No crisis? Universe’s expansion is accelerating, study says

Rebutting a surprising paper from 2025, a new study has found that the universe's expansion is accelerating after all. Crisis averted? The post No crisis? Universe’s expansion is accelerating, study says first appeared on EarthSky. The science-journalism coverage adds useful context, while the strongest evidential footing still comes from the underlying data, papers or institutional documentation.

It is relevant because Earth science becomes stronger when local observations can be placed inside a broader physical pattern that spans time and geography. The planet operates as a coupled system in which atmospheric, oceanic, cryospheric and solid-Earth processes interact across timescales from days to millions of years. A measurement that captures one variable at one location and one moment has limited interpretive value until it is embedded in the longer series and wider spatial coverage that allow natural variability to be separated from forced change. Rebutting a surprising paper from 2025, a new study has found that the universe's expansion is accelerating after all. This is RCW 86, the remnant of a Type 1a supernova 8, 000 light-years away.

Studying Type 1a supernovae led to the discovery that the universe’s expansion is accelerating. An astonishing 2025 study called this discovery into question.

But now, new research claims to have found flaws in the 2025 paper. The Royal Astronomical Society originally published this article on June 11, 2026.

They published their rebuttal on June 10, 2026, in the peer-reviewed journal Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. Rebutting an extraordinary paper The new research is a direct rebuttal of a study by a team of South Korean researchers published in November 2025.

The broader interest lies in linking the observation to climatic, geophysical or environmental dynamics that extend well beyond the immediate event or location. Earth science is unusual in that its most important questions operate on timescales that no single research career can observe directly, making the archival record, whether in ice, sediment, rock or satellite data, as important as any new measurement. Results that can be embedded in that record, and that either confirm or challenge the patterns it reveals, carry disproportionate scientific weight.

The international team of researchers involved in the new study included Adam Riess and Brian Schmidt, who collectively won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics alongside Saul. Science is never settled Mark Sullivan, also from the University of Southampton, said challenging accepted theories and observations was fundamental to science.

Because this item comes through EarthSky as science journalism, it should be treated as contextual reporting rather than primary evidence. Good science reporting can identify why a result matters, connect it to the wider literature and make technical work readable, but the decisive evidence remains in the original paper, dataset, mission release or technical record. That distinction is especially important when a story is later repeated by aggregators, because repetition increases visibility, not evidential strength.

The next step is to place the result inside longer time series and to compare it with independent instruments and independent sites. Earth system observations gain most of their interpretive power from network density and temporal depth, not from any single measurement however precise. Model simulations that assimilate the new data will help clarify whether the observation fits comfortably within known natural variability or represents a shift that existing models do not reproduce.

Source