New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error

JANUARY 6, 2020
New evidence shows that the key assumption made in the discovery of dark energy is in error

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-evidence-key-assumption-discovery-dark.html

Commenting on the result, Prof. Young-Wook Lee (Yonsei Univ., Seoul), who led the project said, "Quoting Carl Sagan, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but I am not sure we have such extraordinary evidence for dark energy. Our result illustrates that dark energy from SN cosmology, which led to the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics, might be an artifact of a fragile and false assumption."

“We were wrong” isn’t the most catching headline, but it’s essential for true and accurate science. Very happy to see this.

Wow, that is really interesting. Thanks.

Theory is beautiful as it can be proven right, or wrong.

If true, I wonder how you "Un-Nobel-Prize" someone.

Science is always looking to try and find new information to either back up it's existing beliefs or to change them. The way that science can hold onto something as a fact for decades and then dismiss it as soon as evidence proves otherwise is fantastic. It shows that the truth is the most important thing, and the search for the truth is a very crooked path of corrections and turns as new evidence and discoveries point us in new directions.

Religion is the opposite.

Mushtang said:

Science is always looking to try and find new information to either back up it's existing beliefs or to change them. The way that science can hold onto something as a fact for decades and then dismiss it as soon as evidence proves otherwise is fantastic. It shows that the truth is the most important thing, and the search for the truth is a very crooked path of corrections and turns as new evidence and discoveries point us in new directions.

Religion is the opposite.

Click to expand...

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. - Michael Crichton, MD

Steven said:

Theory is beautiful as it can be proven right, or wrong.

Click to expand...

Well, no.
If it’s theory, by definition it has not been proven or disproven.

Winston said:

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. - Michael Crichton, MD

Click to expand...

One of my favorites!

Steve Shannon said:

Well, no.
If it’s theory, by definition it has not been proven or disproven.

Click to expand...

It leads to it.

Steve Shannon said:

Well, no.
If it’s theory, by definition it has not been proven or disproven.

Click to expand...

By one definition of "theory", but not the one that is used mostly in science, such as when used for gravitational theory, theory of evolution, etc.

You're talking about a hypothesis.

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

Steven said:

Theory is beautiful as it can be proven right, or wrong.

Click to expand...

Theories are never "proven" to be correct. A theory may be considered to be the best explanation given the information currently available. But the nice thing about science is that it is always willing to accept the possibility that new information may be discovered that contradicts the accepted theory, leading to a new, better theory. Classical Newtonian physics was accepted theory for 200 years until Einstein showed up.

Mushtang said:

By one definition of "theory", but not the one that is used mostly in science, such as when used for gravitational theory, theory of evolution, etc.

You're talking about a hypothesis.

A scientific theory is an explanation of some aspect of the natural world that has been substantiated through repeated experiments or testing.

Click to expand...

You’re right; I was incorrect in equating theories and hypotheses, but that doesn’t change what I said. From https://www.nsta.org/publications/news/story.aspx?id=52402:
“So what are the words that we need to keep in mind? The hardest part about understanding scientific theories and hypotheses seems to be this: a hypothesis is never proven correct, nor is a theory ever proven to be true. Words like prove, correct, and true should be removed from our vocabulary completely and immediately.”

Winston said:

If true, I wonder how you "Un-Nobel-Prize" someone.

Click to expand...

Not sure I want to "Un-Nobel-Prize" someone. Seems the point of science is to identify understandings that are not yet shown to be wrong. Well, maybe if the winner committed fraud.

The peace prize has been given to some doozies, lately, so if you want to go get those back, I'm with ya.

Nathan said:

Theories are never "proven" to be correct. A theory may be considered to be the best explanation given the information currently available. But the nice thing about science is that it is always willing to accept the possibility that new information may be discovered that contradicts the accepted theory, leading to a new, better theory. Classical Newtonian physics was accepted theory for 200 years until Einstein showed up.

Click to expand...

A 'proof' can be changed or modified.

Steve Shannon said:

You’re right; I was incorrect in equating theories and hypotheses, but that doesn’t change what I said.

Click to expand...

It *should* change what you said, but my theory is that you were using the wrong definition of theory. What you said was:

If it’s theory, by definition it has not been proven or disproven.

Click to expand...

Meaning that because it's a theory it hasn't been proven. We've established that science realizes that anything can be disproven and is willing to consider new ideas to replace old ideas that were believed to be correct. So the fact that it's called a theory has nothing to do with it being proven or not, so that's not "by definition" of the word. Unless, of course, you're using the wrong definition of the word which you've already said that you were.

What would have been correct is, "If it's theory, by definition it is the best explanation we currently have because it's been tested and substantiated many times. So we believe it to be as true as anything can be unless and until it's shown to not be true."

I have another theory. My theory number two, which is the second theory that I have. Ahem! This theory is what I am about to say which, with what I have said, are the two theories that are mine and belong to me....

That’s easy for you to say!

Arguably, working theories can be excellent approximations and, in fact, are used to make calculations and promote understanding extensively. Two good examples are the Shrodinger equation, which gives the electronic structure of the hydrogen atom and Newtonian mechanics, which is used to calculate orbital mechanics. For the vast majority calculations nobody uses the more accurate corresponding theories of Quantum Electrodynamics for electron orbits or General Relativity for calculation orbits. Sure, the latter two have the place, but practical calculations still use the former two.

Igotnothing said:

Not sure I want to "Un-Nobel-Prize" someone. Seems the point of science is to identify understandings that are not yet shown to be wrong. Well, maybe if the winner committed fraud.

The peace prize has been given to some doozies, lately, so if you want to go get those back, I'm with ya.

Click to expand...

I was only half-way serious, but I am curious if anyone has ever received a hard science Nobel Prize (not the other categories which are BS IMO, definitely including "economics" which doesn't even qualify as a science) for something which was later disproved.

I have seen the post #1 report before. I am wondering is this new finding a done deal or does put the original finding in contention.

Estimates for the amount of Dark Energy in the universe are that Dark Energy accounts for about 68 percent of the Mass/Energy of the universe. Does this new finding mean that the previous estimate needs to be revised?

Some of these arguments are complicated. I think that the Nobel Prize was given for a relatively recent acceleration of the expansion of the universe many billion years (8 billion years after the Big Bang?) after the initial Big Bang based on Super Nova Type IA that were used as standard candles. I am thinking that since Dark Energy is associated with the expansion of the universe, there may still be abundant Dark Energy in the universe from the Big Bang.

You know Einstein was never awarded a Noble prize for any of his work in either Special Relativity or General Relativity. His work in those areas was considered to be too controversial at the time. Because of his work in those areas he was known to be a great theoretician by his contemporaries. In a way he was awarded a consolation Nobel prize for his work on the photoelectric effect.