The DESI Collaboration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Energy_Spectroscopic_Instrument) has released results from its first year of observations.
“The complex analysis used nearly 6 million galaxies and quasars and lets researchers see up to 11 billion years into the past. With just one year of data, DESI has made the most precise overall measurement of the growth of structure, surpassing previous efforts that took decades to make.” According to Dragan Huterer, professor at the University of Michigan and co-lead of DESI’s group.
https://web.ub.edu/en/web/actualitat/w/desi-force-gravity - New DESI results on the force of gravity
The analysis upholds general relativity but hints dark energy may vary over time. The result validates our leading model of the universe. It limits theories of modified gravity like MOND, which have been proposed as alternative ways to explain unexpected observations – including the accelerating expansion of our universe attributed to dark energy.
The standard model of cosmology summarizes our current best knowledge of the Universe. This is based on two well-established pillars of physics. Einstein's General Relativity, which regulates gravitation, and the standard model of particle physics, for all other basic interactions. However, it also relies on three key components — Inflation, Dark matter, and Dark energy that are critical for understanding a wide range of evidence, from the Cosmic Microwave Background to the Universe's Large Scale Structure.
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument (DESI) measures the effect of dark energy on the universe's expansion. Its completed survey will obtain optical spectra for tens of millions of galaxies and quasars, constructing a 3D map of the nearby universe.
“This is the first time that DESI has looked at the growth of cosmic structure. We’re showing a tremendous new ability to probe modified gravity and improve constraints on dark energy models. And it’s only the tip of the iceberg.”
Additional details on the implications for alternative gravity models in this paper - Ishak et al. (2024), Modified Gravity Constraints from the Full Shape Modeling of Clustering Measurements from DESI 2024 https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.12026
Links to the other original papers are here https://data.desi.lbl.gov/doc/papers/
Some points from the article:
Most scientific papers are incremental and rarely make headlines, with only a few results reaching the public. To assess scientific news, consider the timeline. Significant findings often build on years of research and also the scope, since broader claims usually lack robust support. Patience is essential - scientific conclusions are built via debate and scrutiny and evolve. While some science is just too incomplete to reach firm conclusions yet. The evidence is still accumulating. Like claims about the small-brained human relative Homo naledi. Did they make art, use fire, and bury their dead as claimed? Probably, but it's too soon to say for sure.
Examples from the article include the South Pole telescope finding primordial waves from the earliest moments of the Big Bang - which sadly was just local dust. Also the phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere which the discoverers proposed came from some form of exotic life floating in the cloud tops. That was just flawed methodology.
Exciting research is often incorrect due to speculative ideas or over-narrow parameters. But speculation is needed. "if we knew the answers ahead of time, we wouldn’t need to do science". Scientists also face pressure to publish high-impact results. That can lead to exaggerated findings or even fraud. Additionally, media sensationalism can distort scientific reporting. Trust in science has declined as contradictory claims in the media promote doubt about the scientific method. Some discoveries, like gravitational waves, are compelling and well-founded, but most intriguing results need caution.