Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite — mentioned by mr_mitm

Thu, 20 Mar 2025 07:03:21 GMT

I know it makes for a "better" headline, but don't be mislead by it thinking Astronomers actually thought dark energy was a cosmological constant, period. Read section 1.1 of the Euclid review paper from 2016 to get an impression straight from the horses mouth. > Why then is the cosmological constant not the end of the story as far as cosmic acceleration is concerned? There are at least three reasons. https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.00180

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite — mentioned by mr_mitm

Wed, 14 Aug 2024 07:22:52 GMT

You're not a cosmologist, are you? I'm not anymore either, but when I was in grad school, everyone agreed that LCDM is probably wrong. Most researchers pretty much wanted it to be wrong. All they did was try something different (quintessence, bigravity, modified gravity, f(R) theories, Horndeski gravity, phantom dark energy, chameleon cosmologies, coupled dark matter, etc. etc), but nothing fit the data as well as LCDM. When new data came in, and it pointed yet again at LCDM, it was considered a disappointment. Now the Euclid satellite has been launched, which I remember being the big hope…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite · HackerPapers discussions

Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite — mentioned by mr_mitm

Cosmology and Fundamental Physics with the Euclid Satellite — mentioned by mr_mitm