I just read a suite of papers including Crocker and Weiner 2019 ApJ, the 2 Farrah et al papers in 2023, and Crocker et al 2024 from #DESI I think Crocker figured out Dark Energy. I think he really did it (in collaboration with a whole lotta folks). Holy shit. iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1... - ThreadSky

starstryder.space • 90 days ago

I just read a suite of papers including Crocker and Weiner 2019 ApJ, the 2 Farrah et al papers in 2023, and Crocker et al 2024 from #DESI

I think Crocker figured out Dark Energy.

I think he really did it (in collaboration with a whole lotta folks).

Holy shit.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/10/094

Comments

joshuatan.bsky.social•89 days ago

I wasn’t as enthusiastic. I am holding out for clear falsifiable predictions for future observations of the model. The parameter tuning that matching BH production to 2nd-order effects is a nice feature for resolving discrepancies, but got to avoid overfitting Von Neumann’s elephant!

seshnadathur.bsky.social•89 days ago

I agree with @carlrodriguez.bsky.social 's critique. But anyway, if you do write about it somewhere, please don't suggest that Croker et al 2024 is a paper from DESI - it is nothing to do with us.

starstryder.space•89 days ago

Is the critique here on blue sky? Roughly how far back do I need to scroll?

seshnadathur.bsky.social•89 days ago

https://bsky.app/profile/carlrodriguez.bsky.social/post/3lcanxhdjvc23 Not far at all.

carlrodriguez.bsky.social•89 days ago

This result is inconsistent with just about every observed stellar-mass black hole we know (as I and several others have pointed out in the published literature) and is even inconsistent with observed masses of the LIGO black holes (as identified by the authors themselves!).

paulduffell.bsky.social•89 days ago

This is probably just the first in the deluge of papers saying "Dark Energy might couple to (thing that emerges around z~1)"

starstryder.space•89 days ago

And now I know. They caught me out once… hopefully I’ll not get my hopes up again.

paulduffell.bsky.social•89 days ago

Sorry, I was probably too cynical in my tone! I think it's great that we're already coming up with ideas like this, and even better that they're falsifiable by folks like Carl! The DESI data provides hope we might actually learn what dark energy is! But we probably won't answer it in one paper.

starstryder.space•89 days ago

Oh there were atleast 4 papers. Here’s my midnight thought; a team is working hard to prove an idea & they’re writing pleasing papers to chew thru on a Saturday afternoon. After everything here is said, they’ll still be working. How many of us chase bad ideas for too long just in case they’re right?

josephusbrown.bsky.social•88 days ago

Sometimes chasing a bad idea about one topic leads to a good idea in something unrelated, because that’s how science works.

astrowright.bsky.social•89 days ago

Can you provide a citation to a critique on these grounds? Having trouble digging up the papers you mentioned.

carlrodriguez.bsky.social•89 days ago

Constraints from GC BHs: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023ApJ...947L..12R/abstract

Constraints from Gaia BHs: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023A%26A...673L..10A/abstract

Constraint from LMXBs:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.3000M/abstract

Constraints using LIGO BHs:
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024MNRAS.528.2377A/abstract
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023OJAp....6E..25G/abstract

carlrodriguez.bsky.social•89 days ago

And the paper from the original authors inferring a measured coupling from the LIGO black holes that is significantly smaller than would be required to explain dark energy: https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021ApJ...921L..22C/abstract

astrowright.bsky.social•89 days ago

So it seems clear that stellar remnant black holes are not “cosmologically coupled”.

Is there any wiggle room if primordial black holes exist and, for some reason, are cosmologically coupled even while remnants are not?

Or would that violate some foundational assumption?

carlrodriguez.bsky.social•89 days ago

I'm not as much of an expert in PBHs, but I don't immediately see why not.

I think if you need DE to explain later acceleration, then you need BHs that form later, which is why coupling it to star formation worked. But I'd need to re-read the papers. (I might be remembering the argument wrong).

starstryder.space•89 days ago

That was my take from their papers: the formation of BHs from pop III stars started DE and this got rid of Hubble Tension.

I really appreciate your critiques and references. It seemed like such a good thread of papers and in my mad rush of reading it all just looked so promising.

astrowright.bsky.social•89 days ago

Thanks!

obsidianspider.com•90 days ago

I had a really difficult time trying to digest the summary, let alone the whole paper. One more reason that science communicators such as yourself are so important.

schuyler.info•89 days ago

https://phys.org/news/2024-10-links-black-holes-dark-energy.amp

jsgjames.bsky.social•89 days ago

The thread/discussions about this post are why I followed folks on the other site. Seeing it here makes me very happy.

patrickm101.bsky.social•90 days ago

Say more?

starstryder.space•90 days ago

Stay tuned. Just write about it for this weeks Escape Velocity Space News #evsn

Dark energy can’t quite be explained in a couple hundred characters

patrickm101.bsky.social•78 days ago

Caught the explanation on EVSN. Interesting and wild. Like seeing more ways to rule out MOND too. Thanks!

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply