Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Interesting old papers

  1. Jun 19, 2014 #1
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 20, 2014 #2


    Staff: Mentor

    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?
  4. Jun 20, 2014 #3
    You could read at least one of them an give us your opinion.
  5. Jun 20, 2014 #4


    Staff: Mentor

    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.


    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.
  6. Jun 20, 2014 #5
    Well, (one of) my question(s) is the following:
    Which is the status of the Baum Frampton Model?
  7. Jun 20, 2014 #6


    Staff: Mentor

    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: Jun 20, 2014
  8. Jun 20, 2014 #7
    You should read (if not already done - 2007): http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0703162; [Broken] it is important to measure w < -1 to valid the model.

    And you may then read (2013): http://arxiv.org/abs/1307.4748; [Broken] 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: May 6, 2017
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook