3 ms·
Mostly mysterious here is the detail from unconnected parties as to the significance of the supposed deviation. It reads mostly like a puff piece from an acade
by mellosouls 5y ago
Mostly mysterious here is the detail from unconnected parties as to the significance of the supposed deviation.
It reads mostly like a puff piece from an academia PR person. Way too vague in the article itself.
- _rpd 5y agoTo be fair, there were 30 new papers published: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-3-cosmology-results-papers/ https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/des-year-3-cosmology-result... The overview paper appears to be this one: https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/desy3_3x2_results.pdf https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/... (the first published paper at the bottom of the page. I'd have posted the title and abstract, but they've disabled copy-paste.)
- motloch 5y agoYeah, as a cosmologist my reading of the DES results is exactly the opposite than what the article mentions - new DES results seem to show that one mystery (low values of S_8 in the low redshift measurements) was actually resolved.. See the bottom of their Fig 14 in https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/desy3_3x2_results.pdf https://www.darkenergysurvey.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/... The problem was that the green (CMB/Planck) and gray (weak lensing) curves in the past were not overlapping as well as they are now. To me the tension seems to mostly go away now.