I Cosmic Test Reveals Odd Findings for Einstein's Relativity

Messages
10,919
Reaction score
3,795
TL;DR Summary
What the popular press writes and a scientific paper says may be somewhat different.
Physics news on Phys.org
The paper is more than a year old and has 15 citations, not zero, and not a zillion. That tells you that it is more or less typical among such papers.
 
  • Like
Likes bhobba and vanhees71
Vanadium 50 said:
The paper is more than a year old and has 15 citations

I first read "the paper is more than 15 years old".
Need more coffee...
 
  • Haha
Likes vanhees71 and bhobba
malawi_glenn said:
I first read "the paper is more than 15 years old".
In some frame, it is.
 
  • Like
  • Love
  • Haha
Likes dextercioby, bhobba, berkeman and 2 others
I think the gist of it is, if you assume a certain class of theories (which include "vanilla" GR) contains the correct theory of gravity, and assume some prior on those theories, and then do a Bayesian estimate of the best fit parameters to predict our current measures of some key cosmological numbers, then GR is not the favoured model. But it's not a resoundingly significant (in the statistical sense) result, and I've no idea how plausible cosmologists in general find their assumptions.
 
In this video I can see a person walking around lines of curvature on a sphere with an arrow strapped to his waist. His task is to keep the arrow pointed in the same direction How does he do this ? Does he use a reference point like the stars? (that only move very slowly) If that is how he keeps the arrow pointing in the same direction, is that equivalent to saying that he orients the arrow wrt the 3d space that the sphere is embedded in? So ,although one refers to intrinsic curvature...
So, to calculate a proper time of a worldline in SR using an inertial frame is quite easy. But I struggled a bit using a "rotating frame metric" and now I'm not sure whether I'll do it right. Couls someone point me in the right direction? "What have you tried?" Well, trying to help truly absolute layppl with some variation of a "Circular Twin Paradox" not using an inertial frame of reference for whatevere reason. I thought it would be a bit of a challenge so I made a derivation or...
I started reading a National Geographic article related to the Big Bang. It starts these statements: Gazing up at the stars at night, it’s easy to imagine that space goes on forever. But cosmologists know that the universe actually has limits. First, their best models indicate that space and time had a beginning, a subatomic point called a singularity. This point of intense heat and density rapidly ballooned outward. My first reaction was that this is a layman's approximation to...
Back
Top