Accelerated expansion: is the jury still out?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of accelerated expansion in the Universe, particularly in relation to Type Ia supernovae (SNIa) as standard candles. Participants explore the implications of recent studies and the calibration of these astronomical objects, questioning the reliability of current models and measurements.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference a study suggesting that the acceleration of the Universe is not definitively resolved and requires further investigation.
  • There is a discussion about the potential differences in properties of SNIa in the early Universe compared to the present, which may affect their reliability as standard candles.
  • One participant highlights the existence of two distinct populations of SNIa progenitors with different delay times, which could lead to significant revisions in the understanding of cosmic acceleration.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the calibration of SNIa luminosity based on older stellar populations, suggesting that this could lead to erroneous conclusions about the Universe's expansion.
  • Participants draw parallels to historical issues with the calibration of Cepheid Variables, indicating a potential for similar mistakes in current models of cosmic expansion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express skepticism about the current understanding of accelerated expansion, indicating a lack of consensus on the reliability of SNIa as standard candles and the implications for cosmic acceleration. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the data and its implications.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include unresolved questions about the calibration of SNIa and the assumptions made regarding their progenitor populations. The discussion also reflects uncertainty about the implications of these factors on the overall understanding of cosmic acceleration.

Chronos
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
11,420
Reaction score
750
I thought this was interesting:

High Redshift Supernovae: Cosmological Implications
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0502247

... it appears that the problem of whether there is an acceleration in the Universe, and if so what its strength is, is not definitely solved and that much work is still needed before reaching the final conclusion.
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
The gist of the argument (from the abstract): "We also discuss the possibility and the consequences of the fact that SNIa may not be "perfect" standard candles, in the sense of having properties in the early Universe that are systematically different from those they have at the present times."
 
From the study by Mannucci et al. (2005), it appears that in the local Universe there are two distinct populations of progenitors of SNIa, each characterized by very different delay times, i.e. characteristic times between star formation and stellar explosion. About half of the SNIa originate from a relatively young stellar population, whose progenitors explode after a short delay time (say, <100 Myrs) since their formation(“prompt” SNIa), and may be the result of the merging of two degenerate stars in a binary system. The other half (“tardy” SNIa) comes from older stellar populations and their progenitors explode with delay times of 2–4 Gyrs

Nino goes on to say that as the SNIa luminosity is calibrated from local galaxies, these would tend to be the older systems, whereas the distant SNIa would tend to be the younger ones. Hence
As a result, all quantitative conclusions about the acceleration of the Universe would have to be drastically revised, if not even reversed (i.e., there might not be any acceleration...).

Remember the problems calibrating the Cepheid Variable 'standard candle'? A error of factor of about three was introduced because it was not realized that there were two types of Cepheid Variables, belonging to Population I and Population II stars respectively.

Methinks we may be making the same mistake again here!

Just a thought!

Garth

BTW Chronos thank you for that very interesting link.
 
Last edited:
I share those sentiments, Garth. I've never been comfortable with the notion the universe suddenly changed speed. The explanations offered appear large and jagged [hard to swallow]. As long as I'm on a roll, there is room to doubt the Cepheid yardstick is fully calibrated:

Population II standard candle calibration ...
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0303035

The Status of the Distance Scale
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9911296

Supernova type Ia luminosities, their dependence on second parameters, and the value of H_0
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0004063
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 134 ·
5
Replies
134
Views
13K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K