<p>No. The Hubble tension represents a possible inconsistency within <span class="math-container">$\Lambda$</span>CDM. It possibly could indicate that dark energy is more complicated than a cosmological constant <span class="math-container">$\Lambda$</span> (although my understanding is that high-redshift supernovae are difficult to fit with modifications to dark energy).</p>
<p>If there were no Hubble tension after all, then that would mean <span class="math-container">$\Lambda$</span>CDM is a good fit to the relevant data.</p>
<p>By the way, evidence for dark energy goes far beyond supernovae (see e.g. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existence" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia's list</a>).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-29T06:58:35.997Z
2024-05-29T09:03:16.537Z
2024-05-29T09:03:16.537Z
Sten
<p>Is the dark energy part of the Lambda-CDM model (the 'lambda') still necessary if the value of the Hubble 'constant' is lower than that predicted by Adam Reiss and collaborators when they examined Type 1a supernovae?</p>
<p>After all, Reiss's initial hypothesis that the universe's expansion is accelerating was based on looking at those same white dwarf supernovae.....</p>
<p>P.S. Does Reiss have to return his Nobel (and the prize money) if it turns out he was wrong about the distances to those supernova, the value of the Hubble Constant and the existence of dark energy?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-29T05:18:38.440Z
It's the opposite isn't it?  The observations show consistency with the Lambda-CDM model, and suggest that the model is (basically) correct.  Previous observations suggested an inconsistency with the model.  This observation supports the model with a cosmological constant dark energy.  (and I guess your second question is tongue in cheek, but the straight answer is "no", even if later proved incorrect, nobody is suggesting Reiss did anything improper)
James K
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-29T08:57:39.557Z
The evidence for the existence of dark energy in remarkable quantities is not only based on the Type Ia Supernovae. For example, it is also deduced from the analysis of the temperature fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57585/31201
Albert
CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-05-29T10:40:02.043Z
Why would he lose the prize?  Johannes Fibiger was awarded the Nobel prize for cancer research that was later proven wrong.  No one's had to return his prize (the disproof of his research occurred after his death).  Hell, Henry Kissinger won a Peace prize, and the guy's singularly responsible for vast amounts of war and strife in the world (and still alive). To his credit (if any can be given), he actually offered to return the prize when Saigon fell, and the Nobel committee refused!
zibadawa timmy
<observational-astronomy><cosmology><supernova><dark-energy><standard-candle>
Does the lower value of the Hubble Constant predicted by the Planck Satellite and now confirmed by Wendy Freedman invalidate the idea of dark energy?
Kurt Hikes
# Does the lower value of the Hubble Constant predicted by the Planck Satellite and now confirmed by Wendy Freedman invalidate the idea of dark energy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-05-29)

Is the dark energy part of the Lambda-CDM model (the 'lambda') still necessary if the value of the Hubble 'constant' is lower than that predicted by Adam Reiss and collaborators when they examined Type 1a supernovae?

After all, Reiss's initial hypothesis that the universe's expansion is accelerating was based on looking at those same white dwarf supernovae.....

P.S. Does Reiss have to return his Nobel (and the prize money) if it turns out he was wrong about the distances to those supernova, the value of the Hubble Constant and the existence of dark energy?

**Tags:** observational-astronomy, cosmology, supernova, dark-energy, standard-candle

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It's the opposite isn't it?  The observations show consistency with the Lambda-CDM model, and suggest that the model is (basically) correct.  Previous observations suggested an inconsistency with the model.  This observation supports the model with a cosmological constant dark energy.  (and I guess your second question is tongue in cheek, but the straight answer is "no", even if later proved incorrect, nobody is suggesting Reiss did anything improper)  
> **username_2**: The evidence for the existence of dark energy in remarkable quantities is not only based on the Type Ia Supernovae. For example, it is also deduced from the analysis of the temperature fluctuations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). See https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/57585/31201  
> **username_3**: Why would he lose the prize?  Johannes Fibiger was awarded the Nobel prize for cancer research that was later proven wrong.  No one's had to return his prize (the disproof of his research occurred after his death).  Hell, Henry Kissinger won a Peace prize, and the guy's singularly responsible for vast amounts of war and strife in the world (and still alive). To his credit (if any can be given), he actually offered to return the prize when Saigon fell, and the Nobel committee refused!  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2024-05-29. Score: 7

No. The Hubble tension represents a possible inconsistency within $\Lambda$CDM. It possibly could indicate that dark energy is more complicated than a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (although my understanding is that high-redshift supernovae are difficult to fit with modifications to dark energy).

If there were no Hubble tension after all, then that would mean $\Lambda$CDM is a good fit to the relevant data.

By the way, evidence for dark energy goes far beyond supernovae (see e.g. [Wikipedia's list](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy#Evidence_of_existence)).


---

