It's a math trick. Not a physical theory.
BB84
joined 9 months ago
Scientists have came up with countless ways to fix the Hubble tension. But all these modified theories so far are either
- contrived
- untestable with present day observational instruments
- currently being tested
- already tested and deemed incompatible with reality.
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.
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).
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!
Did I say OC? I photoshopped the Bloomberg thing on top of someone else's meme that I ~~stole~~ obtained via fair use. It's basically OC by tech companies' standards.
Caption: an interview dialogue
- Are dark matter models unsuited to explain observations? [the "dark matter models" and "to explain observations" parts are poorly edited onto the image, overlaying the original text]
- In my view, they are unsuited.
- Why?
- That's my opinion, don't ask me why.
End of caption
Dark matter is the mainstream among physicists, but internet commentators keep saying it can't be right because it "feels off".
Of course, skepticism is good for science! You just need to justify it more than saying the mainstream "feels off".
For people who prefer alternative explanations over dark matter for non-vibe-based reasons, I would love to hear your thoughts! Leave a comment!
CW: Reddit
Originally from https://old.reddit.com/r/polandball/comments/1gg2ifk/eurosummer/
Shark is hai in German and haj (pronounced hai) in Swedish. blåhaj means blue shark.
Tap for spoiler
The bowling ball isn’t falling to the earth faster. The higher perceived acceleration is due to the earth falling toward the bowling ball.
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/19504984
It's all relative
view more: next ›
It's not just the narrow wavelength. Even with a perfectly monochromatic green light, your green receptors would activate a lot but your receptors for red and blue would still activate a bit. These researchers specifically target only the green receptors to activate (by literally shooting light at those receptors in particular), so for the first time ever your brain reads a pure green signal.