logo
‘Another mind-blowing change': New data suggests mysterious dark energy is evolving

‘Another mind-blowing change': New data suggests mysterious dark energy is evolving

CNN02-04-2025

Summary
New data from a massive cosmic survey suggests mysterious dark energy may be evolving and weakening over time.
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument has measured light from nearly 15 million galaxies and quasars.
Scientists previously thought dark energy was constant, but findings indicate it behaves in unexpected ways.
If dark energy continues weakening, the universe's expansion could eventually stop or even collapse.
While evidence isn't conclusive, researchers say these findings could fundamentally change our understanding of physics. New hints from one of the most extensive surveys of the cosmos to date suggest that mysterious dark energy may be evolving in ways that could shift how astronomers understand the universe.
Dark energy is a term scientists use to describe an energy or force that accelerates the expansion of the universe. But — although it represents 70% of the energy in the cosmos — researchers still have no idea exactly what dark energy is, said Mustapha Ishak-Boushaki, professor of physics and astrophysics at the University of Texas at Dallas.
Ishak-Boushaki is a cochair of a working group for the Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument collaboration, known as DESI. The instrument, now in its fourth year of surveying the sky, can observe light from 5,000 galaxies at the same time. When the project concludes next year, it will have measured the light of about 50 million galaxies.
The collaboration, which includes more than 900 researchers, shared the latest data release from DESI's first three years of observations on March 19. Among its findings are the measurements of nearly 15 million galaxies and quasars, some of the brightest objects in the universe. Ishak-Boushak helped lead the analysis of the latest DESI data release, which suggests that dark energy — long called a 'cosmological constant' given that astronomers thought it was unchanging — is behaving in unexpected ways and may even be weakening over time.
'The discovery of dark energy, nearly 30 years ago, was already the biggest surprise of my scientific lifetime,' said David Weinberg, a professor of astronomy at The Ohio State University who contributed to the DESI analysis, in a statement. 'These new measurements offer the strongest evidence so far that dark energy evolves, which would be another mind-blowing change to our understanding of how the universe works.'
The findings bring astronomers another step closer to unmasking the mysterious nature of dark energy, which may mean that the standard model of how the universe works could also require an update, scientists say.
The Dark Energy Spectroscopic Instrument is atop the National Science Foundation's Nicholas U. Mayall 4-meter Telescope at Kitt Peak National Observatory in Tucson, Arizona. The instrument's 5,000 fiber-optic 'eyes' and extensive surveying capabilities are enabling scientists to build one of the largest 3D maps of the universe and track how dark energy has influenced and shaped the cosmos over the past 11 billion years.
It takes time for the light from celestial objects like galaxies to travel to Earth, which means that DESI can effectively see what the cosmos was like at different points in time, from billions of years ago to the present.
'DESI is unlike any other machine in terms of its ability to observe independent objects simultaneously,' said John Moustakas, a professor of physics at Siena College and colead of the data release.
The newest findings include data on more than double the cosmic objects that were surveyed and presented less than a year ago. Those 2024 revelations first hinted at how dark energy may be evolving.
'We're in the business of letting the universe tell us how it works, and maybe the universe is telling us it's more complicated than we thought it was,' said Andrei Cuceu, a postdoctoral researcher at the US Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which manages DESI, and cochair of DESI's Lyman-alpha working group, in a statement. 'It's interesting and gives us more confidence to see that many different lines of evidence are pointing in the same direction.'
DESI can measure what scientists call the baryon acoustic oscillation, or BAO, scale — essentially how events that occurred early in the universe left behind patterns in how matter is distributed across the cosmos. Astronomers look to the BAO scale, with separations of matter by about 480 million light-years, as a standard ruler.
'This separation scale is like a really gigantic ruler in space that we can use to measure distances, and we use the combination of these distance and redshifts (speed objects are moving away from us) to measure the expansion of the universe,' said Paul Martini, a coordinator of the analysis and professor of astronomy at The Ohio State University.
Measuring dark energy's influence across the history of the universe shows how dominant a force it has been.
Researchers began to notice when they combined these observations with other measurements of light across the universe such as exploding stars, the gravity-warped light of distant galaxies, and the light leftover from the dawn of the universe, called the cosmic microwave background, the DESI data shows that dark energy's impact could be weakening over time.
'If this continues then eventually dark energy will not be the dominant force in the universe,' Ishak-Boushak said in an email. 'Therefore the universe expansion will stop accelerating and will go at a constant rate or even in some models could also stop and collapse back. Of course, these futures are very remote and will take billions and billions of years to happen. I've worked on the question of cosmic acceleration for 25 years, and my perspective is, if the evidence continues to grow, and it is likely to, then this will be huge for cosmology and all of physics.'
There isn't enough evidence yet to declare a groundbreaking discovery that definitively says dark energy is evolving and weakening, but that could change within just a couple of years, Ishak-Boushak said.
'My first big question is if we will continue to see evidence for evolving dark energy as our measurements get better and better,' Martini said. 'If we do get to the point where the evidence is overwhelming, then my next questions will be: How does dark energy evolve? And what are the most likely physical explanations?'
The new data release could also help astrophysicists better understand how galaxies and black holes evolve and the nature of dark matter. Although dark matter has never been detected, it is believed to make up 85% of the total matter in the universe.
Scientists involved with the collaboration are eager to improve their measurements using DESI.
'Whatever the nature of dark energy is, it will shape the future of our universe,' said Michael Levi, DESI director and a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. 'It's pretty remarkable that we can look up at the sky with our telescopes and try to answer one of the biggest questions that humanity has ever asked.'
A new experiment called Spec-S5, or Stage 5 Spectroscopic Experiment, could measure more than 10 times as many galaxies as DESI to study both dark energy and dark matter, Martini said.
'Spec-S5 would use telescopes in both the northern and southern hemispheres to map galaxies across the entire sky,' Martini said. 'We are also excited about how the (Vera) Rubin telescope will study supernovae, and provide a new, uniform dataset to study the (universe's) expansion history.'
Other space observatories, like the Euclid space telescope and the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope, set to launch in 2027, will also contribute more key measurements of dark matter and dark energy in the coming years that could help fill in the gaps, said Jason Rhodes, an observational cosmologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California. Rhodes, who is not involved in DESI, is the US science lead for Euclid and principal investigator for NASA's Euclid dark energy science team.
Rhodes, who calls the results intriguing, said the data shows a slight but persistent tension between measurements from the early days of the universe and those from the later universe.
'(This means) that our simplest model of dark energy doesn't quite allow for the early universe we observe to evolve into the late universe we observe,' Rhodes said. 'DESI results (and some other recent results) seem to indicate that a more complex model of dark energy is preferred. This is truly exciting because it may mean that new, unknown, physics governs the evolution of the universe. DESI has given us tantalizing results that may indicate a new model of cosmology is needed.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump is dismantling science in America. Time to push back, Washington
Trump is dismantling science in America. Time to push back, Washington

Yahoo

time7 hours ago

  • Yahoo

Trump is dismantling science in America. Time to push back, Washington

For US scientists like myself, the months since President Donald Trump's inauguration have been an onslaught of chaos. Trump's executive orders and DOGE have consistently targeted scientific institutions — through multi-pronged attacks on universities, research funding and government scientists. As a result, U.S. scientists are facing an unprecedented loss of job opportunities and any semblance of career stability, not just for a few months, but for decades. Research job cuts are already widespread, with resulting impacts on state and local economies across all 50 states, in urban and rural areas. For most scientists, the personal devastation is compounded by recognition of the long-term, permanent damage to US research, innovation and technology development. As scientists and Americans, our job is to speak out and make these costs unmistakable to the public. Although science and technology are integrated into every moment of our lives, the work that goes into them is often invisible: successful medical treatments are based on decades of plodding bench research and trials, and engineering innovations get commercialized by companies after years of initial development in universities. Scientific discoveries — especially those that benefit the public — are largely nurtured in universities, supported by federal funding. The most promising eventually find their way out, through university partnerships with government, non-profits, and industry. In fewer than five months, Trump's executive orders and DOGE have attacked every aspect of science and research: revoking funding overnight, politicizing scientific peer review, attacking universities, terminating tens of thousands of active projects, mass firing of federal scientists and revoking international student visas. Many executive orders and actions impacting scientific fields have been legally challenged. However, eventual court rulings on legality will mean little for the hundreds of thousands of scientists who have lost jobs, research and student programs already cut, and projects that have had to cancel experiments and data collection. In practical terms, much long-term damage is already done. Terminations of research grants alone have resulted in widespread devastation. Across just two agencies, the number of canceled contracts is staggering: 2,100 National Institute of Health projects ($1.9B in lost funding), and 1,700 projects funded by the National Science Foundation ($1.4B in lost funding). Most people don't realize it, but scientists that get federal grants have invested years — often unpaid — gaining specialized expertise that allows them to be competitive for these grants. These canceled projects represent several generations of America's best innovation — in medicine, environment, public health and engineering. Losses of federal government scientists, who are among the most experienced in their disciplines, are another existential blow to US innovation and research. On June 14, Trump will spend $60 million in taxpayer dollars on a birthday parade for himself. As a scientist, what I see is $60 million in lost science, lost engineering, lost innovation. If you don't already have a reason to join a #NoKings protest on June 14, please get out in support of US science and scientists! We want to do great work: unraveling mysteries, making lives better and powering the future economy. Lauren Kuehne lives in Bremerton, where she has done environmental research for over 15 years, with NOAA, at the University of Washington and then as small business owner and consultant. Her work has been funded by the National Science Foundation and other federal agencies.

Trump's anti-DEI mandate will make it hard to recruit new scientists
Trump's anti-DEI mandate will make it hard to recruit new scientists

Indianapolis Star

time7 hours ago

  • Indianapolis Star

Trump's anti-DEI mandate will make it hard to recruit new scientists

For half of my 32 years as a professor of chemistry at Ball State University, I was involved in executing a National Science Foundation grant called the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation program. Its aim was to encourage a broader participation in the sciences. The LSAMP program identified undergraduate college students who were underrepresented in the sciences and tried to assist them in progressing toward their STEM degree. A primary feature was to provide those students with summer research experiences working side-by-side with a faculty mentor. Repeatedly, studies have shown that research experiences are essential for undergraduates to identify as a scientist. The LSAMP program was extraordinarily successful, producing hundreds of new scientists over the course of its existence, all of whom were American citizens. The program did not interfere with, prohibit or reduce the historical population of undergraduates who participated in summer research or who became scientists. Sadly, the program, established by Congress over 30 years ago, has recently been dissolved, along with other vital programs, due to new guidance restricting federal grants relating to diversity, equity and inclusion. It is hard for some to understand that without a continuous, new source of scientific talent, the US cannot hold onto its economic growth and military security or ensure quality products in manufacturing. A myriad of industries, including paint, food, plastics, pharmaceuticals and aerospace who rely on a constant supply of American scientists expect a shortfall in the not-too distant future. It is difficult to see how we can meet our need for new talent in the sciences after stopping the successful LSAMP program.

OS Data From CARTITUDE-1: A Cure for Myeloma?
OS Data From CARTITUDE-1: A Cure for Myeloma?

Medscape

time9 hours ago

  • Medscape

OS Data From CARTITUDE-1: A Cure for Myeloma?

CHICAGO — The anticipated release of 5-year overall survival (OS) data from the CARTITUDE-1 trial showed that the use of ciltacabtagene autoleucel (cilta-cel) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) met or exceeded expectations. 'We already knew from our initial publication that 98% of patients who got cilta-cel responded to therapy and that the majority of those responses were complete responses. We also knew that the median PFS [progression-free survival] was approximately 34 months, which is unheard of in this patient population,' said study author Peter Voorhees, MD, of Atrium Health/Levine Cancer Institute, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Charlotte, North Carolina, during an oral abstract session at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 2025 annual meeting. 'Today we are sharing that the median OS is just over 5 years, and that one third of the study population has remained progression-free following a single cilta-cel infusion with no maintenance therapy.' These findings were simultaneously published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology . CARTITUDE-1 is a phase 1B/2 trial in which 97 patients with four or more prior lines of treatment for RRMM received cilta-cel. Of these patients, 45 are currently alive and in long-term follow-up in the CARTinue 15-year post-infusion study. This group is further broken down among 32 patients who have remained progression-free since their infusion and 13 patients who had progressive disease and are now in post-progressive disease follow-up. Of the progression-free patients, 12 from a single center with annual minimal residual disease (MRD) testing remain MRD-negative at year 5 or longer. Voorhees noted that long-term remissions were not limited to patients with standard-risk disease. 'Patients with high-risk cytogenetics like del17p, t(14;16) or t(4;14) and those with extramedullary plasmacytomas were equally likely to be progression-free,' he said. The study team also found that patients in long-term remission had more immune-fit drug products and higher effector to target ratios at peak expansion, Voorhees said. The discussant for this study, Krina K. Patel, MD, MSc, of MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston told attendees that the CARTITUDE-1 OS data were 'phenomenal for these hard-to-treat patients' as she reshared Voorhees' PFS slide showing a plateau extending toward 78 months. 'I do hope this plateau continues forever for these 33% of patients, to the point where we can say it's a true cure,' Patel said. 'But I don't hold my breath because most of my patients do relapse at some point.' Patel also noted the limitation that CARTITUDE-1 is a single-arm study. 'We know there's CARTITUDE-4, so we have randomized data that shows better performance than at least a couple of our standard care options,' she said. 'But it is hard to compare historical controls.' Following this presentation, Voorhees sat down with Medscape Medical News . The following interview has been edited for clarity. Since FDA approval of cilta-cel was based on CARTITUDE-1, the expectation was that longer-term data would also be very good. Why are these long-term OS results from CARTITUDE-1 so important? The median overall survival wound up being just over 5 years, when we would have expected it to be 1 year in a similar population. One third of the patients are alive and in remission, and they've been off therapy for 5 years, which is something we've never seen before. Just as importantly, we're not seeing new safety signals, and the rates of high-grade infection seem to be declining further out from treatment, which is what we would expect with immune recovery. Is it time to start thinking of myeloma as a potentially curable disease? I'm always very cautious when I discuss that. Possibly there may be patients who never relapse, but I am curious to see how these next 5 years play out because if the majority of these patients remain in remission 10 years out from cilta-cel infusion, then I'll be using the word 'cure' less cautiously at that time. We do talk a lot about functional cures in multiple myeloma: For someone newly diagnosed with standard-risk disease, they will get a three or four drug induction therapy, then a transplant followed by maintenance therapy. A lot of these patients will stay in remission well beyond 10 years and they'll pass away at an older age of unrelated causes. What do the new CARTITUDE-1 data do to the paradigm of continuous therapy? The other thing that has made us hesitate about using the word 'cure' in myeloma is the traditional paradigm of continuous treatment. What happens to patients in remission when you stop therapy? Are they in a long-term remission because you're keeping the heat on the disease or are they cured and what you're applying to them continuously is unnecessary? What makes the cilta-cel 5-year data so compelling is that these patients got that single infusion and a third of them are still in remission 5 years later. Your ASCO presentation included a discussion of MRD level at 10−5 vs 10−6. Why is that important here? Currently the best that's available as far as regular clinical practice is concerned is a 10−6 but MRD negativity is often reported at 10−5. But as so many people going through CAR T-cell therapy achieve MRD negativity at 10−5, the 10−6 level of sensitivity seems to be a better way of distinguishing those patients that might be at higher risk for disease progression vs those that are not. You're going to see us transitioning more toward using MRD negativity at 10−6 for our clinical trials going forward. What's ahead for the CARTITUDE research program? The expectation is the earlier you use a highly effective therapy, the better it's going to perform. We have the CARTITUDE-4 study, which compares cilta-cel with standard of care in both standard-risk and high-risk disease. CARTITUDE-5 and CARTITUDE-6 are both phase 3 studies looking at the application of cilta-cel therapy for newly diagnosed myeloma patients. For CARTITUDE-5, we're looking to see if adding cilta-cel after lenalidomide, bortezomib and dexamethasone will improve outcomes for patients not eligible to receive an upfront transplant. And in CARTITUDE-6, we're looking to see if cilta-cel can be used instead of autologous stem cell transplantation as consolidation for younger, fitter patients with newly diagnosed myeloma. And if things go the way we expect them to, we may be starting to use that word cure more often. When did it really hit you that the cilta-cel data are better than anything else that has yet happened? We've got several patients from CARTITUDE-1 at our institution who are still in complete remission, and they've lived a normal life for years now. We have patients on the CARTITUDE-2 program who are also long-term responders, so we see this in our everyday practice more and more. If you had told me 10 years ago that this is what we would be doing, I would've thought there's no way. But here we are doing it. This study was funded by Johson & Johnson and Legend Biotech. Voorhees disclosed having relationships with Abbvie/Genentech, Ascentage Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Indapta Therapeutics, Janssen, Kite (a Gilead company), Nektar, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and TeneoBio. Patel reported ties with Abbvie, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Janssen, Legend Biotech, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Takeda.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store