So, I've been puzzling over this one for most of the day.
I’m finding it somewhat difficult to understand what they've actually done here.
Correct me if I’ve missed the mark, but they seem to have done a bunch of accurate redshift measurements and found that the measurements fit the Lambda CDM model with a ‘flat’ matter density parameter. (This is also what the latest CMBR measurements support). They’ve then measured the cosmic growth rate, and found that it also aligns well with previous distance-redshift measurements such as Supernovae (probability of 98.8%) and ‘Standard Ruler’, Baryon Acoustic Oscillations.
They’ve also made a ~30% improvement in measurement accuracy of the ‘constant equation of state’ (little omega ?).
So, there’s nothing very new in what they’ve done .. its basically a truing-up of measurements and cross-correlating the results with other datasets from other sources.
Several articles I’ve read today are really over-hyping it all ... like this headline (from Physorg) ...
Dark Energy is real: WiggleZ galaxy project proves Einstein was right again
Quote:
|
An Australian-based astronomy team, co-led by Professor Michael Drinkwater from the School of Mathematics and Physics (SMP) at The University of Queensland (UQ), has shown that the mysterious 'dark energy' is indeed real and not a mistake in Einstein's theory of gravity.
|
What a load of misrepresentative nonsense !
They haven’t
proven anything .. they’ve merely reinforced that the Lambda CDM model is on track, and the presently known parameters are now more accurate !
.. continuing .. from the same article ..
Quote:
|
“WiggleZ says dark energy is real. Einstein remains untoppled,” said Dr Chris Blake, of Swinburne University, lead author of the recent findings, which will be published in two papers in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
|
Not much wonder ‘Darkness’ cops such a dud wrap, with sensationalist statements and headlines like this ! Its not necessary to make the sweeping statement: 'dark energy is real'. This is not what this survey was about !
The basic research was your typical meat-and-potatoes type of stuff, which was good value research, and full compliments to the the WiggleZ team !
Why cheapen it by making statements like the one above ?
(Thanks also for your better balanced article, Steven).
Cheers