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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a recent paper that tests Einstein's theory of relativity on a cosmic scale, highlighting findings that some participants find odd or noteworthy. The scope includes theoretical implications, statistical analysis, and the relevance of the results within the context of cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the importance of the findings presented in the paper, suggesting that while interesting, they may not be particularly significant.
  • Another participant notes that the paper is over a year old and has received 15 citations, implying it is typical for such research.
  • A participant misreads the age of the paper, initially thinking it is over 15 years old, which leads to a clarification that in some frames, it could be interpreted differently.
  • One participant summarizes that if certain assumptions about gravity theories are made, including general relativity, a Bayesian analysis indicates that GR may not be the favored model, though the statistical significance of this result is questioned.
  • Concerns are raised about the plausibility of the assumptions made by cosmologists in the analysis presented in the paper.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the significance and implications of the findings, with no consensus reached regarding the importance of the results or the validity of the assumptions made in the analysis.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the assumptions underlying the theories discussed and the statistical significance of the results, which remain unresolved.

Messages
10,991
Reaction score
3,850
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
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
692