• Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology

    From Richard D. Saam@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 18 11:21:49 2020
    Early-type Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence
    for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903

    The authors statement:
    'We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered
    in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details
    of the dark energy.'

    Such a statement is revolutionary on its face.

    Is this going to bend the arc of cosmological science?

    Richard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)@21:1/5 to Saam" on Sun Jan 19 15:04:46 2020
    In article <Y4OdneM55LfKpr_DnZ2dnUU7-SHNnZ2d@giganews.com>, "Richard D.
    Saam" <rdsaam@att.net> writes:=20

    Early-type Host Galaxies of Type Ia Supernovae. II. Evidence
    for Luminosity Evolution in Supernova Cosmology https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.04903
    =20
    The authors statement:
    'We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered
    in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details
    of the dark energy.'
    =20
    Such a statement is revolutionary on its face.

    No. One ALWAYS has to take systematic bias into account when analysing=20 data. Perhaps they have found something new. If it holds up, then it=20
    has to be taken into account.

    Is this going to bend the arc of cosmological science?

    By itself, no. There seems to be a widespread misconception that the=20
    ONLY evidence for a positive cosmological constant or (a stronger claim)=20
    an accelerating universe is the supernova data. The concordance model=20
    is called the concordance model because many different lines of evidence=20 point to the same values of the cosmological parameters. The=20
    accelerating universe is still there even completely ignoring the=20
    supernova data. These days, JUST THE CMB tells us that the universe is=20 accelerating. So, if this effect affects the conclusions from the=20
    supernova data so much that an accelerating universe is ruled out (as=20
    the hype surrounding this paper sometimes implies), then one has to=20
    explain why essentially ALL THE OTHER COSMOLOGICAL TESTS ARE WRONG. Not=20 only that, they are all wrong but just happen to give the same result.

    Note that the quote above is=20

    We argue, therefore, that this systematic bias must be considered
    in detail in SN cosmology before proceeding to the details of the=20
    dark energy.'

    DETAILS. Of course it has to be taken into account. Whether it would=20
    lead to a conclusion incompatible with other tests is a different=20
    question. Even if it does, the interpretation is probably not that=20
    there is not a cosmological constant.

    See also my reply to Alex (and, indeed, the post and all the comments)
    at=20

    https://telescoper.wordpress.com/2020/01/14/luminosity-evolution-in-type= -1a-supernovae/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)