Pith. sign in

REVIEW

A response to Rubin & Heitlauf: "Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs still point to yes"

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1912.04257 v2 pith:UXBL44JU submitted 2019-12-09 astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph

A response to Rubin & Heitlauf: "Is the expansion of the universe accelerating? All signs still point to yes"

classification astro-ph.CO gr-qchep-ph
keywords dipolemadecorrectionsheitlaufrubinsigmaaccelerationdata
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

We have shown (Colin et al., 2019) that the acceleration of the Hubble expansion rate inferred from Type Ia supernovae (SNe Ia) is, at $3.9\sigma$ significance, a dipole approximately aligned with the CMB dipole, while its monopole component, which can be interpreted as due to a Cosmological Constant or dark energy, is consistent with zero at $1.4\sigma$. This has been challenged by Rubin & Heitlauf (2019) who assert that the dipole arises because we made an incorrect assumption about the SNe Ia light-curve parameters (viz. took them to be sample- and redshift independent), and did not allow for the motion of the Solar system (w.r.t. the 'CMB frame' in which the CMB dipole supposedly vanishes). In fact what has an even larger impact on our finding is that we reversed the inconsistent "corrections" made for the peculiar velocities of the SNe Ia host galaxies w.r.t the CMB frame, which in fact serve to bias the lever arm of the Hubble diagram towards higher inferred values of the monopole. We demonstrate that even if all such corrections are made consistently and both sample- and redshift-dependence is allowed for in the standardisation of supernova light curves, the evidence for isotropic acceleration rises to just $2.8\,\sigma$. Thus the criticism of Rubin & Heitlauf serves only to highlight that "corrections" must be made to the SNe Ia data assuming the standard $\Lambda$CDM model, in order to recover it from the data.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.