Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
added this, under References – Review:
In March 2013, following an accurate processing of available measurement data, the Planck Scientific Collaboration published the highest-resolution photograph ever of the early Universe when it was only a few hundred thousand years old. The photograph showed galactic seeds in sufficient detail to test some nontrivial theoretical predictions made more than thirty years ago. Most amazing was that all predictions were confirmed to be remarkably accurate. With no exaggeration, we may consider it established experimentally that quantum physics, which is normally assumed to be relevant on the atomic and subatomic scale, also works on the scale of the entire Universe, determining its structure with all its galaxies, stars, and planets.
added also pointer to video recording of the talk: video recording
added pointer to today’s
something is going on.
Or maybe not:
arxiv.org/abs/1907.05922
Don’t you just love the precision of astrophysics. One knows that this “tension” will be resolved at some point, but that it’s even possible to generate such levels is a testament to the power and variety of observation techniques.
The gulf between this and particle physics, on one side, and the likes of psychology and pharmacology, on the other, is vast.
Welcome to the exact sciences. Proudly serving precision since 1687.
Yes, but the speed in the drop-off of exactness as we leave physics behind isn’t always recognised.
Sorry for the joking comment, that was on a whim.
From previous discussion that we had, I can gather that what is going on with comments as in your #6 – which look a tad odd when seen without background knowledge of where you are coming from: My understanding is that you had in the past been involved in lively discussion of improper usage of statistical methods in the non-exact sciences, as practiced by non-mathematically educated “soft” scientists, and you had not before seen, or at least not got involved in to similar degree, the use of the same kind of methods in the exact sciences by practitioners who, while not pure mathematicians, are skilled in applying mathematics properly. It is the usage of the concept of statistical significances by astrophysiocist that catches your eye here as an ingredient mentioned in passing in discussion of the big “Hubble tension” issue of these days, reminding you of the occurrence of the concept that you had seen used in psychology and pharmacology.
Taken out of this implicit personal context of yours, it may seem odd to bystanders to comment on standard astrophysics research by comparing it to, of all fields, psychology or pharmocology. We don’t usually compare any topics here to psychology or pharmacology, for their far remoteness from the main subject matter of the nLab. That stark dichotomy inspired my little joking comment above, sorry for that. But I suggest that if there is further discussion about the use and misuse of the concept of statistical significance in the excact and, if needed, also in the soft sciences, we have that in a dedicated entry.
There is something fascinating going on here with the “Hubble tension”-issue, be it either a real effect or a systematics error, and with some luck we might get some experts maybe to join in here and share some thoughts or input.
added pointer to today’s
I don’t have editing permissions on the nLab but there is this article from a few months ago:
I get this message whenever I try to edit the page and submit to the edits
Hello anonymous editor. Please respond to https://nforum.ncatlab.org/discussion/14612/flood-of-unresponsive-anonymous-edits/?Focus=99880#Comment_99880 before making any further edits!
I have no idea what is going on there, because I certainly didn’t make any of the edits mentioned there. I don’t even know what any of those topics are. I’m mostly just interested in cosmology and astrophysics and related topics.
Might be directed towards the previous tenant who was living in this apartment, because I just moved in a few days ago.
Interesting story.
We could look into doing something about this. If so, do you feel it is important that you remain anonymous here?
I personally don’t care about whether I remain anonymous here or not.
But one thing I find odd about this wiki is that there is no way to distinguish between different people’s edits on the nlab. Especially with anonymous users. There is no account system like many other wikis do, such as Wikipedia, so there is no way to link up edits to some user. Relying on IP address only doesn’t really work as people move all the time, public IP addresses exist (such as at libraries, restaurants, universities et cetera), apartments constantly rotate around which tenant gets which IP address, et cetera.
I would rather have an account system so my edits could be distinguished from others who lived at my apartment in the past.
Exactly, that’s why I am wondering if you have a name and preferably a webpage that you could sign with.
When you make an edit, write your pseudo like this:
” Submit as #pseudo “
Then, all your edits will be linked to this pseudo. You can even describe yourself on the page related to this pseudo. There is no formal system of accounts but everything is like if it was the case if you always use the same pseudo. You can chose an uninformative word for your pseudo or better your real name if you accept.
That’s the default. But the user IP in question has been banned before for abusing this system (this for the first time in the history of the nLab). To lift that ban it would help to see more than a story about further anonymous tenants of unspecified apartments.
adding reference
Anonymous
Adding reference about the Hubble tension
Anonymous
adding reference
Anonymous
Adding reference
Pavan Kumar Aluri, Paolo Cea, Pravabati Chingangbam, Ming-Chung Chu, Roger G. Clowes, Damien Hutsemékers, Joby P. Kochappan, Alexia M. Lopez, Lang Liu, Niels C. M. Martens, C. J. A. P. Martins, Konstantinos Migkas, Eoin Ó Colgáin, Pratyush Pranav, Lior Shamir, Ashok K. Singal, M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Jenny Wagner, Shao-Jiang Wang, David L. Wiltshire, Shek Yeung, Lu Yin, Wen Zhao, Is the Observable Universe Consistent with the Cosmological Principle?, Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 40, Number 9, 4 April 2023. (doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acbefc, arXiv:2207.05765)
Abram
I have cross-linked that reference to inhomogeneous cosmology (where the preprint version had been referenced earlier, but I have updated there now with the publication data)
1 to 24 of 24