Cosmology Papers: Interesting Old Papers - Share Your Thoughts

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter twistor
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Interesting Papers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around various cosmology papers shared by participants, with an emphasis on soliciting opinions and fostering dialogue about their content. Participants explore the status of specific models, such as the Baum Frampton Model, and discuss the best ways to engage others in meaningful conversation about the papers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant shares multiple cosmology papers and asks for opinions on them.
  • Another participant questions the feasibility of discussing all the papers at once and suggests creating individual threads for each paper to facilitate discussion.
  • A participant emphasizes that readers are unlikely to engage without a specific question or commentary on a paper.
  • Questions are raised regarding the status of the Baum Frampton Model, indicating interest in its current standing in the field.
  • Another participant references the importance of measuring certain parameters to validate cosmological models and notes ongoing discussions about dark energy scenarios.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to effectively engage others in discussion about the papers. There is no consensus on the best approach to initiate dialogue or on the status of the Baum Frampton Model.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for more focused discussions on individual papers, while others express uncertainty about the current state of research related to the models mentioned.

Physics news on Phys.org
There's a lot of papers there.

Are you expecting someone to read all of them and to then post something to talk about?

Why not create threads with one paper a piece with your comments about the paper and/or with a question of interest to get the discussion going?
 
jedishrfu said:
There's a lot of papers there.

Are you expecting someone to read all of them and to then post something to talk about?

Why not create threads with one paper a piece with your comments about the paper and/or with a question of interest to get the discussion going?

You could read at least one of them an give us your opinion.
 
twistor said:
You could read at least one of them an give us your opinion.

You must be new to the PF forums. People aren't going to read the papers just because you ask them to.

The primary PF mission is to help students with mainstream science questions that they have while taking a course.

If you're looking for a discussion on some topic then you must take one of your papers and start the discussion with some question or some take on the papers and then people may respond.

Its kind of like the Stone Soup story, people read the posts but won't respond unless they see something that piques their interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_soup

You can see from my post that I mention stone soup and some comment about it and if you haven't heard of the story you might peek at the link provided.
 
Well, (one of) my question(s) is the following:
Which is the status of the Baum Frampton Model?
 
twistor said:
Well, (one of) my question(s) is the following:
Which is the status of the Baum Frampton Model?

Okay, open a new thread and place your question in the title then other PF people will see it and may then respond and in your post reference the paper of interest and thoughts you have about it.

I looked at some of your earlier threads and the titles are more descriptive and as a result other PF members posted more heavily.

Good luck...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
You should read (if not already done - 2007): http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703162; it is important to measure w < -1 to valid the model.

And you may then read (2013): http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4748; please note what is said in the conclusion (e.g.: I remark that no scenario for the dark energy exists) and state that the discussion is still going on here.

I unfortunately ignore if (because I have not enougth time to read all the flow of) the new data feat with these models.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
6K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
7K
  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
12K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K