Acceleration of expansion of Universe not that fast?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the recent findings regarding the accelerating expansion of the Universe, specifically questioning the reliability of Type Ia supernovae as standard candles for distance measurements. The paper titled "The Changing Fractions of Type Ia Supernova NUV-Optical Subclasses with Redshift" by Milne et al. suggests that the acceleration may not be as pronounced as previously believed. This revelation raises significant implications for cosmological models and challenges existing interpretations within the scientific community.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Type Ia supernovae and their role in cosmology
  • Familiarity with redshift and its implications for distance measurements
  • Knowledge of cosmological models and the concept of dark energy
  • Basic comprehension of peer-reviewed scientific literature and its evaluation
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Type Ia supernovae on cosmological distance measurements
  • Explore the concept of redshift and its significance in astrophysics
  • Study recent advancements in cosmological models, particularly regarding dark energy
  • Review critical analyses of controversial scientific papers in cosmology
USEFUL FOR

Astronomers, astrophysicists, cosmologists, and anyone interested in the latest developments in the understanding of the Universe's expansion and the reliability of distance measurement techniques.

SpiderET
Messages
82
Reaction score
4
There is some surprising twist regarding measurements of accelerating expansion of Universe. Maybe it is not accelerating that fast as previously predicted. It seems that there is something questionable about Ia supernovae.

What do you think about it? Is this real game changer or some minor glitch in data?

http://phys.org/news/2015-04-universe-fast.html
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Consider the source. Certain authors have certain prejudices about cosmological interpretations. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but, it provides a reference point. I think you should not take them more seriously than the source of claims contested without equally firm observational backing - which is often the main reason such papers are viewed as controversial, or ignored by mainstream scientists.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K