nutball said:This result really should be treated with scepticism. It relies heavily on standard candles, which is always an assumption at best. It's not clear to me that our understanding of the mechanisms underlying Type 1a supernovae is yet sufficiently robust that we need to overturn our entire understanding of physics on the basis on the apparent evidence.
Put simply... our models of Type 1A supernovae are incomplete at best. So when observational evidence comes along which suggests that either a) our models are incorrect at high redshift, or b) that we need to invent some fancy new type of energy which gives mathematicians a hard-on, which should we choose? Dodgy incomplete model, or overturn a century of physics?
But, no, negative energy is much more "stimulating". It seems that Occam has moved into disposables these days.
Yeah, let's create the 5th interaction because after postulating field number 5 we can in fact quantize it. Even I, as a theoretical physicist, find it funny when the qfts (quantum field terrorists; incld. string theory) jump to even more exotic models without conclusive evidence. The central problem with those theories is that they've yet to produce a measurable effect.