4 ms·

Lots of non-paywalled coverage out there in the mainstream press, eg: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/mar/19/dark-energy-mysterious-cosmic-force-weake

Lots of non-paywalled coverage out there in the mainstream press, eg: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/mar/19/dark-energy-mysterious-cosmic-force-weakening-universe-expansion https://www.theguardian.com/science/2025/mar/19/dark-energy-...

mr_mitm 2y ago
I think this is also the better article. The other one is all over the place.
araes 2y ago
Agree that this is a much better summary, and generally gets to the point much better with relatively clear summaries of the issues. Once you get down to the mid-section, the NYT notably has a somewhat clearer description of the initial issues with supernovas and using them as references. The Dark Energy article [1] and the "Light Curve" portion of the Type Ia Supernova article [2] on Wikipedia offer further reading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova#Light_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova#Light_curve - Human's believe that Type Ia supernovas are the best way of measuring distance, because of an implied standard brightness and light curve that helps to avoid issues with only measuring redshift. - Human's initially believed supernovas were supposed to show reduced brightness, further away, with a predictable reduction based on distance. - Observations showed that supernovas were actually dimmer than expected. - Implies that the universe is actually expanding, because supernovas were receding faster than expected. - New results appear to show that the acceleration is decreasing. "there is something pushing galaxies away from each other, but it is not constant. It is declining.” "gently lifting its foot off the pedal"
creer 2y ago
The Guardian is now paywalled. ... Hmmm not exactly - there's a page overlay which can be clicked past or something.

mr_mitm 2y ago

I think this is also the better article. The other one is all over the place.

araes 2y ago

Agree that this is a much better summary, and generally gets to the point much better with relatively clear summaries of the issues. Once you get down to the mid-section, the NYT notably has a somewhat clearer description of the initial issues with supernovas and using them as references. The Dark Energy article [1] and the "Light Curve" portion of the Type Ia Supernova article [2] on Wikipedia offer further reading. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova#Light_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova#Light_curve - Human's believe that Type Ia supernovas are the best way of measuring distance, because of an implied standard brightness and light curve that helps to avoid issues with only measuring redshift. - Human's initially believed supernovas were supposed to show reduced brightness, further away, with a predictable reduction based on distance. - Observations showed that supernovas were actually dimmer than expected. - Implies that the universe is actually expanding, because supernovas were receding faster than expected. - New results appear to show that the acceleration is decreasing. "there is something pushing galaxies away from each other, but it is not constant. It is declining.” "gently lifting its foot off the pedal"

creer 2y ago

The Guardian is now paywalled. ... Hmmm not exactly - there's a page overlay which can be clicked past or something.