Scientists have came up with countless ways to fix the Hubble tension. But all these modified theories so far are either
Any linear relationship in this calculation would be an approximation. They’re useful for intuition and quickly explaining things, but for actual business either the full nonlinear relationship is used, or if the linear approximation is used the approximation error must be bounded by an acceptably small parameter.
Lambda-CDM is fully aware of general relativity. Some people may try to explain it with nonrelativistic pictures to help you build intuition, but the actual theory and calculation is fully relativistic so you don’t have to worry about that.
since we have 2 parameters to evaluate
I don’t follow. What two parameters?
The instrumental error bars are no longer overlapping. But if we imagine all the modifications one could make to Lambda-CDM, then there is still a huge “theory” error bar that subsumes all these.
Basically I’m saying the model is wrong, yes, but it can very much be fixed.
thing I don’t like is on the rise
must be the tankies
Yes it’s a problem with the model. But it a problem that can very likely be fixed. We don’t have to throw out the entire model and start from scratch.
The article over-dramatizes the story. This “deeply wrong” discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.
Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it’s more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).
tariff = (export - import) / (<??? factor> × <another ??? factor that cancels the first one out> × import)
The only times anyone would use the asterisk as multiplication symbol are
\times in LaTex), so they just use the asterisk insteadThe US government falls in the second category.
Did they end up choosing block list or allow list? I hope it was the former. Allowlist will exclude small instances and harm federation diversity.
The most anticapitalist instance getting a .com domain would be hilarious
But there gotta be more to the story. Was the registrar being “shady” as @[email protected] said? Why did federation take so long?
The link is helpful. Thanks!
The link is helpful. Thanks!
Thanks! The link is helpful.
Look like they got the domain back a while ago. Wonder why federation took so long.
Sorry I should have clarified: not looking for Hexbear lore in general. I have seen a lot of Hexbear content, so I have a solid understanding on the site and the users. Don’t want to start a debate about that here because that debate always turn nasty.
What I am looking for is: what happened in the past month-ish? How did you all lost your domain? How and when did you get it back? Why did it take so long for federation to be back? Is there any other change made to the site during this downtime?
I recommend critically reading the paper. It is quite accessible to those with college-level science background.
Most importantly, it is still highly controversial whether this galaxy rotation direction bias actually exists. If you look at section 4 of the paper, the author is debating against different groups that did similar surveys and found no bias. Someone needs to actually work through this author’s methodology as well as those of other groups and figure out what is going on.
If there is indeed a bias, that is super exciting! An anisotropic universe due to being in a black hole would be a very cool explanation. But given the ongoing debate, a general-audience publication like Independent presenting this rotation bias as a given fact is very poor journalism.
If only the new US regime could copy from the PRC by funding and promoting scientific research😔
As stupid as that sounds, you are not totally wrong.
@[email protected] and @[email protected] you are misunderstanding what “observable universe” means. The observable universe is defined by the particle horizon, but the universe that can affect us in the future is defined by the event horizon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_horizon says
The particle horizon differs from the cosmic event horizon, in that the particle horizon represents the largest comoving distance from which light could have reached the observer by a specific time, while the cosmic event horizon is the largest comoving distance from which light emitted now can ever reach the observer in the future.
But even the cosmological event horizon distance is dependent on our model of the universe’s expansion, which in turn depends on the content of the universe. An event such as a vacuum collapse will drastically alter the content and the expansion rate, rendering our calculation of the event horizon invalid. So “snap changes…” may in fact be the case.
It kinda works you just gotta be careful with what you use and keep some human in the loop curating the outputs.
It’s a math trick. Not a physical theory.