Cosmic voids may explain the universe's acceleration without dark energy

This still from a NASA video shows a snapshot of the universe as simulated by NASA's Pleiades supercomputer, the seventh fastest in the world. The Bolshoi universe simulation is the most realistic view of the universe to date and was released in late September 2011.
A snapshot of the universe simulated by NASA's Pleiades supercomputer. (Image credit: NASA/UCSC)

Dark energy, the mysterious force that's driving the accelerating expansion of the universe, may not actually exist, scientists say. Their research has brought into question one of the cornerstones of modern cosmology.

In a new study, published Dec. 19, 2024 in the journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, the researchers analyzed data from the Pantheon+ survey — the most comprehensive dataset of type Ia supernovae, whose consistent brightness allows astronomers to measure distances across the universe with incredible precision. Their analysis suggests that what we perceive as acceleration might be an illusion caused by the large-scale structure of the cosmos.

Studying the universe with type Ia supernovae

Type Ia supernovae, the explosive deaths of white dwarf stars, have long served as one of cosmology's most powerful tools. These stellar events occur when a white dwarf accretes enough material from a companion star to trigger a thermonuclear explosion. Because type 1a supernovae produce consistent peak brightness, measuring their brightness when observed from Earth can reveal how far away they are.

"Type Ia supernovae are extremely valuable in astronomy since they act as standardizable candles with which we can measure vast distances in the Universe," study co-author Zachary Lane, a researcher at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, told Live Science in an email.

By combining this distance information with the redshift of the supernovae — the stretching of light to redder wavelengths due to the universe's expansion — scientists have mapped the universe's growth over time. Decades ago, researchers used this method to show that the universe's expansion was accelerating, a discovery that led to the hypothesis of dark energy — a mysterious, unseen force thought to permeate space and drive this acceleration.

Pantheon+ dataset

The Pantheon+ dataset is the most extensive and precise collection of type Ia supernovae ever assembled. Spanning decades of observations from both ground-based and space telescopes, it contains data on 1,500 supernovae across space-time.

"At the time of this study, the Pantheon+ Type Ia Supernovae spectroscopic dataset was the largest and most pristine collection of purely Type Ia supernovae," Lane said.

The dataset's precision and size make it a goldmine for testing cosmological models. Its detailed records of brightness and redshift offer unparalleled insights into how the universe has evolved, providing a critical testing ground for alternative theories to the standard cosmological model.

Challenging dark energy

While the idea of dark energy explains much of the observed acceleration in the universe, it has always carried an air of mystery. Dark energy has never been directly detected, nor has its origin been explained theoretically, prompting some scientists to explore other explanations.

The new study takes aim at a key assumption of the standard model: that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, meaning it looks the same in every direction and from every vantage point.

This assumption underpins the need for dark energy to explain the universe's expansion. However, Lane and his colleagues tested an alternative idea called the timescape model, which suggests that the apparent acceleration could be a byproduct of cosmic structures like voids — vast, near-empty regions of space between galaxy clusters.

"The standard model of cosmology is built on the assumption that the Universe is uniform and featureless on large scales and that cosmic structures do not significantly impact the evolution of the Universe," Lane said. "Timescape abandons these assumptions and finds that the apparent acceleration of the Universe is the result of feedback between cosmic structures."

Because of their sparse matter and gravity, voids expand faster than denser parts of the universe, such as galaxy clusters. According to the timescape model, the dominance of these voids in the cosmic landscape could explain the observed acceleration without the need for dark energy.

Evidence in favor of timescape

The team analyzed the Pantheon+ dataset and found that their results align remarkably well with the timescape model — and in some cases even outperformed the standard cosmological model.

"When considering every supernova, including those very close to us in the Milky Way, which could be influenced by local structures, we find very strong preference in favor of the Timescape model," Lane said. When supernovae in the nearby universe were excluded to account for local differences, the evidence remained supportive, echoing findings from the Dark Energy Survey (DES).

These results pose a direct challenge to the necessity of dark energy. "Consistently finding moderate or stronger evidence for a cosmological model without dark energy using one of the most historically significant observational methods is an exciting prospect to be explored for the future of cosmology," Lane said.

The road ahead

While the findings are compelling, Lane stressed that further research is needed to solidify the case for timescape. "While other factors need to be considered for this to be more established within the cosmology community, it proves a promising initial test," he said.

In the future, the team plans to combine the Pantheon+ dataset with data from the Dark Energy Survey and baryon acoustic oscillations — patterns in the distribution of galaxies that can be used as another cosmic ruler. The astronomers are also conducting simulations of how voids expand under the framework of general relativity and exploring how these effects apply to galaxy formation and evolution.

"Our research group is exploring several extensions to our current work, aiming to challenge foundational aspects of cosmology," Lane said. "A strong competing framework will still enhance the future of cosmology and our current understanding of the challenges facing the field."

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Andrey Feldman
Live Science Contributor

Andrey got his B.Sc. and M.Sc. degrees in elementary particle physics from Novosibirsk State University in Russia, and a Ph.D. in string theory from the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He works as a science writer, specializing in physics, space, and technology. His articles have been published in Elements, N+1, and AdvancedScienceNews.

  • TallDave
    Euclid QR1 inbound
    Reply
  • Fire-Starter James
    If we apply relativistic addition of velocities to the cosmic expansion,
    V(r)=Hr becomes V(r) = c * tanh(Hr/c).
    This explains the illusion of cosmic acceleration without assuming dark energy.

    I don't see any reason to assume the cosmic expansion is Newtonian.
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    Is it just me, or does it appear there is a desperate search for some kind of cause to explain what they think they see? Our science is convinced that space and the matter in it is expanding, or has expanded at great rate, to form our present universe.

    It seems to me that when you measure a symmetry referenced on your location, Such as velocity spheres in proportion with 360X360 distance, that one or both of the theses possibilities are occurring.

    Possibility 1. There is an error in our measurement. A proportional error with the dynamic of the measurement. An unknown coefficient. Or perhaps the measurement itself is adding something to the measurement. Some sort of a rate distortion. Perhaps a rate reactance. A common physical property. Light has the highest rates we work with. Wave period rates.

    Possibility 2. A false understanding of the what we are measuring. For instance the velocity of light has never been verified. And when measured the value has always been different. They believe one way speed is impossible to measure. With decades of CERN and all these telescopes and we can’t measure light. So the assumption continues.

    But will spend years looking for that force that is blowing our space bubble.

    There is no way to determine when, where or how this “bubble” started. And I seriously doubt it’s a bubble.

    I think space itself is just an empty cube that has no end. With intermittent EM fields flying thru it. Only the time, the distance between the EM field, changes with motion.

    It’s a duty cycle universe. Light is the rate of presence and non presence. And in a flux, a portion will always be present. Forming a continuous stream. With the other portion being always absent.

    Light is only there for half of the time.

    If the photons of a star were phased, stars would blink.
    Reply
  • Helio
    Classical Motion said:
    It seems to me that when you measure a symmetry referenced on your location, Such as velocity spheres in proportion with 360X360 distance, that one or both of the theses possibilities are occurring.
    This is sorta what I was pondering. The idea that voids are expanding faster, and thereby show more acceleration for SN that we observe in their direction would make sense if it weren't isotropic. Why wouldn't we see varying acceleration rate proportional to the voids in any one direction?

    Also, if voids are expanding, then what do we call the energy causing their expansion. Isn't it DE? So how can voids explain away something it must have in the first place?
    Reply
  • Classical Motion
    I know, it just adds another paradox to this cluster.
    Reply
  • Fire-Starter James
    I suppose we could write a library about why science has problems with the question "Why?". So not doing that here.

    What if the cosmic expansion just is, and doesn't have a "why"? Like explaining why the speed of light is a universal constant. What if the expansion is a property of the universe, and has no cause, but just is? If so, then there's no reason to look for a dark energy.

    Natural forces keep small structures together, but get weaker with distance. Smaller structures hang together because the known forces convert the increase in potential energy into the kinetic energy required to keep the structure together. Increasing distances weaken the natural forces, but have no effect on the expansion. So distant galaxy clusters fly apart from each other, but the stars in a single galaxy do not.

    What if our meter sticks are not expanding with the cosmos, but our multi-megaparsec sticks are expanding?
    Reply
  • Gibsense
    The thread " It's all in plain sight, maybe" is a good argument developed from the thread's contributions.

    As in the Timescape Hypothesis, the principle that time runs faster in voids (away from mass) is used but extended thus:
    If the mass density of space is reduced time runs faster
    If the universe expands the mass density of the universe's space is reduced
    Expansion causes time to run faster as space mass density is diluted
    Time runs faster causing expansion to increase faster which causes a loop effect called acceleration.The above is simple and straightforward. More difficult is:
    Unfortunately, the mathematics is skewed by the insistence (dogma science fiction) that time runs with parallel arrows from all locations even though it can be shown that time dilation is simply a rotation of direction in all circumstances. The rotation of time in gravity wells explains why the voids of the universe have not expanded so fast as to make all mass connecting galaxies into blackhole valleys of almost infinite depth back to the BB.

    Hmm, never thought of that before; what if all black holes simply take mass back to the BB in a sort of time collapse where the mass is so great it bores a hole back to the BB singularity? Might be worth exploring a bit more as a sort of time loop recycling. If you don't like thinking (as best we can) in 4 spatial dimensions this will not make any sense
    Reply