A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
sibeen said:
A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
not the first time.
JudgeMental said:
sibeen said:
A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
not the first time.
Yeah, I know. But imagine if they gave out prizes for being wrong, you’d be rolling in it.
sibeen said:
JudgeMental said:
sibeen said:
A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
not the first time.
Yeah, I know. But imagine if they gave out prizes for being wrong, you’d be rolling in it.
i’d be a fool then to be right!
sibeen said:
A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
Well good on ‘im for being willing to reconsider it anyway.
ALL ME, IS WRONG
sibeen said:
A new paper challenges the reasoning behind why dark energy was proposed in the first place.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqgKXQM8FpU
As an aside, Brian Schmidt won his Nobel for proving that the universe is expanding, exactly what this paper is questioning. Be a bit embarrassing having a Nobel for being wrong :)
> Correction to what I say at 5:26 mins: The supernovae that Permutter & Riess used were not all from the same direction of the sky, but the low-redshift ones were in one direction, while the high-redshift ones were in the other direction. So, same problem (skewed sample), same conclusion.
Planck satellite results confirm that the universe is isotropic, so the direction doesn’t matter.
… unless …
Unless there is gravitational lensing by dark matter between us and the supernovae. Such gravitational lensing effects are negligible for nearby – low-redshift supernovae, so it doesn’t matter at all whether these are from a single direction or not. The only concern is whether there’s any gravitational lensing in the direction of the more distant supernovae.
> 740 supernovae from the GLA catalogue.
What’s the GLA catalogue?
The Open Supernova Catalogue on https://sne.space/ contains in excess of 55,000 supernovae. Somewhere between a quarter and a half of these are Type 1a.
> Redshift in the catalogue corrected for the movement of our galaxy
Well I should damn well hope so. The dipole of the cosmic microwave background gives the exact correction.
> The authors removed the correction
They did what! Not worth listening to any more of the video.