3 ms·
"answered questions" Yes. Like, "Given everything we understand, how could it be that in the physical world, there aren't more dwarf galaxies?" And there was
by VikingCoder 10y ago
"answered questions"
Yes. Like, "Given everything we understand, how could it be that in the physical world, there aren't more dwarf galaxies?"
And there was no answer to that question, until now.
Now they come up with a new model, and run it, and they end up with a number of dwarf galaxies that much more closely matches the physical world. No one had done that before, so we didn't know how it could be.
This has answered the question, "HOW COULD IT BE?"
The answer is, "If reality matches this new model."
- a_throwaway3838 10y agoSaying "it has been answered" is a strong definitive statement, though. It's rather arrogant to say "Yes, thanks to this model, we absolutely know <xyz>." Are we absolutely certain that this model is correct? Are we absolutely certain that what we can extrapolate from this model accurately applies to the physical world? Granted, yes, questions were answered... I guess. But saying that "The simulation solves a decades-old mystery" is uncomfortably confident and counter to how scientific process works. It's definitely catchy and clickbaity, though
- lutorm 10y agoSome people like to say things like that, but it's more accurate to say "this proves our current model is consistent with data". I only skimmed the article (and haven't read the actual paper) but it focused on surrounding dwarf galaxies which have traditionally been a problem with these simulations. I'm sure there are still plenty of ways in which these sims do not match our actual universe.