Cosmic Test Reveals Odd Findings for Einstein's Relativity

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bhobba
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Discovery Important
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on a recent paper that tests Einstein's General Relativity (GR) on a cosmic scale, revealing unexpected findings. The paper, available on arXiv (2107.12992), has garnered 15 citations, indicating moderate interest within the scientific community. Key conclusions suggest that while GR remains a valid model, it may not be the most favored under certain Bayesian analyses of cosmological parameters. However, the statistical significance of these findings is not robust, leaving room for skepticism among cosmologists regarding the underlying assumptions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of General Relativity (GR)
  • Familiarity with Bayesian statistics
  • Knowledge of cosmological parameters and their significance
  • Ability to interpret scientific papers and citations
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore Bayesian estimation techniques in cosmology
  • Research alternative theories of gravity beyond General Relativity
  • Examine the implications of cosmological parameters on GR
  • Review recent literature on cosmic-scale tests of relativity
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and researchers interested in the implications of General Relativity and its alternatives, as well as those analyzing the statistical methods used in cosmological studies.

Messages
10,971
Reaction score
3,839
TL;DR
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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: bhobba

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 57 ·
2
Replies
57
Views
7K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
451