Dark Energy: Part 2


Remember the basis for coming up with the idea of dark energy? It was the accelerating universe. And how did Perlmutter and Riess come to the conclusion that the expansion is accelerating? Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder explains.

There’s a certain class of supernovae, the type Ia, for which we know the energy emitted over time. The farther away it is, the dimmer is appears. Thus, from its brightness, one can infer the distance. In addition, the farther away it is, the longer it took to reach us. So indirectly, from its brightness, one can calculate how long back it occurred.

At the same time, one can determine its color. Just as the sound of a moving ambulance get shriller as it comes closer, the observed color of the supernova changes since it (and space itself) are moving away from us. The color can thus be used to infer the rate at which space is moving away.

Combine the above two points (time of the supernova v/s rate of expansion) for multiple supernovae at different times and you can calculate the change in the rate of expansion of the universe over time. And that is how we concluded, 20 years back, that we had a “runaway universe”, a universe whose rate of expansion was increasing over time.

Fast forward to present day. The data set of the supernovae 20 years back was small: just 110. Today, we have data from 1,000 supernovae. The new analysis used a bigger data set. More importantly, it factored in for two things: (1) the universe is expanding, (2) galaxies are moving too. Unlike Perlmutter and Riess, who hadn’t factored for the movement of galaxies. The surprising finding?
“What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae is not the same in all directions, but that it depends on the direction. This direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations.”

Let’s rephrase that. If the latest study is right, it means the redshift can be accounted for by the movement of the galaxies alone. Put differently, it means the observed redshift doesn’t necessitate any additional contributions, say, by an expanding universe. To take that thought process to its logical conclusion: no additional contribution by the expansion of the universe -> no basis for believing the universe is expanding -> no need to postulate the existence of dark energy.

Wait a minute, didn’t we say in the last blog that there are other observations that point to the existence of dark energy?
“Well, all the other evidence for dark energy is not evidence for dark energy in particular, but for a certain combination of parameters in the concordance model of cosmology.”
Then again, this study in turn contradicts other data and analysis. Which means it’s not conclusive as a proof against dark energy, but it definitely means we need to dig in deeper and see what’s wrong or missing in all the analysis so far. Who knows what we’ll find?

Comments

  1. Ramiah KumarDecember 27, 2019 at 10:04 AM

    Sorry, this blog piece disappoints me!

    The preceding "Dark Energy: Part 2" gave me hope that I am going to get to know the subject better. What I find is that the science is diluted with simplistic presentation in this piece, through a layperson way of describing.

    Let me say what is my DISAPPOINTMENT in precise terms now: First the blog says “What they found is that the best fit to the data is that the redshift of supernovae ... this direction is aligned with the direction in which we move through the cosmic microwave background. And – most importantly – you do not need further redshift to explain the observations.” The parenthesis makes it clear that it is a quote from either a scientist or reliable science writer for laypersons' benefit. Correlating with the beginning of the blog, the writer is Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder, I am reasonably sure.

    And then the author's own summing up occurs: "Let’s rephrase that. If the latest study is right, it means the redshift can be accounted for by the movement of the galaxies alone. Put differently, it means the observed redshift doesn’t necessitate any additional contributions, say, by an expanding universe. To take that thought process to its logical conclusion: no additional contribution by the expansion of the universe -> no basis for believing the universe is expanding -> no need to postulate the existence of dark energy."

    There is a problem in this inferential statement. It seems to state that the the redshift of supernovas and the red shift of the galaxies otherwise measured in earlier to current times have the IDENTICAL story to tell - that "the universe is expanding". No anomaly at all!

    That the universe is expanding is no longer argued. It is true. The only point is the rate was faster during one period and the rate became slower and steady later. That anomaly OF FASTER EXPANSION earlier was explained away using a "first discorded then re-adopted constant" in the Theory of Relativity. For the later period, the constant was back to "its so called normalcy" that is '1'! So far so good. That's the same as what the blog writer concluded, REPEAT, "no additional contribution by the expansion of the universe -> no basis for believing the universe is expanding -> no need to postulate the existence of dark energy".

    What is NOT explained properly is, "What is the PRECISE reason for the astrophysics still needing dark energy to explain away the 'anomalous' expansion observed today?" Stated otherwise, "What exactly is that observation/detail of ANOMALY?"
    ----------

    The blog author has taken refuge to this pointed question by quoting, "“Well, all the other evidence for dark energy is not evidence for dark energy in particular, but for a certain combination of parameters in the concordance model of cosmology.”

    My precise disappointment is this: I read this blog eagerly only to be told "BUT FOR A CERTAIN COMBINATION OF PARAMETERS..." which leads to the question, "To be << in the concordance model of cosmology (verbatim quote) >> we very much NEED dark energy. Well, well - I am in the DARK (unless I have messed up understanding this blog), like dear DARK energy!!!!!

    Something (God's hand?) pushes the galaxies in an anomalous way right now, no? Why else you need extra energy?

    So, I eagerly await Dark Energy: Part 3! :-)

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why we Deceive Ourselves

In their book, The Elephant in the Brain , the authors describe this weird aspect of deception that we practice: deceiving ourselves! That is so weird: “If our minds contain maps of our worlds, what good comes from having an inaccurate version of these maps?” The Sigmund Freud school of thought treats self-deception as a defense mechanism, “a way for the ego to protect itself”. The mind seeks to protect itself from anxiety and other negative emotions. Many object to this reasoning: since accurate information is so critical to our survival, surely distorting information would be dangerous. Wouldn’t the goal of protecting our self-esteem have been better achieved by making the brain’s self-esteem mechanism stronger instead? The new school of thought explains self-deception as “primarily outward-facing, manipulative, and ultimately self-serving”. This is based on Thomas Schelling’s work on game theory: “In a variety of scenarios, limiting or sabotaging yourself is the winn...
Read more

Europe #3 - Innsbruck

The last city we visited in Europe was Innsbruck in the Austrian Alps. After the cold and windy experience (at times) of Paris and Netherlands, Innsbruck was a wonderful change – it didn’t feel that cold, it was not windy all of which made it easy to walk around. Something absolutely necessary given how scenic the place is.   Since the hotel check-in time was much later in the day, we left the baggage and went to the Swarovski HQ-cum-museum about an hour by bus from Innsbruck. The crystal exhibits were brilliant – colorful, bright, shiny. Jewellery aside, it was a display of what one can do with crystals. While my wife and daughter loved the jewellery, I liked the superhero themed exhibits of Batman, Spiderman, the Hulk, and Star Wars. We didn’t buy anything there, though we did buy stuff in the Swarovski store in Innsbruck – jewellery, not the superhero stuff.   Innsbruck is a major tourist attraction during the skiing season but now in summer, we saw many groups of ...
Read more

The Thrill of the Chase

So many people complain about the difficulty in making decisions while shopping. Do you buy Brand X that gives 20% extra free? Or Brand Y that has 10% off? Or Brand Z that gives something else free with it? Do you buy that flat screen TV today or wait for the sale at Diwali? Now since the customer is king, shouldn’t companies be simplifying pricing choices? Like maybe offering consistently low prices all the time? Not so fast, as the US store, JC Penney discovered to its cost. Turns out that while people do complain about pricing choices, they are irrational. Also, they enjoy the thrill of the chase. Huh? The word “sale” acts like a siren call for many people: it lures them in to make that purchase. Consistently low prices don’t do the same. Besides, if a competitor lowers their prices just one time of the year, and Poof! Suddenly that low price claim becomes suspect in shoppers’ eyes. Then there are those sites that offer coupons: have lunch at Restaurant A on Wedne...
Read more