Will cosmologists every enter?

The uncertainty of science: In apparent direct response to the June 11, 2026 press release by cosmologists claiming that their data is correct and that the universe’s expansion is accelerating in the early universe and thus dark energy must exist, a different team of scientists today issued their own press release and research paper stating that the evidence of that acceleration is faulty and based upon a false assumption about supernovae.

The original discovery of dark matter and the acceleration was based on the brightness of a certain type of supernova in the early universe, which also assumed that brightness was always the same for every explosion. The new research says otherwise.

The team analysed the supernovae from the Pantheon+ dataset, one of the most comprehensive catalogues of its kind, and incorporated a recently proposed correction that takes into account the age of the stars that eventually produce these supernova explosions. They also checked whether the inferred acceleration of the expansion rate is indeed the same in every direction, as is assumed in the standard cosmological model. “There is increasing evidence that the brightness of Type Ia supernovae depends on the age of the stars they come from,” said Professor Sarkar, a co-author of the study. “If this effect is not accounted for, it can lead to the erroneous conclusion that the expansion rate is accelerating.”

After applying the correction, the researchers found that the data no longer support a picture of a uniformly accelerating universe. Instead, their analysis suggests that cosmic expansion is overall slowing down rather than speeding up.

Their conclusion is blunt: “There is thus no evidence for isotropic accelerated expansion of the Universe, which can be ascribed to either a Cosmological Constant or more general dark energy.”

In other words, there is solid disagreement within the cosmological community about the existence of dark energy. Some believe it exists, based on the supernova data. Some do not, because the data depends on too many assumptions about those supernovae that further observations suggest are wrong.