3 ms·
I find it funny when scientific articles (esp. pop astronomy) describe something as weird, bizarre, or extremely unlikely. We're reversing the effects of gravi
by SloopJon 6y ago
I find it funny when scientific articles (esp. pop astronomy) describe something as weird, bizarre, or extremely unlikely. We're reversing the effects of gravitational lensing on a galaxy at a distance that's a significant fraction of the radius of the observable universe.
Are astronomers that confident in their models that the inferred shape of this galaxy is bizarre? I'd love to have that level confidence in software.
- freeqaz 6y agoWe can more readily validate gravitational lensing than any early universe physics. So my guess would be that modeling the lensing is the easy part to validate :)
- slg 6y agoThat is the premise of the article. It is bizarre in relation to our models of the universe. We don't know if it is unusual in relation to the universe itself. As the article states: >Clearly, the theoretical models are wrong, or at least (and more likely) incomplete. Obviously, there’s more to learn about galaxies that exist at the edge of the observable Universe. I am reminded of that tale about how "Eureka!" is not exclamation of good science but instead "That's odd.". This article is saying "That's odd." in a way that signals we are on the verge of new scientific discovery.
- aasasd 6y ago> I'd love to have that level confidence in software Well, I mean, if you spend years mathematically validating your programs...