[wtcactus]

Standard candles (all these measurements of redshift according to distance, need us to actually get the distance of what we are measuring right) are the gift that keeps on giving.

This study (and many others, depending on the cosmic scales they use) mainly use Supernovas of Type Ia. I.e. the energy emitted by the supernova of a binary acreccion star, which is a star that is capturing the mass from another start that is very nearby and increasing its mass until it collapses into itself, increases temperature up to the point it starts fusing helium, and goes supernova with all the added energy.

That was (and still is now, with some corrections we found since middle last century) supposed to be the same everywhere. Problem is, we keep finding new corrections to it - like this study claims.

That is in fact the big claim of this study (ignore the universe expansion part), that they found a new correction to the Supernova of type Ia luminosity. It's a very big claim and extremely interesting if confirmed. But, like all big claims, it needs a big confirmation. I'm a bit skeptic TBH.

[jldl805]

>I'm a bit skeptic

Out of curiosity, what data are you drawing or what qualifications do you have that support your skepticism over three different modes of analysis (as well as pretty much every recent development in the field) supporting this claim:

       "Remarkably, this agrees with what is independently predicted from BAO-only or BAO+CMB analyses, though this fact has received little attention so far.""

[wtcactus]

Well, this part you mention, for instance "though this fact has received little attention so far".

A change on the standard candles calibration would be a huge deal for cosmology and galactic astronomy (and other fields) and would not be taken lightly at all. There are all sorts of ramifications from this and if astronomers aren't all in an oof about it, it is because big proof is needed for big claims.

And a change in the standard candles calibration is indeed a very big claim.