[negativelambda]

I know the team that did this. In fact i was listening to their seminar just a few days ago. They are very careful and have been working on this a long time. One caveat that they readily admit is that the sample used to create the luminosity age relation has some biases such as galaxy type and relatively lower redshift. They will be updating their results with the Rubin LSST data in the next few years.

Exciting times in cosmology after decades of a standard LCDM model.

[JumpCrisscross]

> after decades of a standard LCDM model

Could you help me understand this sentence: "After correcting for this age bias as a function of redshift, the SN data set aligns more closely with the cold dark matter (CDM) model”?

[mr_mitm]

The CDM model has no dark energy, unlike the LCDM model. The L stands for Lambda, which is the dark energy term in the Einstein equations. So they are saying when accounting for this effect, our universe looks more like a universe without dark energy, at least when only considering the supernovae probe.

[negativelambda]

That's only if you consider the supernovae data alone. In combination with other probes like BAO, etc, the combined data are pointing to a Universe with a dynamical (or time varying) dark energy model.

[ngold]

Just curious, is this dark matter holding back the universal expansion?

[madaxe_again]

Our best guess is “maybe?”

[nabakin]

Is there a recording of their seminar anywhere?

[negativelambda]

Its not publicly available. Maybe for the best haha. The speaker at some point went on a bit of a tirade against many people in the supernovae cosmology community. I think he endured many years of being ignored or belittled.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

Did he yell "They LAUGHED at me at Heidelberg! They said I was mad. MAD!"?

It is a very fundamental shift, though. The whole "Dark Energy/Matter" hypothesis has always seemed to me, to be a bit of a "Here, there be dragonnes" kind of thing, but I am nowhere near the level of these folks, so I have always assumed they know a lot that I don't.

[kulahan]

It is, but that’s also kinda the point. It’s just a variable to stand in for “whatever tf mass we’ve been missing this whole time” or what-have-you.

[tekla]

I've never really gotten this criticism. Science has worked on "here be dragons" ever since it became a "thing".

Neutrinos took like 40 years to discover after experiments earlier showed that either all of modern particle physics was wrong, or there was something that we couldn't see.

[ChrisMarshallNY]

It wasn't a criticism. At least, not from me. It was just an observation.