Post by robeiae on Sept 15, 2017 15:26:13 GMT -5
No, not a Holocaust denier. No, not a climate change denier. I'm a dark energy denier.
What is dark energy, you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Let's get that out of the way, first.
Dark energy is an an energy that is assumed to exist, in order to have to a reason for why the universe seems to be expanding at an exponential rate, despite the supposition that gravity should be slowing the expansion down. In other words, something has to be counteracting gravity, therefore dark energy. Here's a brief explanation of this: www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
I'm not astrophysicist, to be sure, but I always found this to be one of the most ridiculous theories out there. One might as well say that the force is God. That's just as defensible, imo. What I have always thought in this regard is simple: we think we know a lot more about all of this than we actually do.
Anyway, new paper: motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7wkb/new-supernova-analysis-questions-dark-energy-cosmic-acceleration
I like this notion a great deal...
What is dark energy, you ask? Well, it has nothing to do with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Let's get that out of the way, first.
Dark energy is an an energy that is assumed to exist, in order to have to a reason for why the universe seems to be expanding at an exponential rate, despite the supposition that gravity should be slowing the expansion down. In other words, something has to be counteracting gravity, therefore dark energy. Here's a brief explanation of this: www.space.com/20929-dark-energy.html
I'm not astrophysicist, to be sure, but I always found this to be one of the most ridiculous theories out there. One might as well say that the force is God. That's just as defensible, imo. What I have always thought in this regard is simple: we think we know a lot more about all of this than we actually do.
Anyway, new paper: motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ne7wkb/new-supernova-analysis-questions-dark-energy-cosmic-acceleration
According to a paper published this week in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, we might just be wrong about all of this. The accelerating expansion may just be a sort of illusion driven by an incorrect assumption about the nature of the distribution of mass across the universe. As cosmological assumptions go, it's a big one: The universe will remain, on average, smooth and uniform in all locations and from all perspectives.
Maybe not?
In more technical terms, we're talking about the cosmological properties of isotropy and homogeneity. Together, they form the cosmological principle, which is mostly supported by the apparent uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. What the authors behind the current study suggest is that maybe the cosmological principle is bunk, and, if this is the case, then observations of distant supernovae take on a different meaning because we can no longer assume that the universe looks about the same for every observer in every location.
Maybe not?
In more technical terms, we're talking about the cosmological properties of isotropy and homogeneity. Together, they form the cosmological principle, which is mostly supported by the apparent uniformity of the cosmic microwave background. What the authors behind the current study suggest is that maybe the cosmological principle is bunk, and, if this is the case, then observations of distant supernovae take on a different meaning because we can no longer assume that the universe looks about the same for every observer in every location.
