloud of atoms we use to interact with it.
https://steemit.com/science/@williambanks/is-the-big-bang-actually-religion-masquerading-as-science
bumping because the sort caused the parent to look out of place at the bottom of the thread there. For anyone reading this... After mentioning the topic would be a good one for either my wife or her sister, I actually invited them to the thread. Casandra came and then her reply bumped this one out of order for some reason.
I don't normally do this, but I'm adding this comment to keep the flow straight.
Actually, Mormons would be open to such an idea.
This is amazing. I am at a severe disadvantage for understanding higher-order physics (it's not even close to my field of expertise, which is fiction writing), but I understand the broad strokes. This is a phenomenal revelation. I'm curious to know what the future holds for our understanding of the universe.
Thank you for the compliments. I too am traveling through time with you, specifically to see what the future holds.
Hmmm...Settled science? HAHAHAHA! That phrase always makes me laugh.
Agreed! This is a perfect example of science doing what it's supposed to do. There are people who have built entire careers trying to explain DE. At this point DE is probably going on the dustbin of history (again), but the scientific community is re-evaluating everything in light of new evidence. I love that no one is buried in dogma, despite everything that is at stake for the community at a personal level.
The whole "universe is expanding at an accelerated rate" never felt right to me, neither did dark energy, and I know I mentioned that to you a few years ago. I'd like to learn more about this. Thanks for another great post!
really??? is this even possible???
@prince5005 Well yes. Basically we had a mystery for over 20 years and the explanation turns out to be that what we thought were "standard units" for measuring distance, were actually kinda flexible and bendy.
Type Ia supernovae are not all the same.
Older events were from less metal rich stars and thus their light curves were actually much different. So knowing that and going back over the data, we find that the dark energy, accelerating universe theory is not as well supported as we thought at all.
It's a bit like measuring the distance between markers on the highway and later finding that the rope you're using to measure those distances is actually made of rubber.
Thanks for the update. I always found this concept of dark energy perplexing from when it was first "discovered". This seems to be a case of people being brave enough to say that the emperor is naked! It takes a lot of guts because I suspect there will be a lot of resistance to changing this theory.
I agree. It takes some big cajones to challenge what everyone believes, whether or not you're correct it still takes guts.
Yes which is why even when people are right they don't challenge orthodoxy because it is too risky. That's why sometimes science advances when those that uphold the current dogma die or retire.