4 ms·
Not so fast. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. There are good reasons to suspect that there are errors made in this analysis. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912
by flick 7y ago
Not so fast. See [1] and [2] for an explanation. There are good reasons to suspect that there are errors made in this analysis.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191 https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.02191
[2]: https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosmologists-contend-20191217/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/no-dark-energy-no-chance-cosm...
- knzhou 7y agoHold up, this is a different thing than what [1] and [2] are responding to.
- crazygringo 7y agoYes, I'm totally lost. Was there accidental confusion here? Or is the new paper (by completely different authors) somehow building on those other papers and flick is implying it suffers from the same criticisms? Would love to know if this is genuinely newsworthy or not.
- dannykwells 7y agoIt would be pretty impressive indeed if [1] countered this article, since the Arxiv preprint came online 6 days later.
- ssivark 7y agoThanks! It’s a little disingenuous/irresponsible on part of the phys.org article to not even mention the Rubin+Heitlauf rebuttal and the ensuing discussion, even though they’re from a month ago. EDIT: No wait, this OP is about a different paper from a week later... Hmm.... interesting times.