Any linear relationship in this calculation would be an approximation. They’re useful for intuition and quickly explaining things, but for actual business either the full nonlinear relationship is used, or if the linear approximation is used the approximation error must be bounded by an acceptably small parameter.
Lambda-CDM is fully aware of general relativity. Some people may try to explain it with nonrelativistic pictures to help you build intuition, but the actual theory and calculation is fully relativistic so you don’t have to worry about that.
since we have 2 parameters to evaluate
I don’t follow. What two parameters?
The instrumental error bars are no longer overlapping. But if we imagine all the modifications one could make to Lambda-CDM, then there is still a huge “theory” error bar that subsumes all these.
Basically I’m saying the model is wrong, yes, but it can very much be fixed.
Yes it’s a problem with the model. But it a problem that can very likely be fixed. We don’t have to throw out the entire model and start from scratch.
The article over-dramatizes the story. This “deeply wrong” discrepancy is less than 10%. CMB measurements predict a Hubble constant of around 68km/s/Mpc. Distance ladder measurements get around 73km/s/Mpc.
Our current understanding of the universe the Lambda-CDM model is still wildly successful and it’s more likely that the true correct model of the universe will be a correction/extension to Lambda-CDM rather than a completely new theory (although if it is a completely new theory that would be pretty cool).
tariff = (export - import) / (<??? factor> × <another ??? factor that cancels the first one out> × import)
The only times anyone would use the asterisk as multiplication symbol are
\times in LaTex), so they just use the asterisk insteadThe US government falls in the second category.
I recommend critically reading the paper. It is quite accessible to those with college-level science background.
Most importantly, it is still highly controversial whether this galaxy rotation direction bias actually exists. If you look at section 4 of the paper, the author is debating against different groups that did similar surveys and found no bias. Someone needs to actually work through this author’s methodology as well as those of other groups and figure out what is going on.
If there is indeed a bias, that is super exciting! An anisotropic universe due to being in a black hole would be a very cool explanation. But given the ongoing debate, a general-audience publication like Independent presenting this rotation bias as a given fact is very poor journalism.
Stop depending on these proprietary LLMs. Go to !localllama@sh.itjust.works.
There are open-source LLMs you can run on your own computer if you have a powerful GPU. Models like OLMo and Falcon are made by true non-profits and universities, and they reach GPT-3.5 level of capability.
There are also open-weight models that you can run locally and fine-tune to your liking (although these don’t have open-source training data or code). The best of these (Alibaba’s Qwen, Meta’s llama, Mistral, Deepseek, etc.) match and sometimes exceed GPT 4o capabilities.
Scientists have came up with countless ways to fix the Hubble tension. But all these modified theories so far are either